Orci & Kurtzman Talk Ins and Outs of Star Trek + Not Doing Transformers 3? + Nimoy In Transformers 2? March 25, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
There are many aspects of Star Trek that you might think are ‘required’ for a film to still be Star Trek, and in a new interview with SciFiWire, Star Trek co-writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman go into some detail about what made the cut and what didn’t, and why (including Shatner). See a summary below [minor spoilers]. Plus it looks like O & K are not doing Transformers 3.
Ins and outs with Bob and Alex
In the interview with SciFiWire the writers said that everything in the film would be "organic" and nothing was just forced into the movie, but many things ended up "inevitable." They got in to specifics on some things that made into the final film, and some things that didn’t…
What’s in:
- McCoy saying "Dammit, Jim I’m a doctor, not a BLANK"
- Scotty doing something like "I’m giving it all I got, Cap’n"
- Kirk cheating on Kobayashi Maru
- Some kind of ‘insult fight’ between McCoy and Spock
What didn’t make it in:
- Carol Marcus
- Shatner
Regarding Shatner, Kurtzman explained:
There’s been a lot of debate about that. … We just, we really tried very hard to get him in there in a way that felt organic, but the problem was that because he died in continuity [in Star Trek: Generations], … I think it would have felt a little bit cheap, is what we all decided. And, you know, we really struggled with it, because we wrote a scene that we really loved, and, ultimately, I think it might have felt like an add-on, you know? Whereas our story, without giving away too much, Spock [played by Leonard Nimoy] is such a critical part of the story that literally the story cannot be told without him.
For more from Bob and Alex, check out the full interview at SciFiWire
No Transformers 3 for Bob & Alex? + Nimoy voicing for Transformers 2?
In a recent Tidbits we reported that Paramount had already set a date of July 1, 2011, although director Michael Bay said later he wanted in for the same weekend but for 2012. However it looks like whatever date it is, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman may not have any more giant robots in their future. In a post on the Don Murphy Forums (via Slashfilm), Bob wrote (of Transformers 3).
“Time for fresh blood! The main reason we would move on is because we risk getting stale and comfortable. If you only sing one song for too long, you miss the opportunity to sing news songs. We’ll see.
Bob also opined on Leonard Nimoy voicing a character for the upcoming Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The character Galvatron was voiced by Frank Welker in the 80s animated show, but Leonard Nimoy did the voice in the animated Transformers: The Movie in 1986. On the forums Orci also said that he would "love it" if Nimoy did the voice, and he has talked to him about it, also noting:
I actually talked to him about it, given the odd coincidence that he is Michael Bay’s cousin through marriage, but fan outcry has also put Welker in the running.
Loading ...
Comments»
And get orsen wells to voice unicron.. oh wait..
If they felt the Shatner scene was a “throwaway” scene, maybe they could have filmed it and shown it after the credits (ala Nick Fury in Iron Man). That way, average moviegoers probably would have already left, while us old fogies who stayed thru the credits got the little bonus. No big deal, but still, too bad it didn’t happen.
I hope Orci and Kurtzman don’t get to feeling that way about writing Star Trek movies…
“Regarding Shatner, Kurtzman explained:
There’s been a lot of debate about that. … We just, we really tried very hard to get him in there in a way that felt organic, but the problem was that because he died in continuity [in Star Trek: Generations], … I think it would have felt a little bit cheap, is what we all decided.”
Can’t see why they give a hoot about continuity and Shatner — they have ignored the rest of continuity when making this film! It probably would have worked better with Shatner in the film……
Too bad they won’t release the scene they wrote for the Shat. I would like to read it at least.
4 makes a valid point, though let’s stifle and wait to see what they have done for us
@edwin:
Oh, you have seen the film already?
#5 … They’re going to. Orci said so on this site.
It’s too bad that Shatner didn’t (and probably won’t) get one last chance to play Captain Kirk. It should have happened on Enterprise. It should have happened in this movie. But I understand the difficulty with the roadblock that is Generations. Actually, Paramount should have saved Kirk a long time ago, using an adaptation of the Shatner/Reeves-Stevens novel The Return and then Shatner would have been able to be in this movie too.
Actually, it’s too bad Countdown couldn’t have found a way to resolve the matter. It’s primarily fans that know the details of the time-line of the Generations events, so you’d only have to solve that problem for the fans, and could have done it in the comic books. Most casual viewers would of course know Kirk and Shatner but not have a huge memory of Generations and if it were resolved for the fans, it’d be all set. But I realize this movie was not ever meant to focus on Shatner and I regret that there was no final Kirk-Spock (Shatner-Nimoy) movie like the writers of the movie Free Enterprise wanted to write.
What a bunch of whining babies. Did you whine this much over the reboot of BSG? Or Dark Knight? Those turned out to be damn good stories, and told well. If this movie sucks, I will shout it from the rooftops, but I have to wait to see it first. Besides- Kirk is dead. He died saving a planet of backwater peasants from a dying star. He always knew he was going to die alone. Get over it.
@4…
Everything that happened, happened.
Everything that is filmed canon is respected by Orci & Kurtzman.
Including “Generations”.
Re: #4
*sigh* They’ve said time and time again that Trek canon was very important to them. It’s grossly unfair to say they didn’t pay attention to it until you’ve seen the film.
I agree with #7…
I you are intent upon not enjoying this film for what it is…A Star Trek film… Please, do not ruin it for the rest of us by putting it down every second.
I also agree with 11 and 12…
To me, the main roadblock with including Shatner was very simple – age. He looks nothing like he did during Generations, and if you’re bringing him back from the dead why did he age 14 years in the meantime? It would have the potential to look like that awful Enterprise finale, where we’re supposed to believe that Jonathan Frakes is playing Riker from Season 6, yet he looks like Riker from Season 18. Nimoy’s Spock is supposed to be in advanced age, so that fits.
I do understand those that want to see him in the role one last time, however. I still think it would have been distracting or contrived, no matter how you did it, but I understand it.
@12…
Hi Josh!
Tsk tsk tsk… you tried really HARD to think of a way to fit His Shatness into your story… but COULDN’T? Just because he’s dead??
For pennance, you must rent: The Red Tent.
http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/red-tent-dvd.shtml
minor spoiler alert: THEY’RE ALL DEAD!
minor spoiler to the spoiler: you find that out in the first two minutes.
lol Season 18…
I wish Carol Marcus could have made it in, although I suppose there is room in the sequel.
@13
so true!
…looking forward to reading the scene they wrote for him. Even though it didn’t happen, it’ll be fun to imagine.
ooops…. only SOME are dead. My bad. It’s still a good movie.
#9 “Actually, it’s too bad Countdown couldn’t have found a way to resolve the matter.”
Exactly. Most fans are embracing that as part of canon (including me), so why not? Countdown could have brought back Kirk instead of Data.
The audience JJ is going for now, especially the young ones, never even saw Generations. Most people would’ve just been happy to see the man they recognize as “the original Kirk” in this story about a young Kirk. Seeing Shat & Nimoy together one last time would’ve been magic for any Trek fan.
For all I care, let them repeat the same lame excuses regarding Shatner over and over again – maybe it makes them feel better. Nevertheless, poppycock remains poppycock.
I would like to see Carol Marcus in the sequel…
Because there will be a sequel.
will Kirk still hook up with Miramanee???
to #4 (I hear violins in the background)
Thorsten said it right … Kirk died on film. Continuity, canon (note: correct spelling of the word) is being preserved by not including KIrk in this tale.
Sure, I would have loved to see the pairing of Nimoy and Shatner again, I mean let’s face it, both gentlemen are now 78 and we probably will never see the likes of this bromance again.
So tell me if you all are such experts how would you have included Kirk, a dead man, in this film? This is a TREK film, not “Star Trek: Zombies of the Stratosphere (oops, that was has already been done, hasn’t it?)”
If you (#4) and all the other naysayers are so bent on hating the film even before it debuts on May 8, please feel free to do so, but please don’t feel like you have to rain on everyone else’s umbrella. It’s really getting tiresome.
What #27 said!
#4 & #24 — yes, rinse and repeat….and just when it had died down. He’s not in it, we get it and I know I’ve moved on but I can do without this again.
If Nimoy’s Spock is going back in time blah blah blah then wouldnt this affect the outcome of Kirk???
I was really hoping for a Shat cameo at the end of this movie, you know what I mean, Nimoy comes back to the future and meets and old friend…
Shat: *Standing in a darkened room* Hello Spock
Nimoy: Computer, Lights! *Lights come on to reveal an older Kirk standing with a smile on his face*
Shat: We did it…
Nimoy: We did my old friend… we did
*Music kicks in and the camera cuts to young spock and kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise, they exchange a look of friendship, the camera pans out to reveal the whole crew*
Uhura: Captain, we are recieving word from Starfleet command, we are to report back to be debriefed
Sulu: Course sir?
Kirk: Take us home Mr Sulu…
*Music and credits*
“So tell me if you all are such experts how would you have included Kirk, a dead man, in this film?”
Given that things ARE changed, a very simple fix could be that because of Nero’s meddling, Kirk didn’t die in Generations so he’s now an old man. Simple cameo at end when Spock returns to his timeline and finds his old pal alive. Old Shatner fans happy; new fans wouldn’t storm out of the theatre sceaming “THEY RUINED THE FILM!!” either. [I think a lot of non trek fans find it odder that Shatner isn't it in when they hear Nimoy is....at least that's the comments I've gotten.]
#15, I couldn’t agree more. In my opinion, Shatner never should have been in Generations in the first place. I always saw ST6 as the original crew send-off, and given that they signed their names in the credits, I think it was intended to be. But that send off wasn’t good enough for old Shat, so he signed up for Generations and at the time wanted THAT to be his farewell death scene send-off. So now 14 years later he (and the fans) want yet ANOTHER send-off? How many send-offs do there need to be for people to be satisfied? Spock is a Vulcan and Vulcan’s live a longer life-span. It serves the story and makes sense. Shat dug his grave (pun intended) and needs to lay in it.
Correction, Anthony:
Frank Welker did the voice of Megatron in the animated series and movie.
In the movie, Megatron is killed and then reborn as Galvatron via Unicron. Galvatron was voiced by Leonard Nimoy.
I’m glad the Shat was given the shaft. It’s time for him to realize that he didn’t single-handedly invent Star Trek and usher in the computer age and the 21st century. Whether his exaggerated ego is pretend or real, he needs to see that Trek, even TOS-era Trek, can live without him. Plus, he doesn’t even really look like Kirk anymore. And how would you get him into the timeline? Kirk does not need to live forever; anything that puts him alive in the TNG era beyond what happened in Generations is ridiculous (and even that was ridiculous)…he is not immortal nor would he want to be. Barring TNG-era resurrection, the only way to get him in would be to stop over in TOS/movie-era and pick him up and then take him back further, which would also be ridiculous…as if it’s not already bad enough that we are rehashing a time travel threat to the origins of the Federation. How many times have they done that now?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about the movie, but give all this Shatner crap a rest. Kirk is in the movie and that’s all you should need. Shatner stopped acting and looking like Kirk a long a time ago.
