Shatner Talks Raw Nerve, Boston Legal, new Trek, Takei [UPDATE 2: Shat Talks JJ Abrams, Again] December 1, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Shatner, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Two Shatner articles in one day? Why not?…it is Shatcember after all. William Shatner has some new interviews where he promotes his new talk show Raw Nerve (which premieres Tuesday night) and also talks about the end of Boston Legal, the new Star Trek movie (and the new Kirk, Chris Pine), the Takei feud and more.
[UPDATE 2: See below for new comments on JJ Abrams]
Shatner hits Nerves ends Denny and ‘cant do anything about’ new Trek
Go to IGN.com to read the full interview. In in Shatner talks about his style as a interviewer for Raw Nerve, how he chooses the guests and the questions and hits their ‘Raw Nerves’.
At the end of the interview, IGN got around to talking about the new Trek, here is the exchange:
IGN: Lastly, I’d like to ask you if you’d gotten a chance to see any of the 20 minutes of footage from the new Star Trek movie that’s been circulating around?
Shatner: No, I’ve seen nothing. Is it good?
IGN: It looks pretty good actually. We have these iconic screen characters like James Bond and James Kirk, but, unlike Bond, this is the first time that Kirk is being rebooted. How do you feel having Kirk played by another actor? Have you seen any of Chris Pine’s work?
Shatner: No, I haven’t. Have you?
IGN: Yes, I saw him play a sort of a psycho hillbilly.
Shatner: Well then, that sounds right for Kirk.
IGN: How do you feel about the character living on in the form of another actor?
Shatner: Well, there’s nothing I can do about it. But I hear that it’s goingto be a fun movie, and I’m looking forward to seeing it.
…more at IGN.com
Psycho Hillbilly?
The part that IGN was referring to was as one of the Tremor Brothers in the film Smokin Aces, which earned Pine a lot of critical praise and was said to have moved him up the charts in Hollywood, helping him get the part as Kirk.
A DVD extra clip about the Tremor Brothers (w/ Pine talking about the role while in character) is available on YouTube. [CAUTION: vid contains violence and adult language].
UPDATE: Shat talks Takei feud + critics
In another interview with Reuters, Shatner talks about his recent feuding with fellow TOS actor George Takei. Shatner said of Takei:
Here’s a guy in whose company I’ve been not too many times who doesn’t seem to like me, so it’s only like a curiosity, what did I do?
Reuters reports that Takei’s manager says Takei wants to appear on Shatner’s talk show (something Shatner talked about doing as well). So maybe this hatchet will finally get buried.
Shatner also talked to Reuters about critics who pan his acting, saying:
No one likes to hear somebody think bad things about them, but I know my talent and if I didn’t have any ability I wouldn’t be around all these years.
UPDATE 2: Shatner says Abrams is ‘lying’ about not being a fan
There has been a bit of a hullabaloo about JJ Abrams recent interviews where he has talked about not being a fan of Star Trek until after he made the new Star Trek movie, usually saying this to less than Trek-firendly audiences. Well in another Raw Nerve promotional interview at UGO, Shatner weighs on on that controversey.
UGO: And as Abrams did this road show, he had a little bit of a prepared statement and his talking points. The type of thing you don’t see of Shatner’s Raw Nerve.
WS: Yes.
UGO: And the jokey way he decided to break the ice was, ‘I never was a fan of Star Trek.’ It’s the first thing out of his mouth.
WS: Uh oh.
UGO: How do you react, when you hear that?
WS: Well, he lies through his teeth. Because he was a “big fan of Star Trek.” So, JJ Abrams is trying to cast himself as a nouveau entre into the Star Trek universe. But I know him to be an old admirer of the show.
UGO: Well, he’s got to clear himself of the perceived stain. There are some people who think Star Trek is just for the mouth-breathing nerd. It’s a marketing ploy that either he devised or someone who devised for him and told him to say and it is what he’s running with it.
WS: Nobody tells JJ Abrams what to say, I can tell you that much. He’s got to broaden the base of the audience. And, I’m really being facetious when I refer to him as a long-time admirer. But he’s doing the best he can. You and I both recognize his trying to broaden the base of the audience, so that people will come to see it as an adventure.
UGO: Why do you think there is a little bit of a stigma to Star Trek?
WS: I think because the audience that has remained there has been so passionate in the affection for the show, that people who don’t know why they’re so passionate think of them in negative terms. And so if you’re known to like Star Trek, you’re linked with this group of people who wear costumes.
much more at UGO.
More Raw Nerve Reviews:
New York Times likes it, saying:
“Shatner’s Raw Nerve” puts its host’s peculiar brand of intensity on full display. The set looks like the cavernous basement lounge in a Balinese hotel. Mr. Shatner sits in an armchair that butts up against his guest’s on a diagonal: he is so up close he looks as though he is going to spoon-feed whoever is seated there in front of him. I kept expecting the opening question to be, “So how about a spring roll?”
But Mr. Shatner is much more probing than that. What does he want to know? He wants to know what Valerie Bertinelli thinks about sin. This Lifetime television star is the first guest on the show, and what she has to say about sin isn’t going to put Thomas Aquinas out of business. (Yup, she has done some sinning, and she feels really bad about it.) But Mr. Shatner is clearly modeling himself after the sort of interviewers who prod and prod for specificity. He just keeps going until he arrives at a question like this: “What lie lurks behind the eyes that you think is unforgivable?”
Boston Herald isn’t so sure, noting:
Can the TV icon and self-parody really get his Shat together to host his own Bio talk show (debuting Tuesday night at 10)?
You expect a spin on Bill O’Reilly. What you get is closer to Larry King with a dash of Tyra.
Loading ...
Comments»
Will Shat go to the Premiere? …hmm..
I hope shatner will be invited to all the premieres…
I know it’s canon and all….and it could come off as contrived…I understand that..but …sentimentally…I really wish we could see Kirk Prime one more time….
I feel bad for The Shat about BL being cancelled; at least it got past 100 episodes.
Casting Chris Pine as Kirk was horrible casting. Sure, he has the typical “look” that’s popular for guys to have today, but he should be modelling for Abercrombie or something, not trying to play Kirk.
Not to mention that this new movie totally has Kirk all wrong. He was never a “buck the system” kind of guy originally, a “rogue” or whatever; he became that as he grew older, but a lot of TOS episodes describe him as being a bookworm and hard-ass about following rules in his younger Academy days.
#4, I think it’s pretty plain that the Kirk we meet in the new movie is not yet the TRUE Kirk. This is a Batman Begins scenerio, where he has to grow into the man we expect him to be. The reason? Timeline change. Something awful happens to Kirk in his formative years that isn’t supposed to happen. Therefore, bookworm and hard-ass becomes “rogue” with no real direction.
And TOS *certainly* projected a James T. Kirk that was willing to “buck the system” on a regular basis. How many times did he violate the Prime Directive again?
#4
I didn’t realise you had already seen the movie and were in a position to already comment on an actors performance…
Purists are so predictable.
Shat gave Pine a thumbs up. So says The Shat.
