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. :-)

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.

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.

“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.”

:-)

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!

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.

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.

Best post you ever wrote here, IMHO.

=A=