@31…
Liz, I don’t know if Spock will be able to return to the Prime timeline…
I’d take Nimoy’s Galvatron over Welker’s any day!
#33, Frank Welker also did the voice of Galvatron in the series after the movie. I believe that’s what Anthony was referring to.
#15 You are right it’s been about 14 years since “Generations” when Kirk died. I would think in the new movie Old Spock has changed the past some how and it has stopped the death of Kirk in “Generations”and Kirk lives on. But we wouldn’t know this until Old Spock returns home to his time in the future after “Nemesis”. Shatner would be the right age to play Kirk at that time after “Nemesis”in the new Star Trek movie. But I have bad feeling Old Spock gets killed in this movie so no Shatner in this movie.
Yet to those who take the view that this isn’t “the real crew”, but rather some alternate timeline doppelgangers…this older fellow wouldn’t be the “real Kirk” to them either! He would equally be the product of timeline change.
And equally as impossible to embrace as “the real thing”.
I think the most one can hope for is that there is something in this movie that hints that Shatner could be in the second movie as a result of the timeline alteration erasing Kirk’s death.
Something, for instance, a la, Spock doing the Katra transfer on McCoy at the end of WOK. Preferably not that broad a hint.
By the way, that hint of Spock’s return would not have been so broad if it weren’t for the casket shot at the end.
Maybe an end of mission recap on the bridge where one of the crew asks if the timeline is restored as it was, Spock explains that it is not, and his comments drift to a silence and a pause to allow the audience to catch the meaning.
2. TonyD – March 25, 2009
Good idea! the Nick Fury scene at the end was there for the fans, and it was fantastic. A Shat scene at the end would be unreal!
#38:
If Kirk’s death in Generations is avoided by a timeline alteration, that would allow Shatner to play him 14 years after Generations. That doesn’t mean he would be alive x number of years later in the post-Nemesis era, unless we’re doing one of those Leonard McCoy 150 years old floating wheelchair stories.
Generations happened in another timeline..his death is irrelevant. In the original timeline, even if things change by the altered timeline, SPock is ancient, so Kirk would no doubt already be dead of old age.
The question is how do you bring in Shatner/Kirk within the contraints of the new timeline. I would guess, by either a memory of Spock prime or tape or hologram that lets Spock play for the younger Kirk, showing him a glimpse of his future. 78 year old Shatner can easily pass for a 60 year old Kirk, so the problem was probably either ego, $$ or both.
They should have done it, in no way could it have hurt, not with Nimoy in the picture as well. Darn shame, it would have been the icing on an already delicous cake.
#38 – Never mind. Brain freeze. Time travel hurts my head.
Stupid:
If Kirk’s death in Generations is avoided by a timeline alteration, that would allow Shatner to play him 14 years after Generations. That doesn’t mean he would be alive x number of years later in the post-Nemesis era, unless we’re doing one of those Leonard McCoy 150 years old floating wheelchair stories.
Okay, I’ve f’ed this up twice now, let me see if I can make my point coherently.
The question is how is the timeline altered, specifically, as related to Kirk and the Nexus? If it alters, say, the launching of the Enterprise B, then Kirk presumably lives to old age in the post Undiscovered Country era and dies naturally.
If, however, it alters the timeline by impacting at a point after the events on Enterprise B, then presumably Kirk could survive Veridian III and be alive at Shatner’s current age as Spock returns from his mission to the past.
#27 – So tell me if you all are such experts how would you have included Kirk, a dead man, in this film? This is a TREK film, not “Star Trek: Zombies of the Stratosphere (oops, that was has already been done, hasn’t it?)”
I’m not really bothered that Shatner isn’t in the film; but since you asked, I honestly don’t think it would have been that hard. As to one possible way to do it…
We already know that there’s a scene in the movie where old Spock meets young Kirk; the writers could have used that to throw a lifeline, maybe in the form of a note, padd or tricorder that Spock leaves inside Kirk’s jacket or duffel bag. Later on you might have a quick scene of young Kirk reading said message and glancing thoughtfully at it. Then, insert a quick scene (preferably after the end credits so as to make it as minimally intrusive as possible to the main story) of Spock and Kirk, both alive and well in the far future, maybe with Kirk referencing said message. The casual moviegoer might or might not pick up on that (and probably wouldn’t care either way) while the old stalwarts would have gotten their wish.
I came up with that after about 5 minutes of idle thinking. Its not particularly original and owes more than a bit to Back to the Future, but I’m sure the writers could have come up with something even better, assuming of course they could have gotten Shatner to go along with it.
Again, I don’t really mind that Shatner isn’t in this one at all and I very much doubt he would have agreed to just a quick cameo, but I don’t buy all this talk of how hard it would have been to write in a quick scene given established canon.
10. Dubsaque – March 25, 2009
What a bunch of whining babies. Did you whine this much over the reboot of BSG? Or Dark Knight?
—————
Think about it before you post.
The Classic BSG TV show did not have 40 years of history like Star Trek. The Classic BSG TV show did not have three seasons, six movies, four spin-off TV shows and four spin-off movies like Star Trek.
The 1989 Batman movie only really had one sequel (Batman: Returns). Then it was rebooted with Batman: Forever.
The Dark Knight was just one more reboot.
Also The James Bond Movies seems to have been reboot many times before RC.
If Trek-Fans are whining babies because They are standing up for 40 years of Star Trek history, then what are you, Dubsaque? seeing you are so really to bend over for JJ and bad robot.
@46…
TonyD, do you watch Lost?
Damon Lindelof turns the time travel donkey wheels in both,
the Lostverse and the Trekverse…
If it’s assumed that, by the time of Trek’s present, humans live to be upwards of 120 years old (like McCoy in “Encounter at Farpoint”), then Kirk still probably would have died sometime around 2340. That’s about 30 years prior to the TNG episode “The Neutral Zone”. And if we assume “Generations” happened about seven years after that, we’re talking 2378 – and unless Kirk lived to be 158 years old (and it’s doubtful even McCoy could help him live that long) it’s unlikely he’d be still alive during Spock Prime’s decision to travel back to TOS’s past. Even if he didn’t die on Veridian III or be presumed dead at the maiden voyage of USS Enterprise-B.
Either way, he’s still dead, Jim.
i think we’ll see Shatner via old or manipulated footage like they did with Brando in Superman Returns…like a hologram of shatner as kirk in his 50s or 60s from a previous trek film or even something like TJ Hooker or Airplane II …(obviously not any younger as Pines young kirk now)
i think so..maybe old spock or nero will show or look at a hologram or a recording of old kirk (or even a photo – like connery in Crystal Skull)…or even a recording of his voice from a previous film. …its not like theyd have to tell shatner as it dosnt work like that with old footage – they would just have to pay for the footage (actually they wouldnt even have to if its from a previous star trek as its all paramount)
I was really moved by the close up morph of Matt Damon turning into the old guy at the end of Saving Private Ryan. It was very believable and thought-provoking. Even if they did a similar thing between Pine and Shatner, I’m sure the crowd would have loved it.
I’m sure we’re all going to talk about this even long after the movie’s finally released. If they’re lying to us all along to give us a real surprise, well, I’d be thankful. But, if not, I totally understand where they’re coming from – you don’t want to force things into a movie just because – and we’ve seen that happen in so many movies that it just ruins it.
Shatner is the man, but if this movie is going to be the push it needs to get back in the limelight and earn the respect of Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike without any cliches, taking any shortcuts, or bending to the pressures of the movie industry and canonistas alike, then we should respect the Supreme Court and take it as it is.
I mean, the movie’s already finished, what are they going to do at this point? Star Trek: The Future Begins, Extended Whiny Fanboy Edition?
Hmm, Niimoy got a great death for Spock in TWOK….so was he wrong to want to come back; his fans too that wanted and welcomed him back? And I am really stunned by the ageism and superficialness being displayed about Shatner’s looks.
“Liz, I don’t know if Spock will be able to return to the Prime timeline…”
Heh thorsten! How be you? Oh, don’t torture me so….heh heh. As long as he doesn’t die AGAIN, I’ll be good. ;) [I just watched TWOK for the billioneth time and got all teary eyed at his death scene. Slays me every single time.]
Why weep for Kirk?
While nearly the rest of the crew (sans Scotty in a transporter buffer, of course) grew old and marginalized in Starfleet, Kirk spent 72 years messing around with Antonia and his horse in a retirement matrix. Picard spoiled things for him by showing up, but he was still way ahead of the game.
It could’ve been nice to see young Kirk go into the future and make sure the Enterprise B had everything it needed before Tuesday, so it was prepared to do what starships are prepared to do, instead of creating the path of crap that is Star Trek Generations!
Roddenberry has said on record that he believed that entries V and VI were apocryphal, canon or not I dismiss Generations the same way!
#46
So Spock would disregard the quarter of a billion lives Kirk saved in Generations just to extend his friend’s life? Not MY Spock.
Besides, if we play the idea of Kirk not boarding the Enterprise-B and thus not getting sucked into the Nexus, I say he’s still dead by Spock Prime’s time. McCoy looked like he was held together by paper clips and duct tape by the time the Enterprise-D launched, and that’s presumably a good 20 years before Spock Prime’s time.
“30. Jay El Jay – March 25, 2009
If Nimoy’s Spock is going back in time blah blah blah then wouldnt this affect the outcome of Kirk???
I was really hoping for a Shat cameo at the end of this movie, you know what I mean, Nimoy comes back to the future and meets and old friend…
Shat: *Standing in a darkened room* Hello Spock
Nimoy: Computer, Lights! *Lights come on to reveal an older Kirk standing with a smile on his face*
Shat: We did it…
Nimoy: We did my old friend… we did”
Sorry, not to be rude, but that would be really awful. It’s ok to imagine it, but some fan scenarios are best left within our minds.
#48 – thorsten
Yes indeed, I do watch Lost regularly and you’re right that Damon & Co. know their way around time travel stories, which is why at the end of the day, I think Shatner’s omission has little to do with any constraints imposed by canon. I’m fine with that; all I want is a good movie that reignites the franchise.
@52…
Don’t worry, Liz…
I really don’t know Spock Primes fate in the movie…
but if we follow Bob Orcis explanation about the quantum mechanical creation of another timeline, it will get tough for our half vulcan to switch back into his old universe…
On the other hand, he is Spock.
#54 – Sean
You’re reading way to much into my idea. Who’s to say Kirk doesn’t go to Veridian and saves those people? Who’s to say Spock merely warns him about being wary about the bridge collapsing? Who’s to say Spock isn’t waiting there in a cloaked shuttlecraft to beam him out of trouble at the last minute?