…and the adventure continues…
4 & 5.
The Kirk we see in the movie — and I’m feeling pretty confidant about this now — is not the Kirk we knew from TOS but a new Kirk on a new, altered timeline. The writers have hinted at this before. “Something” happens in the opening moments of the movie that let’s TOS cononistas know immediately that the timeline has been altered. The Roms from the future go back 20 or so years before Kirk is supposed to take over the Enterprise. They destroy the Kelvin — Kirk’s dad’s ship — and Jim Kirk grows up without a father. His choices are different. Starfleet’s choices are different. Pike’s choices are different.
This Kirk didn’t grow up with a strong work ethic, sense of direction and lots of studiuosness. It’s a different Kirk — but the same Kirk.
#4 a person can be rebellious and extremely smart and bookish at the same time. It depends on the situation. Personally, I think Pine will do a fine job as Kirk during his rise to the captaincy. I always gave off that sort of rogue ladies man persona (Ruth, Janice Lester, Carol Marcus and numerous others can attest to that), not to mention his attitude of not wanting to lose (Kobayashi Maru and disobeying the prime directive and the temporal directives numerous times just to complete the mission.) Pine’s version of Kirk would fit into the main timeline easily, not just going with the cop out, I-don’t-want-to-use-my-imagination, alternate timeline.
4. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator – December 1, 2008
“Casting Chris Pine as Kirk was horrible casting. Sure, he has the typical “look” that’s popular for guys to have today, but he should be modelling for Abercrombie or something, not trying to play Kirk.”
I’ve seen Pine in several roles now. The lad has pretty huge acting chops. Even at this early age, he is a far stronger performer than Shatner. He really digs into a role and becomes the character.
please lettuce stop calling him “Kirk Prime™”
we all know that JC© is JTK.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
#4
“Casting Chris Pine as Kirk was horrible casting.”
Simply put, how do you know? Have you seen the 20 minutes of footage?
#4 “”"Not to mention that this new movie totally has Kirk all wrong. He was never a “buck the system” kind of guy originally, a “rogue” or whatever; he became that as he grew older, but a lot of TOS episodes describe him as being a bookworm and hard-ass about following rules in his younger Academy days.”"”"
You ever heard of the Kobayashi Maru???
Re #10 I don’t like to respond to other people’s posts, but Shatner had worked in movies such as Judgment at Nuremberg and The Brothers Karamazov, done classic sci-fi turns in Twilight zone and Outer Limits and played the lead in his own TV series, For the People, before doing Trek. Heck, he even did sci-fi radio! Check his IMDB record if you want. Shatner did a pilot to play Alexander the Great on TV. Nothing against Pine, but he does not bring the level of experience to this part that Shatner did, and that’s not to criticize Pine at all, though a Kirk who looks 25 kind of pushes credibility for me. But that’s a personal opinion, they’re obviously making this film for a younger crowd.
whooooo there
I just got news of this new star trek film………………..
………………………………
……………..so, whats the deal…………. no original cast?
re: 15
I wish I knew as little about it as you.
I like Smokin’ Aces a good flick. Pine was great in that. I cant wait to see what he does with Kirk.
there will only be one kirk… and that shatner.. he brought so much charm, warmth and strength to the role…. in one word::::: CHARMISMA!
I think he is simply irreplaceable.. unless there was a star trek with computer animated characters and Shatners voice.. but then again it would be shatner in effect…
as for that Pine guy, the Kirk imposter?… I have not seen him acting, but darn he is ugly!
I dont know what the ladies think of him, but he looks like a ferengi to me! lol. his forehead is huge!
re above: its nice to see shatner posts here with a sudonym hah
Shatner will be invited to the premiere, as will the rest of the surviving original cast. Will they actually attend? We’ll have to wait and see. If they decide not to show it’ll just be said that they had “prior engagements” and couldn’t make it. (blah blah blah)
>Captain SLow
Just imagine what star trek would be if the actor that played captain Pike on the first pilot was to continue playing star trek.. lol
the series would have bene a long forgotten novelty!!!
Speaking of BOSTON LEGAL, David Gautreaux (Xon) has a small role tonight as A.A.G. Marshall Brickman.
Shatner on Takei:
“Here’s a guy in whose company I’ve been not too many times who doesn’t seem to like me, so it’s only like a curiosity, what did I do?”
“In whose company I’ve been not too many times”?! Maybe that’s the root of it, Shat, Takei feels like you treated him like a piece of furniture — oblivious to his being around all those years on the same sets.
14. Kev-1 – December 1, 2008
I’m well aware of Shatner’s past work. I’ve watched 99% of it. Being the rabid young fan that I once was…I used to try and get my hands on all things Shatner. I can tell you, as a viewer and as someone who worked as a professional actor myself, that Pine is a stronger actor Bill Shatner. That’s nothing against Bill as a person…or his personal talents, merely an observation based on my own knowledge of the craft.
4. The ‘bookworm’ remark basically comes from the pilot, which included variant sets, variant uniforms, different make-up for Spock and a different middle name for Kirk. While people have retconned the ***story*** as being from earlier in the Enterprise’s mission, there are a number of specifics that, as with any pilot, contradict what we see later in the series.
Kirk’s rule-bending was frequently seen in the original show, meaning the ‘bookworm’ remark was probably an aspect of the pilot that was ultimately apocryphal!
Wow, it only took four posts before somebody said anything stupid.
For the record, in TWOK, Kirk talks of bucking the system in a major way, or is TWOK not considered canon in your world, #4?
As for a lot of TOS episodes describing Kirk as bookish, how many exactly are there? When you say a lot, I would expect at least fifteen, which is still a small percentage of episodes filmed. Please name them all.
On the other hand, you could do what Kevin J Anderson did in Paul of Dune and claim that all of Frank Herbert’s Dune books were written in-universe and therefore are inaccurate.
Even someone casual about canon like me is appalled at that idea!
27. Dom
On the other hand, you could do what Kevin J Anderson did in Paul of Dune and claim that all of Frank Herbert’s Dune books were written in-universe and therefore are inaccurate.
Even someone casual about canon like me is appalled at that idea!
____________
Hey Dom,
I’m not quite sure what “written in-universe” means. I’ve been enjoying the post Frank Herbert Dune novels, but do they really attempt to subvert the original ones? Yikes. I always saw the new books as being a supplement to the originals, told in an entirely different style.
Also, since I’m also a cheapskate, I won’t get “Paul of Dune” until it’s in paperback.
Dude the Shat is the Shiznit!
I hope Chris Pine does act like a Psycho Hillbilly in the new Trek. Hillbillies are an under appreciated segment of Americans who deserve to be represented on screen. I’m tired of anti-psychobilly bias in mainstream American television. When is the last time you saw psychobillies represented on screen? Shane on the Shield was it, and he blew his brains out. Not all psychobillies are corrupt cops! I suppose Earl on My Name is Earl is a psychobilly, and not all psychobillies are trailer trash ex cons with hot girlfriends that cheat on them. We need to see more psychobilly lawyers, doctors and starship commanders.
It’s time, America.