The point I was trying to make was that if you were going to include Shatner, you’d be minimalist about it and deliberately leave it vague. You’d throw the lifeline, have a quick scene at the end, and leave the rest of it to the viewer’s imagination.
They don’t need Shatner or Carol Marcus. I’m sure the movie will be fine without them.
#31—”Given that things ARE changed, a very simple fix could be that because of Nero’s meddling, Kirk didn’t die in Generations so he’s now an old man. Simple cameo at end when Spock returns to his timeline and finds his old pal alive.”
That could have worked *if* part of the story involved Spock returning to ‘his timeline’, but there is no indication that is part of the story. I could be wrong, but I don’t expect a return to the post-Nemesis era in the conclusion of this film.
An early (yet unconfirmed) report about the conclusion of the “Countdown” series (WARNING: Possible spoiler) suggest that Nero and Spock end up time-travelling by accident—so unless “Daniels” is around, or Spock goes to the Sol System for the old “slingshot around the Sun” trick—he may not have the means to get back, but I expect that his decision not to return is a voluntary one.
In any case, I don’t think that the writers should have developed a story that would accomodate a Shatner scene making good sense in the film. I think that any Shatner scene should either *benefit* the story they wish to tell—or not be included at all.
I still maintain that an obvious solution might have been to set a scene told from the perspective of Nimoy’s Spock—a flashback scene set prior to Kirk’s boarding of the Enterprise-B. If such a scene could have been relevant to what was going on in the story (and assuming Shatner would have agreed to the cameo), it might indeed have been beneficial.
I’m still looking forward to what *was* proposed (and evidently written) and eventually shot down in discussions.
The mess created by the awful Generations is irreparable. This is what happens when you let fanboyism in a movie plot: all in all, forcing Kirk into Picard’s world to satisfy fans was a very, very bad idea.
@60…
100 percent with you, CT
Too bad they just didn’t shoot the scene they had planned with Shatner. They could have saved the sequences for the DVD/Blu-Ray release. Similar to what they did with Blade Runner. Call it Star Trek: The Shat Edition.
#58
But see, as a fan, I would find that totally unsatisfying. How many times can we resurrect these people before it becomes old hat? Data, as a machine, is easier to swallow, but I still find it unsatisfying that they brought him back for the comic. Sometimes people need to stay dead.
And as I’ve said before, they took an entire movie to bring back Spock. – why would Kirk not be worthy of the same? How is a vague ‘Oh he’s alive now’ acceptable?
#4 : so when did you see the film that you know how much continuity they ignored? It really irritates me how some folks think they know all about this film and really no even less than the rest of us.
Bob and Alex liked this scene. It seems JJ was the one convincing everyone it was contrived. After all it’s his call as director
William Shatner is 78 years old. I would like to see him play Jim Kirk one more time. All other considerations are, at best, secondary and I remain unconvinced that there is a storytelling problem here that is literally impossible to resolve. Especially considering K & O’s experience on XENA and HERCULES a (wonderful) pair of shows that liked to kill off and revive six characters before breakfast.
I remain optimistic that Mr Shatner can make an appearance in the sequel to the current picture.
A reminder to many who are forgetting… during the FILMING of the movie, Shatner was quoted as not wanting to do a cameo… he had to be in the movie in a big way. It was only after the fact that cameo possibilities began to crop up.
Hmmm, puts an added perspective on Spock’s motivations? If we adhere to the QM theory here, why would (prime) Spock care to intervene, when the prime universe is still safe and sound? If he can’t go back, he’s now part of the “new” universe that sprang from Nero’s actions…he has much more incentive to set things as right as they’re going to get b/c he is now a part of this new timeline as well.
Maybe?
#10…
(Sorry. Late to the party)
As I recall, there was a LOT of whining about the BSG reboot at first, and as far as Dark Knight is concerned, well after the Clooney/Schwarzenneggar outing, I don’t think anyone really minded a change.
at 30:
Do you realize how nerdy that just sound – i can hear the collective groan and laugh at the end of the movie if that was how you’d shoe horn Kirk into the movie.
I think it’s great that the writers tried but ultimately felt that having Shatner in the movie would not work.
I personally think that if they had put him in, it would have really turned this movie into a homage to the original rather than the new beginning this movie has to be. Paying homage is cool, Nimoy is in this movie and thats great but to have Shatner appear as well – well i dunno, i think that would just be a bit too much.
#43
- Generations happened in another timeline..his death is irrelevant. -
Exactly. And now, for all we know, they’re introducing yet another timeline which should have provided even more opportunities to include Shatner.
#52
- Hmm, Niimoy got a great death for Spock in TWOK….so was he wrong to want to come back; his fans too that wanted and welcomed him back? And I am really stunned by the ageism and superficialness being displayed about Shatner’s looks. -
Correct, correct, and correct.
- [I just watched TWOK for the billioneth time and got all teary eyed at his death scene. Slays me every single time.] -
Me too, Liz. It’s amazing, no matter how often you watch that scene, and even although you know that he’ll be resurrected, it still has that impact. Doesn’t pale.
@64…
But Kirk is very alive, Sean.
His name is Chris Pine.
You guys clearly have NOT been paying attention. Orzi & Kurtzman have already written a dissertation about this being a many-universe-based quantum theory of time travel.
Once you go back in time to this universe, THERE IS NO MORE CANON!! PERIOD!! Carol Marcus does not play the same role in this universe. She and Kirk may NEVER meet. Much less have a son (which by the way is one of the poorest plot contrivances I have ever seen, only to kill him off on movie later). Either way, Kirk is likely to have more than one illegitimate son in every universe where he survived beyond puberty.
As for Shatner being in the film, Orzi & Kurtman have provided all off the ammunition necessary, Kirk can come from any universe at any time. That’s why the story and plot of this new Star Trek has had the teeth ripped out of it from the beginning. Spock and TNG crew from post Nemisis are going back to save a completely different universe, that has nothing to do with their own. Unless Nero’s plan is to spend the rest of his life traveling from alternate universe to alt. universe to affect each in the same way, even then, how does it affect Spock & Co.’s universe? Perhaps they have an obligation to stop this rouge from their own universe.
Regardless it is merely a device to REBOOT the franchise.
If they ever do want to bring in Shatner, they could even if they choose to acknowledge off-screen canon (which is no longer part of this new universe in which ST will continue in, but only in the original fan-base’s minds), either way the new audience won’t give a frack. Which brings me to my final point, Spock serves the same bridge for the fan base that Shatner did in Generations. If you bring Shatner in too, then it just gets silly because he has that canon history. It gets even sillier if you bring him in from an alternate universe and just makes the whole thing more confusing to the new audience (who could care less where old Spock came from or why). To bring in Shatner in a sequel from another alt. universe, then there’s a sense for the new audience that it’s been done already and even the die hard fan will roll their eyes at that one. No Shatner is dead in ST and most likely will be dead in real life by the time using him in a sequel makes sense. Besides, how sad would that be, young virile Kirk looking at geriatric pathetic Kirk?
No Abrams, Orzi and Kurtman did the right thing at lease with respect to this contrived story. The mistake was to try to bridge old and new at all. But Paramount was not secure enough in the proposition to risk alienating the core-audience which would at least guarantee they won’t lose their shirt if the wider mass-appeal fails. FORGET WHAT YOU KNOW!!! It’s in the damn trailer! I suggest the folks on this board start heeding that advice – you’ll sleep better.
#67—”I would like to see him play Jim Kirk one more time. All other considerations are, at best, secondary and I remain unconvinced that there is a storytelling problem here that is literally impossible to resolve.”
It isn’t that the problem is “impossible to resolve”. The question is whether his inclusion would have been beneficial or not to the story they wished to tell. The only way that the “problem” is worth solving at all is if the answer to that question is ‘yes’. The creative team behind this story (the only people with the necessary insight) has obviously determined that the answer is ‘no’.
I’m surprised people here are suggesting Shatner be shown in the closing credits or on the DVD edition.
Yeah, I’m sure the producers would love to pay the Shat millions of dollars just for that “privilege”…..
Now, on a more important note, where the hell is MUGATU???
#72
“Me too, Liz. It’s amazing, no matter how often you watch that scene, and even although you know that he’ll be resurrected, it still has that impact. Doesn’t pale.”
Now say we kill and resurrect him AGAIN. Doesn’t that effect the scene’s impact? How many times can we do that before death is meaningless?
O & K gave it their best shot and crafted a way for Shatner to appear. But Shatner didn’t want a cameo, he wanted a part comparable to Nimoy’s. That would have required a total rewrite.
I imagine there are only a couple possibilities that could have been crafted:
Old Spock, debating whether he should chase Nero back in time, has a ‘flashback’ to the day Generations began. Visiting Jim just before Chekov and Schott show up to beam up to the E-B ceremony. They’re revisiting the “needs of the one, needs of the many” discussion. (A script opportunity to explain a number of things about Generations that don’t make sense, too… retcons like Chekov and Harriman graduating together top of their Starfleet class, hence Chekov being there; Scott being there because he designed the ship’s engineering section….) Spock asks Kirk, regarding the old Kobayashi discussion, that if they each faced such a situation, how would they react now? Kirk imagines that now that captaincy is in the hands of others, he’d have done what Spock did in the Khan/Genesis situation. Spock states that he too feels the same. (And they reminisce EXACTLY as Shatner and Nimoy do in that real life Mind Meld clip.) Spock realizes he has his answer. He must follow Nero.
And they could have used the same tech used on Stewart & McKellen in that X-Men movie to “de-age” them to be passable to Generations. Plus, it’s Old Spock’s flashback. It could be done soft-lens a la the Nexus scenes in Generations.
And however Spock dies at the end, he should have found a way to end up in the Nexus along with Kirk. Full circle.
Alternatively, Spock could have been LISTENING to audio recordings of Kirk made at the Academy just before he left for the Enterprise-B commissioning ceremony.
Oh, yay. Hurray. We get to argue about Shatner again.
Pardon me while I plunge into a catatonic state.
#74—First of all, there is no indication that the MWI of QM will become ‘canon’. Unless it appears on screen—it isn’t. In fact, Orci has made clear that the audience need not know anything about QM to understand what’s going on—which suggests that more “classical” interpretations to time travel stories in sci-fi can be applied (with regard to “canon”).
Second, of course ‘canon’ is intact. “Everything you know” (ENT-NEM) is what leads the story to this point. It happened—each and every event depicted in all 5 live action series and 10 previous films—regardless of the fact that it happened in another timeline. If it did not happen—we wouldn’t *have* this story, would we?
Nimoy as Galvatron would seal the deal for me. That would be f-ing awesome!
And I love the things that they confirmed made it in. Sad that Carol Marcus didn’t show up, but live and learn.
#4 – “Can’t see why they give a hoot about continuity and Shatner — they have ignored the rest of continuity when making this film!”
This is one of those things that makes me wonder if they may not have ignored (or gotten rid of) as much as certain aspects have led us to think.