He’s from iowa, not the South.
The “Kirk as bookworm” is from the second pilot, as several have noted, and from “Shore Leave” where Kirk admits to McCoy that he was “positively grim.”
The hellraiser Kirk COULD be based on the Kobayashi scenario from TWOK … though I’ve always thought that there was more to that story than just Kirk gaming the system. I wish we could see THAT story.
Sadly, the young Kirk we seem to be seeing in this new movie is largely lifted from a really poorly written book, “Best Destiny” by Diane Carey. (According to an Entertainment Weekly article, the writers (Hi, Roberto!) were influenced by this book.) A quick peek at the reader reviews on Amazon gives is a surprising 4 stars, so I appear to be in the minority with my opinion of it. Still, I didn’t think the character of Kirk as a youth in this book rang true. Not at all.
However, it’s much more fun to show a Rebel Without a Clue come into his own in a movie than it is to show a centered young man with a strong sense of destiny and duty, who gradually learns to loosen up … I guess.
But that’s how I always saw Kirk: a guy who started off very grim, focused, studious, serious, competitive … but who gradually learned to take chances, buck the system when it needed bucking, and who developed a sense of humor about himself. For instance, when Kirk talks to Gary Mitchell about “almost marrying” the little blonde lab technician who may or may not be Carol Marcus, that’s a young man who obviously takes things very seriously, not a guy who routinely shags babes and hides out under beds.
But we’ll all have to wait and see how the movie plays things out.
Scott B. out.
I think the new “image” of Kirk is completely plausible, I said to those who don’t see Kirk as a young rebel, angry, searching for direction. I think it is more likely Kirk would be a wild young man who learns self-control, as opposed to the studious, serious character who learns to become a risk-taking, rule-breaking hero… shrug.
30. Enterprise –
“He’s from iowa, not the South.”
Hillbillies aren’t from the South either. Technically. More like Kentucky.
Well, McCoy was from Georgia, right? That’s close enough.
31. Scott
I liked Diane Carey’s stuff. She gets a lot of stick, but she was an author whose work I looked forward to in the early days. Her giant novel, Final Frontier is a great overture to Best Destiny!
28. cellojammer
After all the complaints from fans of the original novels about his wild contradictions of continuity from the Frank Herbert novels, KJA has now stated that all Frank Herbert’s Dune novels were propaganda written by Princess Irulan, Harq Al Ada and their descendants and his continuity is the correct one. Effectively, he’s decanonised all the original six novels! I find that disturning and egomaniacal!
disturbing, even!! ;)
Shatner should interview Kirk! That would so kick ass.
35. Dom
“After all the complaints from fans of the original novels about his wild contradictions of continuity from the Frank Herbert novels, KJA has now stated that all Frank Herbert’s Dune novels were propaganda written by Princess Irulan, Harq Al Ada and their descendants and his continuity is the correct one. Effectively, he’s decanonised all the original six novels! I find that disturning and egomaniacal!”
__________
Now that takes nerve! I think I’m going to have a problem with that too.
Thanks!
KJA lost his marbles a long time ago.
#31 Great Stuff , Scott ! Terrific Snaffus ! All Round and Spot On !
#35 Though I disagree with Scott that Dianne Carey is a Hack . I think she is a Strong Star Trek Writer and a Great Contributor to Epic Trek !
#37 Very Sweet ! The Old Veteran interviewing the new Lead Actor ?!
As time goes on Im starting to like the idea behind the story of the movie less and less. Now that they’ve thrown in time travel it seems like the idea of cannon has been thrown out the window. They did it with Enterprise and I blame that for what killed it as a series because in season 4, when they got away from it, well the show rocked. It seems like this movie is going to do that even worse. I hope Im wrong, I want this movie to be good, but with JJ saying that he wasnt a star trek fan and all is making this movie harder to like.
Oh, Good Lord, Nicholas Meyer knew nothing of Star Trek and he made the best Star Trek film.
Shatner will always be remembered as the first, best Kirk — just like Sean Connery as the first, best Bond. It’s hard for me to get past Pine as more than just a pretty boy. I’ll admit I’ve only seen him in a few clips, but I haven’t seen anything terribly noteworthy or impressive about the young man’s talents and I sincerely doubt that he is a stronger actor than Bill. I’m worried that this may become just a slick Star Trek 90210. I sincerely hope Mr. Pine will prove me wrong, but so far I haven’t seen anything that speaks to Kirk’s charisma as Shatner captured it.
I always wonder why people say “why do you accept a reboot of Batman but not a reboot of Star Trek”. Because THIS new Star Trek is not a reboot.
If they would just start anew with younger actors, modern settings etc. it would be totally different. But as we begin in the established continuity in the new movie and from there on create a new one this makes everything different.
Think about this: Penguin from the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman-movies travels back in time and is followed by Robin. Their actions would change the whole timeline and create this “reboot”.
I do not like this concept. For me this has a bad tast of “destroy everything that went before so that our version is the one and only”…
Ya know, I really don’t know or care whether Pine has a “broader range” or is the “stronger actor” than Shatner. I guess it’s not possible to say, because he’s at the beginning of his career and Bill Shatner has already had a career of more than 50 years and still keeps doing alot of different, surprising things. He’s created two iconic roles, one of them becoming a cultural heritage, the other one winning him two Emmys and a Golden Globe.
In the end, I think it all comes down to whether you admire an achievement and merit that has lasted for all those decades and has brought us so much joy and is one of the main reasons why we’re still here discussing one of the greatest fictional heroes (Shatner must have done 1 or 2 things right…;), or whether you prefer the new kid in town who still has to prove if it deserves your praise and whether it will last or not.
The way I understood JJs statement about his Trek fandom was rather that he he was no ultrageek trekker, like Bob Orci, but that he liked it all right…
But yeah, he used that phrase as a foirst line in all the PR stunts because these places were packed with regular folks, not fanboys.
It worked.
#18
For what it’s worth (probably nothing), and I can’t speak for the ladies, but talking as a fully paid up ‘gay’, I can confirm that Pine is HOT.
That bit where he’s looking up at the Enterprise being built – looks very cute. Top off under Uhura’s bed (maybe) – nice.
Thanks for the man-crumpet JJ et al.
Re: 21 – To the person known as Spock’s Brain
The late Jeffrey Hunter — the actor who played Pike in The Cage — was a great actor. I am so amazed at how easily you throw around insults on this website. You truly are not a very nice person. Furthermore, you betray a lack of intelligence, curiosity, and wisdom.
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/atlanta-holiday-guide/year-review/year-stupid/year-stupid-celebs/#homepage_tab_newstab#homepage_tab_newstab#homepage_tab_newstab
One more from the Shatosphere.
http://www.theonion.com/content/cartoon/dec-01-2008
still more Shat.
All this talk about Kirk being a “stack of books with legs,” etc…
When Kirk (Pine) says to Pike (Greenwood) in the new movie, “Four years, huh? I’ll do it in three,” that’s when he becomes the stack of books with legs. That’s where he turns the corner into the Kirk everyone knows.