#10 – ‘Did you whine this much over the reboot of BSG?”
Yup. ;) Okay, maybe not quite that much, but I have no loyalty to Mooreverse BSG, though I admit to watching the whole thing out of sheer curiosity. But as for spending any actual money on it? Nope. Maybe if Larson’s new project gets going, I’ll spend money on Galactica again.
#47.
This is certainly not bending over for JJ & co. I’m not exactly big fans of Orci and Kurtzman either, but I do indeed recognize that the last decade of Star Trek has been, both critically and commercially, a dismal failure, and if we ever want to have Star Trek continue to exist as a cultural force, it needs a revival. And that revival sure as hell won’t come from Berman & Co, and we should consider ourselves lucky that the franchise is in the hands of someone who (purportedly) respects it and it’s fans.
Questioning my own allegiance to the history of trek is ridiculous- after all, I read this site and post on it, I own TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and have seen all of Voyager, Enterprise, the movies, etc. To think I don’t care about this is ridiculous too. The last, last thing I want to see is Trek become a vapid exersize in blowing crap up in space. I was even annoyed that they didn’t fully respect the ‘Kirk Spock McCoy’ troika in the movie poster releases- but I’m not going to pick nits over small inconsistencies in trek lore. How in the hell could Khan have remembered Chekov in TWOK when Chekov wasn’t even on the ship during the events of ‘Space Seed?’ Hell, how can Khan even exist seeing as the eugenics wars following the nuclear war hasn’t happened by now, as prophesized? Give me a break. TOS might as well have been set in multiple universes for all it’s inconsistencies. Star Trek has always been about characters, relationships, moral and personal truth, and exploring the limitless possibilities of existence, not about dates and numbers and technobabble.
We should be glad this movie isn’t in the hands of fanboys, but real professionals who actually have a knack at interesting storytelling.
Plus, you are a baby. A big, whiny baby.
Holy crap! Will the canon freaks please go away and get a damn life!? How many times has Star Trek canon contradicted itself? The movie isn’t even out and they won’t give it a chance, but we all know they will see it anyway. They’ll probably bitch even if this movies is the blockbuster that everyone hopes it is! No wonder Trek fans catch so much flak for being nerds!
And as for Shatner, it was his decision to kill off Kirk in Generations. He could have said no to the role, but he didn’t. I’m glad Kurtzman and Orci didn’t go fanboy on this movie just to find a way to resurrect Shat’s Kirk.
For the future of TNG; however, we have a means to bring back Data, as has been done already in Nemesis -> Countdown (and it doesn’t involve time travel).
8 Really? I try to keep up, but oh well! I’m content. :)
#77
Resurrecting Spock didn’t hurt the impact, as we both obviously agree. That was in 1984, so I don’t think today’s audience would regard Kirk’s resurrection, if done in a conclusive way, as making death meaningless. I mean, c’mon, resurrecting two of the greatest heroes of all time within 15 years is far from being inflationary…;)
Furthermore, for me Spock’s death and resurrection, as well as Kirk’s possible resurrection always had a metaphorical level. Sort of allowing Good and Friendship in its pure form to prevail. This may not be reality (it certainly isn’t), but it would be in line with TOS’ original proposition, and it would make Kirk the immortal hero he developed into over the years not only in a figurative sense.
#85—”Furthermore, for me Spock’s death and resurrection, as well as Kirk’s possible resurrection always had a metaphorical level. Sort of allowing Good and Friendship in its pure form to prevail. ”
And it will no doubt prevail again—in the form of depicting Nimoy’s Spock interacting with the young Kirk and the formation of a bond between the two young heroes all over again—and without resorting to “resurrection”.
I don’t think the issues end with the fact that Kirk died in ‘Generations’.
Even if he had not boarded the Enterprise-B and become stuck in the “Nexus”, he would have been 154 years old when this story begins. That is a bit “long in the tooth”.
Either way—he’s dead (Jim).
83: I was planning a more in depth response here, but basically I agree with everything Ian said. lol
Star Trek is obviously different things to different people.
To me it’s 10 seasons of TV, a cartoon and 10 films. The ’splosions era began with DS9, and I lost interest, though I’ve seen every episode on DVD. It is great stories about enlightened, diverse and deep characters cooperating to exploring the unknown. And that inspired me in 1994 to spend many years overseas working in 3 countries (and away from my TV).
While I am pretty good at citing the constantly retconned continuity of Trek through TNG, I don’t lose sleep over inconsistencies. I ignore things like Sybok, Chekov/Khan and whether the Enterprise is Constitution Class or Starship Class. I do care about the characters that visit/threaten our heroes and affect their lives, and their motivations. Some are great (Sarek), and some are simply terrible (Pakleds/most ‘ridgeheads’).
And since I discovered this site, I find Trek and all its trappings to be an endless source of laughter and fun. And that, to me, is the whole point. I expect the new film to have all of the above, and to be a great thrillride as well. Star Trek needs it.
I wanted a big fat steaming Shat sandwich with a side of chilled Nimoy. Now I’ll have to settle for leftovers.
90.
Very colorfully put! However,
urrrrrggghhh….brrbb…gaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!
#11 – Oh, you’ve seen the film then?
It would be the stunt of the decade if Shatner IS really in this movie, perhaps at the end, at least. They really could make it work.
Oh yeah, no cameo… we’ll see.
No Shatner, no money from me :-D
#92—He hasn’t seen the whole thing, but perhaps you read his review of the 20 minutes of footage released to the press.
Most of us have seen about 2 minutes. Thorsten saw 20.
“… We just, we really tried very hard to get him in there in a way that felt organic, but the problem was that because he died in continuity [in Star Trek: Generations], … I think it would have felt a little bit cheap, is what we all decided. And, you know, we really struggled with it, because we wrote a scene that we really loved, and, ultimately, I think it might have felt like an add-on, you know? …”
Well, that makes me feel a bit better. :3 Sad he’s not in, but at least we know they tried. Ah well. The movie’ll still be good. After all, “First Contact” was one of the best, and we had no Shat in that, eh? ;) So I won’t lose hope.
#94 :: Well. If that’s how you feel, I’ll let you know how the movie was on May 8th. *^__^*
84:
Ian:
Brent Spiner has categorically stated he would not return as Data in front of a camera, as he has aged too much. CGI would have to be good enough to render him.
The problem with the deaths of Data and Kirk, is that they occur in shitty films. So, referencing “The Nexus” or “B4″ in any kind of new show/film is just validating films most of us are trying hard to forget. Mr. Orci wouldn’t confirm “Countdown” as canon, so it’s not.
#95; Closet :: “…Most of us have seen about 2 minutes. Thorsten saw 20….”
Pheh! And lucky him! D:
Reboot, alternate universe or true preqel, it doesn’t matter. I want a great Star Trek movie that I will want to pop into my DVD player a bunch of times.
And I also want it to make a ton of money and lead to other movies.
All the rest of the debate about this is pointless. It’s time to stop beating a dead horse, already.
#99 : “… I want a great Star Trek movie that I will want to pop into my DVD player a bunch of times….”
Amen! (Like Star Trek II, III, IV, and VI.. for me. :D)
The way to have included Shatner would have been to canonize his “Kirk Resurrected” novels. A few lines of dialogue between him and old Spock could have explained this, and then the two of them could of gone on with the story together. That would of accounted for his appearance in the 24th century and appropriate aging since Generations.
Give Shatner a pre-closing credits “Space. The Final Frontier” voiceover, and you’ll see all the Shatnerites explode with glee.
#97—”The problem with the deaths of Data and Kirk, is that they occur in shitty films. So, referencing “The Nexus” or “B4″ in any kind of new show/film is just validating films most of us are trying hard to forget.”
Yes—The “Nexus” is definitely a “Sybokian” term.
:)
#101—Wasn’t that the series with the Borg resurrecting Kirk through his DNA so that he could help them defeat the Federation?
Sounds like a bad Friday The 13th movie to me…no thanks.
#90—”I wanted a big fat steaming Shat sandwich…”
That’s a good way to get hepatitis, I think.
:)
#86
In this instance, I’m referring to the fan audience moreso than the regular audience. Once all of our heroes become immortal, I personally lose interest in their adventures. An incredibly rare (and admittedly convoluted) out for Spock didn’t bother me, but if we’re going to render these people incapable of death they’re no longer human, and thus become rather unidentifiable, for me.
#104
Seconded! :)
“… Whereas our story, without giving away too much, Spock [played by Leonard Nimoy] is such a critical part of the story that literally the story cannot be told without him….(dying)”
@95…
Thanks, CT…
I was out there, shooting things ;))
Let me see if I get this straight…. By traveling back in time in Universe A and changing events, Universe B is created from that point of time forward; the two universes share an identical history before the intervention. And if you then travel forward in time in Universe B after the intervention you are now in the future of Universe B and not Universe A. If the intervention is relatively minor, i.e. to ensure that a “historical event” in Universe A also happens in Universe B, then the future of Universe B may be more or less identical to that of Universe A. This may explain the time travel in TOS “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” STIV and ST:FC and how those crews were able to return to their/a recognizable future. Apparently Nero’s intervention is going to be a little more serious, creating a radically different Universe B. Why Spock goes back in time and what he is trying to “correct” is the question that the movie will answer, but given this interpretation (flawed though it may be) Spock could not wind up in Universe B (created by Nero) simply by traveling back in time to any point in Universe A after the destruction of the Kelvin (unless that also happened in Universe A, which I do not believe is the case). Identical “historical events” independent of the intervention may happen in Universes A and B, but they are still different universes from the point of the intervention forward. Hopefully Countdown #4 will provide a rationale for Nero’s time travel and also lay the foundation for Spock’s inter-universe time travel.
Regardless, Universe A Kirk is dead at the time of Spock’s departure, and the fate of Universe B Kirk is yet to be written. If Spock were to go (not too far) into the future of Universe B after “correcting” Nero’s intervention then he could run into the older Kirk/Shatner – perhaps that is the “shoehorn” that the writers were trying to avoid.
STAR TREK: THE ‘ASSISTED LIVING’ GENERATION
The lobby of the USS “Rosy Acres”
Kirk: “Spock! Where are you? Is that you? Who the hell is Spock, anyway? SPOCK!”
Spock: “Doctor McCoy, Jim is doing it again…”
McCoy: “What? Is someone talkin’ to me?”
Spock (yells): “IT’S JIM! HE IS DOING IT AGAIN!”
McCoy: “What…did he crap himself again?”
Spock “What? Speak up, please, Doctor.”
McCoy: “Dang, I just crapped myself. Nurse? Nurse!”
Kirk: “One jealous God! Gary? Is that you? Ohhh, crap. Crapped my pants. Gary?!”
Spock: “It is I, Jim. Spock.”
Kirk: “Welcome aboard, old friend. I trust you will nursemaid me through these difficulties, mister? Where’s Gary?”
Spock: “You killed him over 100 years ago.”
Kirk suddenly falls asleep.
Nurse (walks up): “Did we go poopoo again?”
McCoy: “Yes.. WE did.”
Spock: “I did not.”
FIN
#87
- Either way—he’s dead (Jim). -
Either way he’s dead, but Good prevails and while Old Spock is busy pre-establishing his bond with young Kirk in another timeline, Old Kirk will remain dead although Spock knows about Kirk’s fate, although Friendship and Brotherhood have become the Prime Directive over the years, and although many people consider Kirk the archetype of an immortal hero?
No, sorry, doesn’t make sense to me – I’ll pass.
Too bad. No Carol Marchus, and No Shatner too? I find that hard to believe.
But for all those that missed the small internet storm I created a while back. Here is how I saw Star Trek’s plot unraveling more than a year ago. And it included Shatner’s Kirk in the plot. Some even liked it.
http://trekmovie.com/2008/07/25/more-star-trek-footage-described-online
See post #24.
#106
Sorry for the double-post; just saw your answer.
Just let me add one thing: Neither Spock’s sacrifice for the E and the crew did become meaningless just because of his resurrection, nor would Kirk’s sacrifice for the people he saved become irrelevant if he was to be resurrected, because both of them died fully aware of their death and the reasons for it. Neither Spock had been aware of his resurrection, nor did Kirk die with a possible loophole in mind, so their deaths wouldn’t become any less meaningful by their resurrection.
As regards the need to show and stick to major character deaths in a SciFi series in order to have a feeling of credibility and a higher grade of identification, let’s agree to respectfully disagree.
31. krikzil (sucker for any animal) – March 25, 2009 [I think a lot of non trek fans find it odder that Shatner isn’t it in when they hear Nimoy is….at least that’s the comments I’ve gotten.]
Gotta agree here. my Daughter’s friends (both girls and guys late teens, early twenties, target audience age) were over to watch the Super bowl. When the Trek commercial came on, most didn’t care and the couple that did care, said “Where’s the Shat and Nimoy?” When I explained the premise for the movie and I told them only Nimoy was in it, they found that hard to believe. They had no idea Shatner’s Kirk had “died” nor did they care, but what they DID know was that Shatner and Nimoy were the names they recognized as symbols of the Star Trek they knew, or had heard about.
I really do believe this Shatner issue could have been resolved in a better way.
“So Spock would disregard the quarter of a billion lives Kirk saved in Generations just to extend his friend’s life? Not MY Spock.”
His actual, literal death — i.e., falling off the bridge — didn’t save the lives. He could still participate but live instead. Or fall and not be as badly injured. There are all sorts of things that could happen or not happen once you start messing with a timeline. THAT’s why I think it’s silly to say he can’t be in BECAUSE of canon. And being in the Nexus for all those years circumvents the age problem too. He could still be alive, just old.
“I could be wrong, but I don’t expect a return to the post-Nemesis era in the conclusion of this film.”
Closet — yeah, I think this is likely too.
“I’m still looking forward to what *was* proposed (and evidently written) and eventually shot down in discussions.”
I do too. It will be fun to see what they wrote and to imagine it! I always like the extra stuff that didn’t make it into films, be they just script or filmed.
“How many times can we resurrect these people before it becomes old hat?”
I know this wasn’t addressed to me but I would throw in….how many times can we rely on time travel as a plot device? Too many if you ask me but here we go again.
#115–”I really do believe this Shatner issue could have been resolved in a better way.”
A lot of us feel that way. Heh, I’ll be happy to see Nimoy but gosh, it just would have been so great to see Shat too. While I don’t think it’s JJ’s job to “fix” Generations, it would have been nice for this beloved character and actor — well, for me, I know the Shat-haters are thrilled he’s NOT in it — to have had a nicer send off. And people and media will ask (as they have done already) about Shatner simply given his high profile as an actor today.
#112—”…while Old Spock is busy pre-establishing his bond with young Kirk in another timeline, Old Kirk will remain dead although Spock knows about Kirk’s fate…”
See—I’m not even sure that last part would be true.
When Picard found Kirk existing in “The Nexus”, Spock was on Romulus. The last time we saw him, he had resolved to remain there—so even without the “Countdown” prequel story, there really isn’t any reason to assume that Spock believes his friend had any other fate but death aboard the Enterprise-B. Romulus doesn’t strike me as the kind of pace where subspace information would travel “freely”.
But forgetting that for a moment—even if Spock were aware of the whole “Nexus” incident— why resurrect him now, so many years later? By your logic, he should have resolved to resurrect him after he believed him to be killed aboard the Enterprise-B…or for that matter, at least immediately upon learning that he did not actually die back then. Right? I mean—as long as we are trying to make sense….
- But why resurrect him now, so many years later? By your logic, he should have resolved to resurrect him after he believed him to be killed aboard the Enterprise-B…or for that matter, at least immediately upon learning that he did not actually die back then. Right? I mean—as long as we are trying to make sense…. -
Different timelines, time travel, alternative universes – who says it’s many years later in the film? It’s only many years later in “our” reality which definitely isn’t congruent with the reality in ST. Right?! I mean – as long as we are trying not to mistake ST for real life…
Sorry guys, but there had to be a way to get Shatner in the film.
-118 Closettreker
You are so right man!!!!!
Well said….
btw – to TM.com the latest EMPIRE magazine has an interview with Abrams and an overview of the Trek films testing out the even = good/odd = bad theory..
The Satner tag at the end of the movie does not have to be completely explained. If that’s the point of the story. Seems likely with Nimoy involved.
But, it looks like this new crew has other plans.
Yeah, I see it.
as much as i admire and respect Mr kurtzman, im not buying the reason Mr shatner is not in this film. A lot of ‘cannon’ is missing or overlooked in Trek anyway. It could and should have been done. I think this is something that will be regretted in years to come.
For the record, im hugely looking forward to this movie, despite being an original series purist.
cheers
Greg
UK
#116—”There are all sorts of things that could happen or not happen once you start messing with a timeline. THAT’s why I think it’s silly to say he can’t be in BECAUSE of canon. And being in the Nexus for all those years circumvents the age problem too. He could still be alive, just old.”
If Orci’s objective was to write a story that involved time travel, but did not preclude the events of the TNG-era from happening (as he has suggested), then I think that ‘canon’ certainly *does* play a part. But you’re right—given the time-travel element, it certainly isn’t “automatic” that canon becomes a constraint. It depends upon the story.
“…how many times can we rely on time travel as a plot device? Too many if you ask me but here we go again.”
I don’t really see this as a problem, and I never understood why some fans have developed an aversion to that device in general, rather than just toward specifically poor usage of it. Time travel has *always* been a fun part of Star Trek storytelling. In many ways, it is as “classic Star Trek” as anything else. I think we can go to that well anytime–so long as the particular story is a “good one”.
#117—”While I don’t think it’s JJ’s job to “fix” Generations…”
It certainly isn’t….it is someone else’s mess—one that has been “moldering” for 15 years.
“… it would have been nice for this beloved character and actor — well, for me, I know the Shat-haters are thrilled he’s NOT in it — to have had a nicer send off.”
I think he did—along with his costars—have a nice sendoff in 1991. IMO, the mistake was bringing him back for Generations. Personally, I didn’t even bother to go and see it. I was almost certain it had to be bad. Years later, I saw it on television, and my suspicions were confirmed.
But think about it—even if GEN had not happened, we would still have the same issue with this film.
Nimoy’s character could have plausible involvement in the story. Shatner’s Kirk would still be dead—by natural causes or otherwise. Either that, or he would make McCoy in “Encounter At Farpoint” look like a man in his prime!
75 – I just don’t buy that. I’d wager a sizeable portion of haddock that this is something driven by business considerations and an inability to come to terms (whether creative or financial) with Mr Shatner rather than the pure theory of ’serving the story’, whatever that’s supposed to actually mean in this context. It might be about his ego or his price tag or his desire for a major slice of the action but the thing about stories that you yourself are writing is that you can change them to accommodate to circumstances. They don’t fall complete from the sky, they’re shaped by your own actions. If you want something to be in a story, you put it in it.
And that’s totally fair, it’s Abrams and K & O’s story and they’ve all earned the right to tell their own stories in their own ways but do we really think that if Shatner had been up for doing one scene, for free, that he wouldn’t have been worked in?
Just to say, as well, I’m totally stoked for the movie and a big fan of JJ and K & O. I think the movie will be terrific; I would just have enjoyed seeing opportunity to include Shatner one more time being grasped, rather than eschewed.
#125 … “But think about it—even if GEN had not happened, we would still have the same issue with this film. Nimoy’s character could have plausible involvement in the story. Shatner’s Kirk would still be dead—by natural causes or otherwise.”
Not so, my logical friend. In that instance the Shat/Nims story could’ve been set 20 years after TUC, and it would’ve worked just fine. I like to think that’s what they would have done if not for Generations…
#119—”who says it’s many years later in the film?”
Even just the last film (NEM) was depicted as being “many years later”, (when compared to the events depicted on Veridian III, and “decades later” when compared to the events aboard the Enterprise-B).
So long as part of the premise is to begin the story *after* Nemesis, there is no getting around the fact that—even in the Star Trek timeline—it is indeed “many years later”.
According to ‘Memory Alpha’, the incident on Veridian III occurred in 2371, and the events depicted in NEM happened 8 years later.
Given that this film’s story begins an additional 8 years after *that*, it has been 16 years (I think that qualifies as “many”) since Kirk’s death.
Before I didnt have a problem with the Shat not being in the movie because I bought their whole bit about continuity and such. But now, with as much as we’ve seen and as much cannon as they’ve thrown out, that argument doesnt seem to hold weight. If they can justify Enterprise being built on Earth and in Iowa, they could have had the Shat in there.
In my opinion… Shat is Kirk, Kirk is trek.. Bill and Gene never saw
eye to eye beause Bill overshadowed him. Galaxy Quest was spot on.
Bill was the show. Not the endearing alien.Don’t get me wrong Spock
was great. In my opinion,for what its worth.. “Kirkner” was the pulse.
For me ST V was great. Some of the most quotable lines came from it.
I belive,the problem with it was its “continuity” due to the insistance of
the powers to be ,for Bill to compromise. His movie would have been better.It has always been that way. leonard is the brains and Bill is …
the foot ,or what ever is left. Ex. ST IV what kind of half-baked plot was
humped-backed whales.. yet he’ the brains. I regress.
#129
But Spock has to travel back in time, and maybe even has to “dive into” a completely different timeline in order to meet Pine’s Jimmy – again, different timelines, only one of them qualifiying as “many years later.”
“I don’t really see this as a problem, and I never understood why some fans have developed an aversion to that device in general, rather than just toward specifically poor usage of it. Time travel has *always* been a fun part of Star Trek storytelling. In many ways, it is as “classic Star Trek” as anything else. I think we can go to that well anytime–so long as the particular story is a “good one”.”