As to the rest of the canon violations, think of it this way – aren’t we already living in some Bizarro world created by the election of 2000? And wouldn’t one small event have upset the turnip cart to the point where things would be so much different today? Consider that Kirk & Co. are living in that same type of Bizarro world because of the interference from the Romulans. Without that, you have TOS.
Unfortunately, we can only imagine what kind of lives we’d be leading today had things gone differently in some small way.
Just imagine what star trek would be if the actor that played captain Pike on the first pilot was to continue playing star trek.. lol
the series would have bene a long forgotten novelty!!!
Yeah, Jeff Hunter’s appearance in “The Searchers” pretty much ended John Wayne’s career… and after “King of Kings,” Christianity basically folded.
#37: It’d be even funnier to do it in bluescreen and have Shatner (the actor) interviewing Kirk (the character – the one from the Nexus). Talk about death, life, Denny Crane, Spock, the new movie, horses, etc.
Might be fun!
Consider the source of the message: Gary Mitchell was doing the description of Kirk in the Academy. GARY freakin’ MITCHELL!! This guy was a schmoozer playboy and manipulator (I love his character, wish he’d been spared), damn near a Sgt. Bilko of Starfleet (or UESPA, blah blah blah, whatever).
Look at Kirk’s record: He cheated on the Kobayashi Maru. He knocked up Carol Marcus and left because he thought it’d be better for her. He’s got a Starfleet honorarium record a mile long. He’s got a little black book of ladies throughout his career just as long. He goes to every alien world and a) seduces a woman and/or b) overthrows their current government. How many times has he violated the Prime Directive? How many times has he disobeyed Starfleet orders? He stole the frakken’ Enterprise from Spacedock, and then destroyed it. Really, don’t you think Jim Kirk could have gotten a private charter? NO. That’s not his style.
James Tiberius Kirk is a rogue. BUT: He’s Starfleet’s rogue. He breaks and bends and physically violates the rules every day. They know it. He’s saved the Federation, the Earth, and dozens of planets as a matter of course. Literally, he’s the equivalent of a 007 of Starfleet. He’s human, he suffers losses, and he still manages to somehow pull a win out of a no-win situation. He’s Batman. He’s Hercules. He is a Hero. But he’s still a man. His life (and somewhat ignominious death on Veridian III) followed the Mythic cycle.
Summary: James Kirk (in this new film, from the scenes I’ve read descriptions of here) is what he’s always been- a rogue, a hero, a womanizer, a born leader. Maybe his formative years were different, but I’ve seen no indication that he’s not OUR James Kirk.
“UGO: Why do you think there is a little bit of a stigma to Star Trek?
WS: I think because the audience that has remained there has been so passionate in the affection for the show, that people who don’t know why they’re so passionate think of them in negative terms. And so if you’re known to like Star Trek, you’re linked with this group of people who wear costumes. ”
I have to agree with Shatner there….as a fan growing up through school i encountered huge negativity and downright hostility when i let it be known i liked star trek…namecalling etc..in fact things got so bad i actually had to leave the school i was attending..
still twas my own fault in a way…i shud have kept it quiet until it was safe to come out…
advice i would give fans of a younger age is – for godsake keep your love of all things Trek and SF in general to yourself!
48. TOS Enterprise – December 2
Agreed, Jeff Hunter was a great actor.
55. benny – December 2, 2008
….as a fan growing up through school i encountered huge negativity and downright hostility when i let it be known i liked star trek…namecalling etc..in fact things got so bad i actually had to leave the school i was attending..
It never got that bad for me, just the odd teasing…or they would threaten to show up at the showing of a Trek movie I planned to attend and shout anti-trek stuff. We were kids though, you expect as much. From those that I suspect are adults on this site however, I expected so much better.
Okay,
I still dont buy what JJ says about not including Shat in this movie.
You can just put him and spock in the last 5 min of the movie, having them drinking some tea or sitting around the table at kirk’s san fran apartment. I mean if its an alternate timeline, spock should know before he goes back in time that Kirk died in the nexus with Picard, SO! after the movie when he gets back in time he could see Kirk, say “Jim, have a cry for a sec” and there shat’s kirk is alive and well in the 24th century and not dead. Thus everyone is happy.
I mean I cant just not see these writers not being able to think of this type of ending.
#40 on #37: I think he might have meant Shatner interview Kirk, that is, himself. A Double Shat!!
Shatner interviews Shatner-as-Kirk. Somewhat like that chair-switching Shatner “Pyramid” appearance (chair-switching, not the later chair-throwing one!)
Then we could also have Shatner interviews Shatner-as-Denny Crane.
The possibilities….
But, yes, having Shatner interview Pine and his father Robert Pine would be fun. Twin Pines if you will…
#overall: Pine’s a good actor, and has it “in his genes”. A lot of Kirk is the same confidence Pine’s father portrayed in CHiPs as Sgt. Getraer. If he just brings some sense of his dad to his portrayal of Kirk, that’s only going to help.
More of the “Buckle Up” Pine that flashes by in the trailer… is the Kirk I want to see… Perhaps that’s from the “post-Nero restored timeline”??
What kills me is that JJ says Shats out because he’s dead…ya know cannon and all that.
Then he sits back and throws cannon in the waste can!!!
I’d love to know the story behind this one!
45 – Damn! You Iowa women from Germany are so astute!
Kirk’s status as a serious cadet was established in other episodes, including “Shore Leave,” not just WNMHGB. Just for the record.
Picard was the wild youth who settled down… Kirk was the studious cadet who became a risk-taker.
Mark my words!
There’ll be definitely a cameo of Bill in the new movie!
It is probably the most carefully guarded secret in the film business since “I am your father” … that is for sure.
Greetings
P. Sirhc
OK, I’ve kept up with Trek Movie for quite a while, and one of the most common arguments that seems to come back up is the comparison to James Bond or Batman in reference to canon, reboots, etc. I think it’s about time to face the facts that we are pretty much comparing apples to oranges when using this as an argument.
First off, Star Trek did not start as a comic book, novel, or even a feature film. It started as a stand-alone TV show. Therefore, unlike with James Bond or Batman, there was no back story – no previous “canon”. Even Star Wars had more of a pre-written storyline that Lucas later used to flesh our the later episodes.
Second, no other TV/film series in history has the continuity and complexity created in the Star Trek universe. Many of the James Bond films had no continuity to them other than the familiar roles of Bond, Q, and M. Batman was often more about facing a different villain each episode/movie than creating a continuing story line. And, of course, neither Bond nor Batman has ever had a successful spin-off of a later “generation” in the same timeline as the original. In other words, even the newest Bond is not a future continuation of the original.
Finally, neither Bond or Batman has captured the imaginations of so many people that an entire universe can be created that spans over 400 years, and yet pays homage to the original incarnation with such detail.
All of this to say, Trek is it’s own beast. Therefore, there really is no true comparison. It’s hard to try and compare a Star Trek reboot or “re-envisionment” to anything that has ever been done before. There is no other TV series that has a 40 year history with 4 spin-offs and 10 feature films that is being made into a 11th feature with a new direction 42 years after the first episode aired. So, in other words, no-one can really predict what is going to happen, and no one’s opinion is incorrect as to the future of Trek. This could be the beginning of a new age for Star Trek, or this could be the final nail in the coffin. There is no precedent either way that can really say what is going to happen.