I just think we’ve gone to this well too often. It’s too easy a device. Now, I can be amused with the little jaunts that say DS9 took but that’s all it was — a bit of fluff. How many of the trek movies have used time travel? — a lot!
“IMO, the mistake was bringing him back for Generations. Personally, I didn’t even bother to go and see it. I was almost certain it had to be bad. Years later, I saw it on television, and my suspicions were confirmed.”
I think they intended it much as they are using Nimoy in this one — as a bridge from one to another which is fine. However, the GEN writers just had no affection for the Kirk character and we see what happened. (And let’s face it, TNG was the Trek at that time.) It’s funny, I thought the original death I read in a script — shot in the back — was terrible. Little did I know that their “fix” would be even lamer.
“Nimoy’s character could have plausible involvement in the story. Shatner’s Kirk would still be dead—by natural causes or otherwise. Either that, or he would make McCoy in “Encounter At Farpoint” look like a man in his prime!”
Well, who’s to say when they might have set the new movie without the Gen problem. And it’s sci fi. There are ways around everything. But I agree, I don’t want to see Frankenstein Kirk! McCoy’s Farpoint appearance was downright freaky to me.
#128—”In that instance the Shat/Nims story could’ve been set 20 years after TUC, and it would’ve worked just fine. I like to think that’s what they would have done if not for Generations…”
But even if they had not done Generations, that doesn’t automatically mean that no other TNG movies would have been made, nor does it mean that DS9 and VOY would not have still advanced the timeline.
As long as part of the objective of the story is to begin *after* the “latest” (meaning furthest ahead in the timeline) entry in the Trek mythos, he has still been dead for “many years”.
I’m not saying that a resurrection story wouldn’t be plausible at all (given a good reason that benefits the story)—just that it couldn’t be simply because Spock wants to save his friend. If that were true, why would he not have done so decades before—when he thought his friend died aboard the Enterprise-B?
And it might have been difficult to convince us that Nimoy’s Spock had really only aged 20 years since TUC (given the Vulcan lifespan)—at least now.
galexypest:
Not in the opinion of the audience at that time. The Spock character was far more popular than Shatner’s Kirk. And Roddenberry once had to have a talk with Shatner because his “likeability ratings” were low. As it’s creator, Roddenberry is obviously far more important to Trek in the larger scheme of things. And the popularity of Trek (such as it is) is due to Nimoy, not Shatner.
#132—”But Spock has to travel back in time, and maybe even has to “dive into” a completely different timeline in order to meet Pine’s Jimmy – again, different timelines, only one of them qualifiying as ‘many years later.’ ”
Even if the writers had chosen to tell a story that involved Nimoy’s Spock jumping timelines that would include one far enough ahead that Shatner would be physically credible to portray Kirk, that still does not answer the question as to why Spock would suddenly “save” his friend for the sake of friendship, when he has not done so to this point in the timeline with which we are all so familiar.
Preventing his death would still seem to necessitate being either incidental, or beneficial to his particular cause (suggesting that “preserving” a timeline would have ceased to be a concern by that point) in order to make any sense—given the fact that he has not chosen to do so in 16 years of time passed within the Star Trek timeline he lives in.
Ok, look guys. First of all, even if Shatner could have been worked in the story, it would have seemed forced. Seriously, it would just be stupid and destracting. Secondly, no offense to him, but he’s gained a few pounds over the years. If any average moviegoer were to see that Pine were suppose to look like that in the future, they would laugh. Sorry, but as much as you want him in and think he could be, its just a fanboy’s dream. Let it go.
135 Spock is a showier, edgier part than Kirk. Nimoy is brilliant in it, but it’s much easier to *see*, to instinctively grasp, just how good he is. Shatner deserves far more credit than he gets for finding the exact line between parody and integrity and walking it like a tightrope walker over Niagra. You only need to see Hunter’s spikey and strait-laced Pike (a character who, on the page, is no different to Kirk) to see how much Shatner brought to that part. There’s a reason Kirk is an icon and that reason is William Shatner’s performance. He makes it look easy. It ain’t.
Well, since no one else has commented on this —
I will be waiting with bated breath to see how McCoy completes the line, “I’m a doctor, not a….” :-)
Will we also hear “He’s dead, Jim”?
Carol Marcus’ absence explained: as a result of Nero’s tampering with Kirk’s past, rebel Kirk does not enlist in Starfleet Academy as early as he did in the original timeline and so misses meeting Carol. This could also explain why Kirk graduates (?) with Chekov, Sulu and Uhura rather than before them. I am even inclined to believe that the shipboard events in the movie (i.e. Pike in command of the E with Chekov, Sulu and Uhura on board) take place before the year in which Pike relinquished command of the E to Kirk (in the original timeline). It could be that Pike rotated his crew after “The Cage” and so Kirk inherited these officers; according to Memory Alpha, the events of “The Cage” took place around the time that Kirk graduated from Starfleet Academy, well before the other bridge officers graduated, and twelve years before the beginning of the five-year mission. Plenty of time for crew changes – so that could happen/have happened in the alternate timeline as well.
Possible? Just trying to make sense of it all and help this movie “fit.” Which we really won’t be able to do until we have seen the movie and understand the timeframe that it covers.
#133—”Well, who’s to say when they might have set the new movie without the Gen problem. ”
Even if, in the absence of Generations, there had been no other TNG films made—there is still DS9 and VOY advancing the timeline to pretty much the same era. Shatner’s Kirk would still be significantly older than McCoy was in “Farpoint”, given the part of the writers’ objective that requires the story to begin after the ‘latest’ (most advanced in the timeline) entry into Star Trek canon.
#135 … “And Roddenberry once had to have a talk with Shatner because his ‘likeability ratings’ were low. And the popularity of Trek (such as it is) is due to Nimoy, not Shatner.”
I don’t think so. The story that has been recounted time and again (Shatner even tells it) is that Shat complained to Roddenberry because he felt the writers were favoring Spock early on. Shatner’s Kirk was never considered “unlikable.” Please. If anything, the franchise has been trying desperately to find someone as charismatic and likeable since.
As far as Spock being a more popular character than Kirk…that may have been true in the 60’s (don’t know, wasn’t born yet). But as the years passed, and Shat’s popularity & legend as an actor grew, his Kirk became more and more iconic. When TV Guide recently ranked “The 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time,” Kirk ranked much higher than Spock.
It’s weird that there’s never been action figures of Carol or David Marcus. At this point, given that both performers of those roles have passed, you’d think Playmates or DST would have produced something.
This discussion is giving me a headache. Imagine the mess in the eyes of the casual audience. A fresh new beginning is what Paramount wants for Trek, and all the stunts to resurrect Kirk go in the opposite direction. In my opinion, the writers are right: what is done is done. This movie has to tell the beginning of Star Trek, not the resurrection of Kirk.
#141 … “the part of the writers’ objective that requires the story to begin after the ‘latest’ (most advanced in the timeline) entry into Star Trek canon.”
What? Who cares about that, Closet? If GEN hadn’t happened, they could’ve set the Shat scenes 20 years after TUC, as I said. Why this “requirement” to go beyond the 24th century? Where are you getting that?
#133—”How many of the trek movies have used time travel? — a lot!”
Including this one—I count 3 out of 11. A lot? That’s about–what, 27%?
TVH, FC, and ST09.
TVH was the second-most successul of the original films (next to TMP), and FC was by far the most successful of the TNG-era films. That’s a pretty good track record!
This film needs Nimoy. The Shat, not so much. Nimoy is the perfect choice to lend it credibility and continuity, IMO.
#136
.. – that still does not answer the question as to why Spock would suddenly “save” his friend for the sake of friendship, when he has not done so to this point in the timeline with which we are all so familiar. -
Even if what you say holds true for the film which aims at an audience that surely is not so familiar with the already established timelines, I don’t think this to be a hinderance – anyway, if that’s the main “problem” you have, I for one would have loved to be presented with a creative reason for Spock’s “belated” recovery mission in Abrams’ film.
#138
- There’s a reason Kirk is an icon and that reason is William Shatner’s performance. He makes it look easy. It ain’t. -
Yep.
##132, 135
Let me add that that Roddenberry himself wasn’t happy about Spock being more famous than Kirk in the beginning, and therefore he consulted writers such as Isaac Asimov how to make Kirk more accepted by the audience. There’s an interesting correspondence which you may read in “Gene Roddenberry Creator”. Asimov advised Roddenberry to portray Kirk and Spock more as a team, to emphasize their importance for each other, and to let them help each other, so save each other – that would increase the audience’s identification with Kirk. It obviously worked as Captain Kirk nowadays is as much a cultural icon as Spock is, as ShatnerFan already pointed out.
#145—”What? Who cares about that, Closet? If GEN hadn’t happened, they could’ve set the Shat scenes 20 years after TUC, as I said. Why this “requirement” to go beyond the 24th century? Where are you getting that?”
The writers themselves made that part of the premise for writing a story for this film. They said that from the beginning.
And, once again—Generations alone isn’t responsible for advancing the timeline this far. What about DS9? VOY? And who is to say that not doing GEN meant that no other TNG films would have been made?
Look—you know me—I would have been happier if they hadn’t gone to the 24th Century in the first place! But they did, and the writers (especially Orci) are big fans of “that Trek”. It shouldn’t be at all surprising that they would want to tie it together.
whew, so if Nimoy’s in Transformers 2 does that mean he is telling us he believes in it and that it’s NOT a steaming load of unwatchable garbage like the first one? … like with his being in Star Trek? Hmm.
Simple, Shatner could have been in a flashback, a dream, there are many ways to get him in without reviving him. A little alone time with Spock, he pops in there, then we see it again when he talks to the young Kirk. No problem.
Shat is the only Kirk, no way can anyone touch what he did on TOS… but, I agree with Mr. Orci on this…
Given that the WHOLE PREMISE of this movie is ALTERATIONS TO THE TIMELINE, it’s baloney to say that Shatner can not be in it because of GENERATIONS. I can think of a dozen ways to bring him in as a result of changes made to the timeline by Nero.
That aside, it’s not a deal breaker for me: I’ll go in with an open mind and hope I like what they’ve made. At least I’ll get to see Nimoy as Spock one last time.
#145—”What? Who cares about that, Closet? If GEN hadn’t happened, they could’ve set the Shat scenes 20 years after TUC, as I said.”
For that matter, they could have—as I have always maintained—written a relevant scene depicting a flashback (from the perspective of Nimoy’s Spock) to a conversation between Spock and Kirk that had some bearing on the matter at hand. This could have been done with or without GEN. The conversation in question need only be set before the events depicted aboard the Enterprise-B.
The trick is just to prevent it from seeming “forced” or unnecessary. But if it doesn’t help the writers tell the best story possible (and only they know what that is)—it doesn’t belong in the film.
Initially, I thought you meant set an entire movie 20 years after TUC. Sorry.