I am all for the future of Trek. I am hopeful that the new movie starts up an entirely new generation of Trek fans AND reinvigorates the Trek faithful. I am all for a movie that shakes things up AND yet still pays homage to the original roots. I am all for a Trek universe that allows us to connect Sept. 8, 1966 to May 8, 2009.
In the end, regardless of what happens, there has never been and most likely will never be anything that can truly be compared to Star Trek. And, as for myself, that makes me pretty proud to be a Trekkie regardless of what happens next.
#54
- Gary Mitchell was doing the description of Kirk in the Academy. GARY freakin’ MITCHELL!! This guy was a schmoozer playboy and manipulator -
So what? Why is that an argument for Kirk also being a playboy and not being a bookworm? Sorry, but I don’t get it. Your argument would make more sense, if Mitchell had said Kirk was a playboy, too, because y’know what they say “it takes one to know one”…
- He knocked up Carol Marcus and left because he thought it’d be better for her. -
Wrong – it was C. Marcus who asked Kirk to stay away because she thought it was better for David (STII).
- How many times has he violated the Prime Directive? -
Not as often as it seems. The Prime Directive applies to growing, living cultures, as Bones explains in The Apple. Kirk freed the feeders from Vaal, he ends a cruel Nazi regime – and he’s always doing it for the sake of the inhabitants, his ship and his crew who are in danger. Growing, living cultures? Hardly. Physical violation? I wouldn’t call ending a dictation “a physical violation”. On the other hand, in The Omega Glory Kirk states “A star captain’s most solemn oath is that he will give his life, his entire crew… rather than violate the Prime Directive.” So, we know he holds the PD in high regard.
- He stole the frakken’ Enterprise from Spacedock, and then destroyed it. -
That’s true, but it’s important to consider his motives. He becomes a renegade in order to save his best friend’s life. He has to “steal” and destroy the E because it’s the price he has to pay in the course of the events that lead to saving Spock’s life. He doesn’t choose to violate an order in the first place, he chooses to save his brother – an approach which can already be seen in Amok Time, the only time in TOS he deliberately violates a direct order.
- He goes to every alien world and a) seduces a woman… -
Granted, our JTK certainly has an eye for the ladies and why not? But he hardly seduces a woman on every alien world. It’s rather often that he is being seduced for a purpose (Wink of an eye, The Mark of Gideon), or he seduces in order to save his ship and/or his crew (By any other name). And on closer inspection you’ll find that there aren’t that many close encounters when summed-up. What I’m saying is, he’s not the intergalactic stud you might think him to be.
Having said that, the “bookworm” image is consolidated several times. He’s able to quote Milton (Space Seed), he knows his Shakespeare, he’s given a Dickens collection for his birthday (The Tale of Two Cities even kind of builds a frame to STII) and in his apartment we can see a well-assorted book shelf. In Shore leave he even talks about himself. In Shore Leave he even talks about himself as having been “grim”. So, it’s not only Gary freakin’ Mitchell who talks about him that way.
- James Tiberius Kirk is a rogue. -
Oh yes, JTK has something of a rogue, no doubt about that. But there’s so much more than that. Shatner gave us all of it, in TOS and the films. Let’s not reduce Kirk to two dimensions now.
#60
What a Shatnerific compliment – thanks. :)
Sorry for the double “Shore Leave” – maybe I should take one myself…:)
I think the back-story established in “Best Destiny” can easily be reconciled with the “bookworm” image. If you figure what Kirk went through in his early days – disappearance of his father, Tarsus IV – I would expect that to be life-changing. Especially since Tarsus IV ended when Starfleet showed up. That would undoubtedly influence young Kirk to change his ways and start to “make a difference”.
So while I’m not thrilled with the James Dean aspects that seem to be in this story, I can understand where it comes from, and how it can fit into canon.
FIRE!
Iowagirl — “What a Shatnerific compliment – thanks. :)”
Fortified even more by your post at #65!
“But there’s so much more than that. Shatner gave us all of it, in TOS and the films. Let’s not reduce Kirk to two dimensions now.”
Amen Iowagirl.
The character could have been very 2-dimensional — the prototypical good looking hero yet Kirk so much more (thanks in large part to Shatner imo). He’s a man of action certainly, but also a thinker. A 2-dimensional Kirk could never have won the friendship and loyalty of Spock.
Re: #64 – Great post. I’ve made the same argument on another thread here. There is really nothing in the entertainment world that is directly comparable to Star Trek. It was created whole cloth for the television world. The characters were born on the teevee screen. The fan phenomenon that followed was unlike anything before it. It’s much easier to jettison continuity when jumping media (Batman), or reviving a barely remembered flop (Battlestar Galactica). Much, MUCH harder when you have legions of folks who remember a character’s entire known history.
Although I have doubts and quibbles about a lot of what I’ve seen of the new movie, I will concede that the makers of this effort do seem to recognize that this is not Batman or Mission: Impossible. But the proof of the connection between Sept. 1966 and May 2009 pudding will be in the eating.
Re: #65 – I like and agree with your assessment, Iowagirl. I’ll add that while Kirk has a rep as a womanizer, the only time I can think of him engaging in casual sex is (apparently) with Drusilla in “Bread and Circuses.” The rest of the time, he was either truly smitten with the woman, or was using her to accomplish his mission.
As for his rebel nature … clearly the Prime Directive had a degree of flexibility in TOS. I really liked how “Balance of Terror” showed how these starships were so far out on the rim that even subspace communication took time. Their captains were trusted to make their own decisions without getting approval from Starfleet. It’s a shame that overtly expressed idea of autonomy was largely ignored in later episodes.
Scott B. out.
I still say we’re getting played. This whole thing is performance art: JJ’s protestations, Shat’s complaints, his contention that he knows NOTHING about ANY of it. Even the business with Takei, I’m guessing.
Krikzil and Iowagirl, youse speak the truth. I always thought Shatner brought as much to Trek as Nimoy did. His Kirk and Nimoy’s Spock spark off each other in an almost (emphasize ALMOST) sexual way. And that couldn’t have happened had Shatner had not been such a force of nature — charisma informed by intellect.
71. Had I had not written had that last bit with so many hads, you had might had understood me. Had.
#24 New Horizon. No prob. I respect your opinon.
From what we’ve heard, its Pine playing Kirk, not Pine playing Shatner playing Kirk. Makes sense to me. I look forward to seeing this character interpreted in a new way.
Some of Shatners most memorable interpretations were when he presented sides of the character that were unexpected, awkward and perhaps uncomfortable. Such as the opportunist Kirk in TMP, the despondent Kirk at the start of TWK, the devastated and defeated Kirk in SFS, the racist Kirk in TUC.
A brash, young, and perhaps careless Kirk is intriguing to me.
Gotta love The Shat making a seamless transition from one tv show to another with no downtime in between.
Go Shat! I’ll be watching tonight!
I’ve been watching Boston Legal and following William Shatner’s character, Danny Crane’s slide into Alzheimer’s. It’s actually become difficult for me to watch. It’s only a portrayal, but seeing Shatner’s performance really effects me for some reason. Probably because I’ve seen this man as a bit of a father figure to me when I was a little boy growing up in the 60’s and following his career since. Something about seeing his character beginning to falter is really disturbing to me. I keep telling myself it’s just TV series. But on some personal level, it’s just uncomfortable to me. Kudos to his acting…
RE: Abrams’ “Fandom”…
…Abrams can easily be an admirer of Star Trek without being a “fan” of Star Trek. To be a fan of Star Trek means you’ve watched most if not all of the incarnations and you buy into (at least a little) of the whole ‘Star Trek Canon’ thing.
I think that Abrams may not be a fan as I described above, but he definitely could be an admirer of TOS and/or TNG and the other shows and movies.
When he said he wasn’t a fan, I never once got the impression that he ever disliked Star Trek, he just wasn’t a huge fan.
#21
‘That’ guy was the late, great Jeffrey Hunter, a bona fide movie star. Show a little respect, would ya?
#77. Hey, everybody! I have a great idea: Let’s come up with a litmus test!
You know, something to determine whether JJ (or anyone) qualifies as a TRUE Star Trek fan, not just an obsequious hanger-on or detached fellow-traveler. Like. . hmm. . . .
1) Does he now or has he ever owned 1) a toy Enterprise or 2) a gold command shirt?
Or:
2) Has he ever attended a convention?
Or:
3) Has he seen all 79 episodes of the original series? If so, how many times? Three times per episode cuts it. Barely. And he must be able to quote titles.
I watched “Enterprise Incident” last night in its newly remastered form, and I just marveled at Shatner’s Kirk. He IS Kirk, especially when the character is well-positioned with Nimoy’s Spock and Kelley’s McCoy, as it was in that episode.
I continue to admire Shatner for everything he did up until 1989. Much of what makes Kirk live in the public consciousness is due to Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk, and Chris Pine has big shoes to fill.
I just think he became a lesser actor as time went on, and became a caricature of his public persona. I’ll never lose respect for the man, no matter what happens.
pine – shatner celebrity morph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEN3NLV2cm8
#63 P. Sirhc – December 2, 2008
Mark my words!
There’ll be definitely a cameo of Bill in the new movie!
It is probably the most carefully guarded secret in the film business since “I am your father” … that is for sure.
————————————————————
Whatever you say, Joe Biden. Ha!
THE CONSPIRACY!!
=A=
Sorry, Hitch. Had to plagarize a bit, just like our new veep.
#44—” For me this has a bad (taste) of “destroy everything that went before so that our version is the one and only”…”
How is everything “destroyed”. It certainly is not for me.
I see this as a highly unconventional “sequel”, since everything in the timeline with which I am familiar must still take place in order to advance the story to the point where Nero (who comes from the original timeline) takes action to change the past, and Nimoy’s Spock (who also comes from the original timeline) takes action to prevent it (or at least control the damage).
Previously established canon is therefore not only inherently relevant to this altered timeline, but absolutely essential to the story. “Everything that went before” is not destroyed. It simply becomes a prelude to this timeline. It is still very much a part of the grand storyline that is Star Trek ‘canon’.
#46—”The way I understood JJs statement about his Trek fandom was rather that he he was no ultrageek trekker, like Bob Orci, but that he liked it all right…
But yeah, he used that phrase as a (first) line in all the PR stunts because these places were packed with regular folks, not fanboys.
It worked.”
Absolutely. He is not insulting established fans, but trying to identify himself with those who have certain preconceived notions about what Star Trek is and who its fans are. That is a well-thought out strategy when addressing mainstream media in particular, especially since established fans cannot even come close to carrying this film or justifying its tremendous budget.
It is the difference between a priest speaking to a gathering of nuns, versus speaking to employees and patrons in a brothel!
With which target audience does he have the most potential for productivity towards his goal of making new believers?
…it doesn’t take much to figure that out.
#44 quote ” do not like this concept. For me this has a bad tast of “destroy everything that went before so that our version is the one and only”
This is indeed my biggest fear and the reason I will not go to see this movie untill i know how this issue is resolved. I have no interest in a movie that destroys forty years of Trek history so I will wait to read reviews and opinions before plunking down my money for this flick
As to Bill and his talents well, Bill Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk is the reason I am a Trek fan. He breathed life into Kirk and brought a depth to that character that was amazing. Bill’s Kirk dripped confidence yet also had a vulnerable side. To me, he is, and always will be, the first and best Kirk; the one which all others will be measured against. You can’t dismiss or compare almost forty years of ONE actor playing the same character, with any other scenario such as Bond or Batman or the myriad others mentioned here off and on. I really hate that he seems to have been pushed aside by this movie and perhaps in addition to other reasons, that’s why I just can’t get interested in this “new Trek’. If I’d have had my way I would have preferred a whole new Trek with new characters but hey I hear JJ didn’t make his movie for me anyway:) So good for Bill for coming up with new projects and moving on, most likely I’ll just be moving on with him.
#85—”I have no interest in a movie that destroys forty years of Trek history..”
I don’t see how you can even come to that conclusion, even if the timeline is not restored in the end. The original timeline still remains very relevant to Treklore, as the story cannot progress to the point where any of this happens without it.
“To me, he (Shatner) is, and always will be, the first and best Kirk; the one which all others will be measured against. ”
There is certainly nothing wrong with comparison, as long as you do not miss the forest for the trees. Pine can play a good Kirk without being exactly like an actor from another era.
“You can’t dismiss or compare almost forty years of ONE actor playing the same character…”
I’d say that, if anything, it is a tribute to that actor’s work and to that character that he is even being brought back to the big screen in such a fashion more than 4 decades after he was created.
That’s an honor most of us will never experience. That part shouldn’t be taken for granted, IMO.
” I really hate that he seems to have been pushed aside by this movie…”
I really hate that the poor decisions made by William Shatner and another creative team with regard to that character are being mounted unfairly upon the shoulders of the people behind this film with comments like that.
Why is it the responsibility of this creative team to “correct” an error made by someone else? In my opinion, that is utterly absurd.
“…I hear JJ didn’t make his movie for me anyway.”
If you are a potential moviegoer (whether you’ll wait for reviews or not), then he made it for you too.
Abrams has repeatedly stated that this is a movie he hopes that established fans and fans of movies in general will all appreciate.
Huzzah and Kudos to Scott B. for that GREAT post up at #31. As you said, THAT’S the story I wanted to see.
Iowagirl… “Wrong – it was C. Marcus who asked Kirk to stay away because she thought it was better for David (STII).”
This further asserts his Academy days as a rogue- She doesn’t want him around being a bad influence on the boy. In turn, he should have “manned up” and taken responsibility for his actions (I know, primitive 20th century ideas about a father being there and acting responsibly for his child). So, I still say he wasn’t Mr. Bookworm when she knew him.