#152—”Given that the WHOLE PREMISE of this movie is ALTERATIONS TO THE TIMELINE, it’s baloney to say that Shatner can not be in it because of GENERATIONS. I can think of a dozen ways to bring him in as a result of changes made to the timeline by Nero.”
That’s not really the problem. The problem is making any scenes with Shatner’s Kirk beneficial to the story. Period.
Even if the timeline changes make Kirk’s death null and void, you have to have a reason to depict him alive—-and one that is necessary to the story.
damn…no carol marcus? >:( britney spears couldve played her (i know, y britney? well i had an idea of how they could’a worked her in using britney as her in a way thats relevant to the story…in the bar scene kirk meets carol while shes karaoke-singing britneys single ‘womanizer’ –listen to the song; its like it was made to describe kirk–…later on he seduces her into helping him reprogram the kobayashi maru simulator and amidst the seduction, david is concieved and carol is expelled from the academy…)… it wouldve worked, heightened the movies profile even more, and only added 8-10 minutes, key minutes, to the film…
#153 … What I meant is that if Kirk hadn’t died in GEN, they could’ve easily gone the same basic story they’re using now, only it would be Spock AND Kirk going back in time to their own younger days. Old Kirk & Spock could’ve departed on their journey from 2313 (20 years after TUC, if I’m not mistaken) or thereabouts. That would’ve been perfect.
But I also believe that what #152 says is true: “Given that the WHOLE PREMISE of this movie is ALTERATIONS TO THE TIMELINE, it’s baloney to say that Shatner can not be in it because of GENERATIONS.”
As far as the writers needing to begin the story beyond the last known point in the timeline, I just don’t see why. It sounds like almost none of the 24th century stuff will be appearing onscreen. A catalyst other than the destruction of Romulus (which obviously still exists in the TNG era) could easily have been found.
#151—”Shat is the only Kirk”
Not anymore.
“…no way can anyone touch what he did on TOS…”
Agreed.
My problem with him is that I think he is long since being able to take the character seriously.
I didn’t like his later performances.
TOS-TVH= Shatner as Kirk=great
TFF-GEN=Kirk as Shatner=not so great.
I think that the slliness in TVH played well. The problem for me is that it didn’t work so well for me after that.
Bill doesn’t care if he is the butt of a joke, and frankly, that’s one of his more endearing qualities sometimes. But perhaps Abrams didn’t want a Shatner scene (or worse–a resurrection) incurring that kind of audience reaction. That’s speculation, of course—but definitely something that would worry me, I must admit.
Is it me, or does it seem like the same fans who shout canon violations also want SHAT in the film. Which would clearly be a canon violation or a stretch at best.
Some people just resist change of any kind. Max Planck called this Ideallogical Immunity…the only cure is death.
#119
But real life *does* factor in. The actors age, regardless of the unreality of their character counterparts. They look considerably older than they did 20 years ago.
#133
To the best of my knowledge, only Star Trek IV and First Contact used time travel as a plot device. Unless I’m missing something…? That’s 2 movies out of 10. Not that frequent, IMO.
Also, Ron Moore did not hate or lack respect for the Kirk character. In fact, he’s said time and time again he was truly daunted by the task. It was Rick Berman and William Shatner that decided to kill the character. And he has since made it very clear that he regrets the way it was handled.
#145
If we assume Generations never happened, TUC was till the swan song. It was clearly intended as the final TOS movie, period. I find it highly unlikely that the studio would make another movie with the TOS actors 20 years later. So it’s really a moot point. In terms of current continuity, we know Kirk isn’t there post-TUC. Even if he was (Generations is erased), and they set a movie in the post-TUC time period (where Kirk would be retired, by the by), you have to explain why Spock looks older than he does 80 years later in TNG. There are a lot more problems with bringing him back than some are letting on.
#159… See my post #156 … I wasn’t suggeting an entire movie with the original TOS cast. Only saying that if Kirk hadn’t died, The Shat/Nims scenes (or their point of origin in a time travel story similar to the one they’re telling) could’ve been set 20 years after TUC.
If you think this movie is about Spock saving the E or Kirk ,for
that matter,i think you”ll be dissapointed,From what I have seen
he is trying to save Vulcan.You know,”The Needs Of the one”
In TWK he wasn’t trying to save Jim or the E, he was saving
Saavik. And in UC he was all about Valeris.Just watch, he’ll be
chasing some young Vulkan skirt in this one….When is the Iawa
permier????Us farm boys need some love.
#46 – awsome idea, and it wouldn’t need to take up much screen time at all…. just a BRIEF scene after the credits of Spock and Kirk together, Kirk still holding the warning note, albiet yellowed with age. Everyone’s happy, it fits in with canon, and both old fans and new come out feeling satisfied and on an emotional high. The galaxy’s greatest hero doesn’t die falling off a freakin bridge lol!
P.S. this isn’t just an old fan hoping for something that won’t happen, it really makes sense to bring Kirk back. New fans drawn on by this new film are most likely going to want to follow the adventures of the original james kirk after this, only to see him fall off a bridge. This added coda to the end of the new film would go a long way to rectifiying that…. ahhh dream on right :)
#154 “That’s not really the problem. The problem is making any scenes with Shatner’s Kirk beneficial to the story. Period.”
Very well said Closetrekker.
Orci and Kurtzman want it to be beneficial, and Shatner not want to do JUST a cameo. End of story, whatever they say or think afterwards.
#158 “Is it me, or does it seem like the same fans who shout canon violations also want SHAT in the film. Which would clearly be a canon violation or a stretch at best.”
Is it me, or does it seem like the same fans who shout “death to the canonistas” also are the ones going mad “what a great movie” whenever there is something canon.
I sure like the comments people are giving here, for or against the movie, just by looking at a few scenes from the trailer, and some hints given from the writers or the comic. Nice to read all of this while waiting :)
Ofcourse the best part would be if, the ones who love the movie allready by seeing a few clips, come out of the theatre, disapointed, and the “naysayers”, come out “damn, that was a good movie”.
#160
Same problem, though. Nimoy has already been shown 100 years later looking 20 years younger. Like I said earlier, it would come off like that horrible finale to Enterprise, where we’re supposed to buy that the Riker being shown was the same one from Season 6. Not so much. Additionally, we’d have to assume Spock Prime’s origin point was still the TNG timeframe, which would present similar age issues. Unless you’d start him off at the post-TUC timeframe, which gets even messier.
#154 “That’s not really the problem. The problem is making any scenes with Shatner’s Kirk beneficial to the story. Period.”
This is, of course, highly subjective. If having Shatner in the movie were a high enough priority, it could have been done in a way that ‘benefits’ the film.
The Generations argument doesn’t hold water from the film makers. Given the supposed timeline craziness this film is rumored to have. Shatner could easily have been incorporated. They admitted they wrote a way, but didn’t use it because it was too campy, fanboy, what? Give me a break. Grow some balls guys.
As for Transformers, I couldn’t care less. Watched the first one on a bootleg once, broke the CD-R into pieces after it was over, and will never watch another Michael Bay movie again.
#167
I guess it comes down to *why* should he have been a high priority? Shouldn’t the story be the high priority? They’d already written a Spock-centric tale and Kirk was dead. Writing a story just to reanimate Kirk so Bill Shatner can be in one last movie sounds like a very bad starting point, IMO.
Of course, this all ignores the fact that William Shatner emphatically stated ‘I don’t do cameos’. Do we expect these men to be magicians?
(off topic)
does anyone know if the new trailer is on the quantum of solace dvd?
We back to this again?
IF the story doesn’t need a actor, why put him/her/it in?
The answer is….you don’t. This is a Star Trek movie, with a (hopefully) good Star Trek story…. not a vehicle to get William Shatner on the screen again.
By the way TNG is done. But if they somehow wanted to make more TNG, Brent Spiner’s aging problem is easily solved.
The B4 prototype, which is now Data’s body, was designed to age.
You know, Kirk should have just vanished in Generations.
He leaves the Nexus with Picard, fight Soran, and then Picard looks at the landscape, talking about something, and when he turns back, he recognizes that Kirk is gone and that he’s alone again on the mountain top.
And the rest would have been free for interpretations. NEVER kill off the hero.
#133, #146
I’m not much of a STAR WARS fan, but I do have to compliment George Lucas for making six movies and avoiding that overused, tired, contrived, and lazy time travel crutch. Proves it is possible to make movies that make a lot of money without going down that well-thread road. Hopefully, future TREK films will be a little more imaginative and make the effort to avoid it as well.
Using Shatner would be distracting from the plot. Plus, fans are the only ones who give a damn anyway. Thirdly, he doesn’t look like his young self. If he were in it, it would only be for a minute or two and the average Joe would be so lost he wouldn’t know what was going on. This movie was NOT made SOLELY for the fans, guys. It was made for EVERYONE to enjoy. Shatner/Kirk died. He wasn’t in First Contact, he wasn’t in Insurrection, and he wasn’t in Nemesis. So why is it such a problem that he isn’t in this new movie? They included Nimoy. Was that not enough?
i believe two things
1. from what I understand of the film, a shatner scene would have felt ‘tacked on’ and possibly ’shoved in’ and would by no means have been vital to the story (like Nimoy)
2. the whole Shatner debate was handled poorly by all parties
“Including this one—I count 3 out of 11. A lot? That’s about–what, 27%?”
Given all the stories that can be told and plot devices used, 25% is a lot, yes. Oh sure it can be fun, I’ve said that, but I also think it’s an easy out. And overly used in sci fi in general perhaps.
“Is it me, or does it seem like the same fans who shout canon violations also want SHAT in the film. Which would clearly be a canon violation or a stretch at best.”
Actually I was noticing that the very same fans who mock and scream at the so-called canonistas to get a life or go away, not to take it all so seriously, then turn around and say Shatner couldn’t possibly be in the film BECAUSE HE DIED IN GENERATIONS AND IT’S CANON. Hmm….
“We back to this again?….This is a Star Trek movie…not a vehicle to get William Shatner on the screen again.”
Well I could respond in kind in….back to this misrepresentation of what some of us are saying? Who’s arguing for a William Shatner “vehicle”? We are simply saying gosh, it would have been nice for him to be in it. We’re sad he’s not. And for some of us, Shatner **is** considered Star Trek. Not the end all, be all, but an intrinsic part. Everyone’s mileage varies.
“2. the whole Shatner debate was handled poorly by all parties”
Yes and I think it’s what has made it linger as a controversy for so long.
174 Joe — “You know, Kirk should have just vanished in Generations. He leaves the Nexus with Picard, fight Soran, and then Picard looks at the landscape, talking about something, and when he turns back, he recognizes that Kirk is gone and that he’s alone again on the mountain top. And the rest would have been free for interpretations. NEVER kill off the hero.”
That would have been magnificent. Killing Kirk off, particularly in the way they did it, was stupid beyond belief.