“She doesn’t want him around being a bad influence on the boy. ”
She didn’t want him around, not because he was a rogue or a bad person at all. She gave her reason — she didn’t want the boy to follow his father into space. She wanted the child to stay with her. Most boys idol worship their dads and many want to follow in his footsteps. She like most moms wanted him safe and at home.
I can see how young Kirk’s childhood being re-written because of his father’s premature death, but how does that explain the “goofy” Scotty? Scotty to me, was always the consumate professional who liked the occassional Scotch. Pegg appears to play him as the comic relief. So how did Scotty get changed in the new timeline?
So far, it seems Karl Urban is the most faithful to the original characters. Kudos to Urban!
#86 quote”I don’t see how you can even come to that conclusion, even if the timeline is not restored in the end. The original timeline still remains very relevant to Treklore, as the story cannot progress to the point where any of this happens without it.”
You are entitled to your opinion of course, and I know this is your opinion of an explanation, and that’s great …. but it just doesn’t work for me. So maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this OK?
Quote”Why is it the responsibility of this creative team to “correct” an error made by someone else? In my opinion, that is utterly absurd”
As someone else said earlier….If they are messing with timelines, canon and such why not go all the way and just undo Kirks death? It was a choice the PTB made to not address this issue, and yes they had every right to make that choice, just as I have every right to disagree with it.. . Hey maybe this will all become clear in May….Maybe not. Like I said I’ll wait to hear what actually happens and in what direction this whole thing goes, before spending any money on this film.
#68, 70
Thanks, guys.
#71
- And that couldn’t have happened had Shatner had not been such a force of nature — charisma informed by intellect. -
Well said.
#88, 89
Liz took the words right out of my mouth, Jorg. :)
John , one of the known side effects of time travel is the slight loss of neural activity , probably due to cellular degeneration . Scotty has lost some of his ability and intelligence . It does explain that goofiness we’re seeing ! Have you observed the disorientation the crews have from the series ?!
“Charisma informed by intellect. ”
Well said, indeed.
#92– sorry to jump the gun on you but I just couldn’t let that go. :)
#94
No no, no problem at all – sorry if I gave you that impression. I’m glad you’ve retrieved Kirk‘s honor, so I didn’t have to…:) Some things just don‘t bear delay…;)
#89—”She didn’t want him around, not because he was a rogue or a bad person at all.”
I agree.
“Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world, and I had mine—and I wanted him in mine, not chasing around the Universe with his father.”—-Carol Marcus
She is clearly not suggesting in that exchange that Kirk is a bad person.
She is quick, however, to correct her son’s assessment of him in another dialogue exchange.
“Jim Kirk was many things, but he was ‘never’ a boyscout!”—Carol Marcus
While it certainly does not paint him as any kind of rogue, it is definitely a different perspective than the “stack of books with legs” image Gary Mitchell creates for us in “WNMHGB”.
Mitchell has one view of him (and perhpas compared to Mitchell, Kirk was indeed very tame), and Carol had another. Both are subjective views of the same individual, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the perspective offered by Gary Mitchell and the one we gather from Carol’s irony-laden and laughable retort to her son.
This debate about Kirk is actually an old one. Bennett and Meyer had an initial difference of opinion about it as well. Meyer’s argument was this:
“There’s a distinction to be made between heroes and gods,” he explained, “which I think we sometimes get confused about. [...] let me explain my theory of heroism. If a man jumps into a raging torrent to save a drowning child, he performs an heroic act. If the same man jumps into the same torrent to save the same child, but does so with a ball and chain attached to his leg, he’s not less heroic; he’s more heroic.”
“How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life…”"If you look at the heroes of antiquity and myth, they all have flaws. It’s something that they have to overcome; their flaws are something that they have to act in spite of. The challenge is not to defy your fate, but to endure it. That is heroic.”
Despite being intially of the opinion that Kirk could never do anything wrong, Harve Bennett was won over by Meyer and his perspective.
Kirk may never have been a “rogue”, but he was certainly not above rogue-like behavior (like cheating) if he felt it would serve him in a greater cause.
“I don’t like to lose.”—-Admiral Kirk
93.
Ah ha! Thus the next title for the next movie:
Star Trek: The Search for Scotty’s Brain
Iowagirl, Closettrekker and others, nice analysis of Kirk’s psyche. Bravo!
Kirk also knew his poetry, whether that poet came from Earth (like D.H Lawrence) or from a star in Orion’s belt.
On the matter of the KM test, though, I am not sure that it necessarily bespeaks of a roguish nature (or even a rogue-like act) but more of the single-mindedness he often displayed during the series. He did after all, take the test two times prior to the third with “his final solution.” As you said CT, he didn’t like to lose.
Again, not offering a correction here to anything that was said but just trying to add to the mix.
98:
I think the KM test by Kirk is a pushback in the face of bureaucracy as far as Kirk is concerned.
Corporations these days fill our time with surveys and evaluations so that HR can prove its worth.
The KM test is the same. Kirk proves that bureaucracy must always lose. He subverts the test.
Doesn’t anybody here realize you can be a bookworm AND a rogue? Buncha stereotyping softheads you are.
Maybe every time I see it, I will just say, It’s canon, not cannon.
#100—-”Doesn’t anybody here realize you can be a bookworm AND a rogue?”
Certainly. But that really isn’t applicable to James Kirk, IMO, rather to Khan Nooonian Singh, for example. There is no question that a “rogue” can be rather well-read.
Kirk is capable of roguish behavior (like cheating), but that isn’t the same as “being a rogue”.
Moreover, the image of him as a “stack of books with legs” is derived from one man’s perspective of him, and as I said before, perhaps when compared to himself, Gary Mitchell found Kirk to be somewhat of a “bookworm”.
Once again, Carol Marcus’ opinion of him is somewhat different, as evidenced in her retort to David’ suggestion that he was an “overgrown boyscout”.
#99—”I think the KM test by Kirk is a pushback in the face of bureaucracy as far as Kirk is concerned.”
I think that is what he tells himself (along with the others in the Genesis Cave).
“I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.”—Admiral Kirk
The real reason is more obvious…
“I don’t like to lose.”—Admiral Kirk
It is Kirk’s ego that drives him to take the test again and again, and when it was clear to him that there was no way to win within the rules (no doubt frustrating to a young man with such an ego), he satisfies that ego by winning outside of the rules.
Saavik was obviously taken aback at the suggestion that this was acceptable behavior, and David saw fit to call it like it is.
“What?”—Saavik
“He cheated.”—David Marcus
Kirk, who is obviously annoyed at David for telling it like it is, responds quickly with an alternative explanation.
“I changed the conditions of the test.”—Admiral Kirk
It is clear that, following the death of Spock and so many others, Kirk finally admits what was so clear to Saavik and David all along.
“I cheated my way out of death, and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity.”—Admiral Kirk
Kirk is a flawed individual. He always was, but while those flaws may cause him to take a misstep now and then, they also serve as the driving force behind his relentless propensity for finding a way to come out on top.
It is clear from what little we know of the story thusfar that, despite a somewhat different character backstory due to the altered timeline, he is the same arrogant and egotistical young man in this timeline. Pike certainly pushes that button to motivate him, and I would be willing to wager that the “trouble” he gets into at the Academy is as a result of ego as well.
102. Closettrekker – December 3, 2008
Best post you ever wrote here, IMHO.
=A=
92, 94. Thanks.
Personally, every time I hear Pine open his mouth in an interview, I’m relieved. He might well be one of ET’s “top ten” hunks, as I’ve learned over in that other thread, but his striking corn-fed looks would mean nothing if he didn’t have a brain, too. If he can nail that, he can nail Kirk. So to speak.
#91—-”…why not go all the way and just undo Kirks death?”
If the altered timeline is permanent in the end, then I don’t see how Kirk’s death could not be undone (at least as we know it now).
What are the chances that Kirk will once again board the same Enterprise-B at the exact same time, have the portion of the hull he is working behind torn from the ship, be taken into the “nexus”, coaxed out by a bald Frenchman with an English accent, and fall to his eventual death on a planet called Veridian III?
It seems to be a foregone conclusion that he is not likely to die in exactly the same manner, given the obvious changes and potential ripple effects caused by the timeline incursions depicted in this story.
It seems to me that the only way his death on Veridian III is completely assured would be if Nimoy’s Spock is able to reset the timeline to its original form.
I find that unlikely, since the writers would then forfeit the element of dramatic jeopardy for these characters in future stories afforded to them by suggesting that the timeline remains altered. I think that is the most significant potential benefit of denying Nimoy’s Spock absolute restoration of the timeline by the end of this film.
Fans can enjoy new adventures with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy without being hampered by the notion that none of them can ever be placed in real dramatic jeopardy.
If the director had found a scene featuring William Shatner as Kirk to be beneficial to the story he was trying to tell, I am quite sure he would have done his best to get it done. But given that, at least to the extent of what we know of the story thusfar, none of the it takes place in the time period where Shatner could reasonably play Kirk, it isn’t hard to see how such a scene might not work.
A relevant flashback scene (which would amount to a cameo)? Perhaps, but beyond that, I can’t see it being of any benefit to the story.
105. Again how hard is it.
The last 5 min of the movie, Spock is back in his own time, goes to Kirk’s old loft or apartment in San Fran, knocks on the door and old Kirk answer it the two sit down and have some Romulan Ale, Spock Sheds a Tear. And the last words Kirk udders are something like “Spock? Do you remember are beginning missions?” Then Spock says “Indeed I do” The camera then fades to the stars and the words ….And the mission continues comes across the screen.
THERE YOU HAVE NIMOY AND SHAT TOGETHER
YOU HAVE ONE MORE CLASSIC MOMENT OF THE TWO
YOU GET A SORT OF PASSING OF THE TORCH MOMENT TO THE PREQUEL MOVIES
ALL THE FANS ARE HAPPY.
Hell What do I know my name is Captain Balki from Perfect Strangers!!!
SINGS—> STANDING TALL ON THE WINGS OF MY DREAMS!
With all this discussion of the character of Kirk, I thought I’d repost this nice Gene Roddenberry interview quote I just read about the TOS Big 3:
“Like any writer, all of the characters come out of pieces of me. Captain Kirk was like the airline pilot I wish I had been. Cool, resourceful and all of that. Spock was very definitely out of a memory of mine that most of the times I had screwed up in life were because of emotion and I thought that would be fun. I also noticed women sort of liked a touch of evil and I thought if I had a character that looked something like Lucifer it would be popular. Doctor McCoy comes out of family memories. They’re all little pieces of me and it’s hard to pick a favorite. They’re all my children and I love them dearly.”
:-)
#106—-”The last 5 min of the movie, Spock is back in his own time, goes to Kirk’s old loft or apartment in San Fran, knocks on the door and old Kirk answer it the two sit down and have some Romulan Ale, Spock Sheds a Tear. And the last words Kirk udders are something like “Spock? Do you remember (our) beginning missions?” Then Spock says “Indeed I do” The camera then fades to the stars and the words ….And the mission continues comes across the screen. ”
First of all, you are making a huge assumption that Spock actually returns to what you call “his own time” as part of this story. He may indeed survive and even return to the Century from which he came, but I think it might be a mistake to show the audience what “the future” looks like at that point. I believe that future stories should dictate that.
It wouldn’t make much sense to me, because I think the single biggest advantage to leaving the timeline altered in the end is the notion that the fates of the characters (Kirk and Spock included) become, once again, uncertain, and therefore afford future stories featuring this cast and these characters an element of “dramatic jeopardy” that otherwise would not be there.
Moreover, who is to say that Kirk would even still be alive if his death in ‘Generations’ were undone (as I expect it would be due to the changes in the timeline)? Is that even reasonable?
McCoy was what, 137 years old at the beginning of Picard’s command of the Enterprise-D in 2264 (Memory Alpha)?
According to Memory Alpha and StarTrek.com (which the writers used as a source for the characters birthyears), Kirk is 7 years younger than McCoy.
In 2379 (MA), the events depicted in the film ‘Nemesis” occur.
Even if the story in STXI begins immediately after ‘Nemesis’ (and it could very well be several years later), that means that Kirk (born in 2233) would be 146 years old at that time, if he were even still alive.
Uh….no thanks.
108.. Well at least say your a fan of perfect strangers and sing the theme song.
#107—-That’s an interesting take on the origins of those characters from the late GR.
It was my understanding that the non-emotional/logical nature of the Spock character was really undecided until the character of “Number One” was removed from the show after the first pilot. Spock’s behavior in “The Cage” certainly seems to support that notion.
Moreover, I think that Roddenberry, while deserving of a great deal of credit for sure, was not nearly as instrumental in developing the character of Spock as was the great Trek writer Dorothy Fontana. That is not to say that Gene didn’t lay the groundwork for a non-emotional character as part of the bridge crew—just that it was originally Majel’s character that was supposed to fulfill that role on the ship.
I found McCoy to be the one element that made the ‘Big Three’ absolutely perfect by the initial airing of “The Man Trap”. I think that “WNMHGB” is fantastic, but adding the great “humanist” Leonard McCoy into the mix was brilliant.
What three guys would you want answering the phone during a galactic emergency at 3 AM?
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (with Scotty on standby, just in case we need more power)!!!
Spock is definitely the character I found most intriguing in all the years I have watched Star Trek, but each of them were equally essential to the storytelling dynamic in TOS and the films featuring the original characters. None of them were ever at their best without the other two.
#109—I can’t say I remember the theme song, but I will say—-”Don’t be reedeeculous!!!”
“What three guys would you want answering the phone during a galactic emergency at 3 AM? Kirk, Spock, and McCoy…”
Absolutely. Good points, Closet. What I found interesting about the Roddenberry quote is that he admits his own strong emotions had caused him to “screw up” in life, and that initiated the idea for a character who tried to suppress his own. I don’t think I’d ever heard him explain Spock’s origin that way before.
I also like the part about McCoy coming from “family memories”. That’s sweet. :-)