But in the end, the argument that “Kirk dies on film” is rock-solid (pun not intended!). There are, clearly, ways to resurrect Kirk, but all of the ones I’ve read about on TrekMovie by posters, without exception, qualify as “cheap”, to use the word that Kurtzman & Orci use. What really makes this production stand out is the impetus to freshness — and any screen time dedicated to resurrecting Kirk from the Nexus is as fresh as vintage leather.
The whole Shatner debate is so tired, that it itself needs to be blasted of in a rocket and thrown into the Nexus….
I understand why they left out Shatner in this movie. Continuity for one thing, and yes it would seem a little on the cheap side. Like having C3P-0 and R2-D2 in the prequels for the sake that they were “needed”.
I believe that a shatner scene should be involved… in the very end. If the scene of a planet that was blown up was “Vulcan,” then why not add it, that in the alternate timeline, Kirk did not die. If Vulcan was destroyed, then a lot of Vulcans could have died that would affect the timeline as such.
SIMPLE FACT: WILLIAM SHATNER…too old and too fat to still play Kirk. End of story.
Wait a second! Even discussing Nimoy voicing Galvatron kinda confirms that Galvatron appears, doesn’t it?
174. Joe
That actually would have been pretty good. At least, it would have been better than what they did use.
Perhaps writing in Shatner as a high-ranking Admiral in Starfleet as another character would be better? There are more than one way to skin a cat. If this movie does indeed make it into a series in one form or another, the suggestion would work for both teams.
Why can’t we be pragmatists and compromise? Then we could have the best of both worlds. Give this movie a chance…it sincerely adds more to the franchise by its addition and flavor.
At the end of the film, old Kirk and old Spock are on a balcony drinking whiskey and smoking cigars, and old Kirk thanks him for warning him not to go to the Enterprise B launch.
End of movie.
re 186
That small scene would make a great movie even better.
Just as the Shatner debate goes quiet up they pop to explain how little imagination they have as regards putting him in the movie. We’ve well and truly got it, Bob and Alex- you don’t have the imagination! We understand! Absolutely and completely.
186. Spock
That should remain implied for all real Trek fans.
No reason to cloud up this possible blockbuster with leftover baggage from the miserable mistake that was ST Generations.
My vote is to put Shatner in the new movie (i still tink he’ll be there by movies end) and leave out any references to the death that should never have happened.
IF the Shat. does not appear, then perhaps that’s all for the better.
“177. Anthony Pascale – March 25, 2009 2. the whole Shatner debate was handled poorly by all parties’
Actually for me, my annoyance over this Shatner issue is laid right at the feet of Abrams’ team. Bill always maintained he WAS NOT in the movie, yet right here on this site Bob would come on and say things that made people think….well maybe he WAS in the movie. As a Shatner fan, this getting our hopes up, only to have them dashed time and again, really didn’t sit well with me. This approach by Abrams and his team, left me feeling some what used and abused, and did not exactly endear this movie, or it’s creative team, to me. For the love of Pete, THEY knew he wasn’t in it. Just agree with Bill and say so. Don’t prolong the debate needlessly.
“177.- March 25, 2009 2. the whole Shatner debate was handled poorly by all parties’
Actually for me, my annoyance over this Shatner issue is laid right at the feet of Abrams’ team. Bill always maintained he WAS NOT in the movie, yet right here on this site Bob would come on and say things that made people think….well maybe he WAS in the movie. As a Shatner fan, this getting our hopes up, only to have them dashed time and again, really didn’t sit well with me. This approach by Abrams and his team, left me feeling some what used and abused, and did not exactly endear this movie, or it’s creative team, to me. For the love of Pete, THEY knew he wasn’t in it. Just agree with Bill and say so. Don’t prolong the debate needlessly
BOB ORCI, ALEX KURTZMAN, please talk to me!
Why does it have to be a TOS movie? A prequel that splits the fanbase by default because it changes and redesigns and reboots everything?
Couldn’t you have told the same story in the TNG timeline? With a new crew? A new ship?
You are marketing this as a movie for a whole new generation of fans, so who in that whole new generation cares, as long as the movie is good?
The old generation of fans does care, well at least half of it. Why couldn’t you simply leave TOS where it is? It was over. It had a wonderful ending with The Undiscovered Country, and the story was told and finished.
Never fix something that ain’t broken.
The Next Generation was broken. The Original Series wasn’t.
You know, Deforest Kelley’s memorable turn as McCoy in TNG’s pilot certainly didn’t throw the whole “focus” of a new crew off track. In fact, it didn’t hurt the story of Encounter at Farpoint in any way…nor did it serve it. The idea that “shoe horning” Shatner into this film would have damaged it in any way is ridiculous. A tribute and tip of the hat is just that, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
“The idea that “shoe horning” Shatner into this film would have damaged it in any way is ridiculous. A tribute and tip of the hat is just that, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.”
Yes, and I also think it’s interesting that people here repeatedly tell anyone who has reservations (be they great or small), that we should wait to see the movie and then judge. OK, that’s fair, but following that logic, then how does anyone know that any scene with Shatner would have to be shoehorned in? Not fit? Ruin the film? and on and on? You can’t know. You don’t know. Not until we see the film. Then perhaps we might agree that the scene written didn’t work (to whatever degree); maybe fans can come up with an idea that would have worked. I look forward to the discussion.
#192 “You know, Deforest Kelley’s memorable turn as McCoy in TNG’s pilot certainly didn’t throw the whole “focus” of a new crew off track. In fact, it didn’t hurt the story of Encounter at Farpoint in any way”
In this case the problem is with Shatner: he doesn’t want that kind of cameo.
Guys, I hope we´ll have sequels, so a Shatner cameo, or even a meaningful part is still possible. If the writers can come up with something logical, exciting, and well-written, I´m sure everybody will enjoy. Shatner, fans, non-fans, everybody. The important thing is: “THE CLASSIC STAR TREK IS BACK!!! HURRAH!!!!
It occured to me yesterday while watching Nemesis on AMC (dont get me started on what they consider Classic). That the movie was really about Nature vs Nuture. Shinzon was a clone of Picard and the question becomes if someone is identical and lives a different life will things change. The answer was of course Nurture in that movie. The new movie I feel asks the same question with a different answer. Kirk’s father will die and his Nuture will be different, yet his Nature will in the end make him the same man we knew by the end of the movie. Any comments about this are appreciated and I will be pasting this to other threads that maybe are more open to delving into this subject.
Ps. I have already bet the Duke brothers $1.00 as to my views lol.
#168—”This is, of course, highly subjective. If having Shatner in the movie were a high enough priority, it could have been done in a way that ‘benefits’ the film.”
Then what you’re suggesting is that a story should have been written to accomodate Shatner—as opposed to requiring a Shatner scene to be beneficial to the story that the writers wished to tell.
#178—”Actually I was noticing that the very same fans who mock and scream at the so-called canonistas to get a life or go away, not to take it all so seriously, then turn around and say Shatner couldn’t possibly be in the film BECAUSE HE DIED IN GENERATIONS AND IT’S CANON.”
And yet still, some of us who *are* canonistas argue that—while it was certainly possible for Shatner to be in the film—it might not be the best thing for the film.
There is no question that, given the element of time-travel, the death of Shatner’s Kirk could be avoided in an alternate timeline story.
But then the “Generations” time period (either around the time of the incident aboard the Enterprise-B or sometime afterward when it is plausible for Kirk to remain alive) must be depicted as a relevant part of the film’s storyline, and in order for such a scene to benefit the story, the character really has to contribute something toward resolving the conflict within the story.
And even then, if what Shatner’s Kirk contributes to the story is marginal or even anything less than critical to the resolution of the conflict, you run the risk of it being seen as “shoehorned” or just an “add on” type scene that was really unnecessary—not to mention the whole thing being the butt of so many jokes.
IMO—resurrection should be out of the question. If he participated at all, it should have been in a flashback-cameo scene, in which a conversation between he and Spock might have remainded Spock of something he could bring to the “conflict resolution”. Such a scene could have been quite warm, emotional, and relevant without taking the story in the direction of a convoluted and unnecessary subplot.
Now, of course, this is assuming that there is a place in the story for such a thing—and there may not even be such a place. But I would never, if I had any say whatsoever (which I of course do not), under any circumstances, place Shatner in the movie above the good of the story.
Orci and Kurtzman would do well not to associate themselves too closely with Michael Bay.
Bay-style films do have their place (strictly mindless ‘popcorn films’ — not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that), but I think K&O would be in danger of becoming synonomous with “big, loud, over-the-top” action films if they keep making films with Bay.
162. galexypest – March 25, 2009
“When is the Iawa permier????Us farm boys need some love”
If you are from Iowa and talk this way, one of us needs to move. I think you’ll enjoy Missouri. Take a left at the outhouse and keep walking south until you hear “y’all” at least three times.
Enjoy the trip… don’t write.
#193—”You know, Deforest Kelley’s memorable turn as McCoy in TNG’s pilot certainly didn’t throw the whole “focus” of a new crew off track. In fact, it didn’t hurt the story of Encounter at Farpoint in any way…nor did it serve it. The idea that “shoe horning” Shatner into this film would have damaged it in any way is ridiculous. A tribute and tip of the hat is just that, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.”
The difference is that the story in “Encounter At Farpoint” did not have to be taken in another direction in order to accomodate a DeForest Kelley scene. There was nothing to explain about how it would be possible for the character to be there at all. It certainly did not require a subplot in which the story would need to move into a completely different timeframe in order to depict the character at an age where the actor could viably portray him, or worse—nullify his death in the process!
It was– as you said– a mere “tip of the hat”.
As far as we know, ST09’s story involves two basic time periods—the post-Nemesis unaltered timeline in which the story begins; and various points in the altered timeline prior to the five year mission in which the rest of the story takes place.
Obviously, in order to accomodate a Shatner scene (or scenes) that is anything but a “flashback”-type thing told from the point of view of a time-traveller, you would have to compromise the story by basically telling another one altogether.
This was certainly *not* the case with Kelley in “Encounter At Farpoint”.
#194—”…people here repeatedly tell anyone who has reservations (be they great or small), that we should wait to see the movie and then judge. OK, that’s fair, but following that logic, then how does anyone know that any scene with Shatner would have to be shoehorned in? Not fit? Ruin the film? and on and on? You can’t know. You don’t know. Not until we see the film. ”
If all things were equal—that would certainly be true. However, we do have the statements of those creatively responsible for the film suggesting that it wouldn’t fit, therefore, all things are *not* equal. Given the fact that it is *their* story, I fail to see the reasoning behind assuming that they are not the ones *most* qualified to make that judgement.
Adding this to the fact that from what we *do* know and by all accounts of anyone and everyone with any inside information about the plot of the film, the story–at no point–takes place in any time period where Shatner could plausibly portray James T. Kirk, it makes the suggestion that a Shatner scene (beyond some sort of flashback) would not fit all the more realistic, IMO.
Coversely, whereas there is plenty above to suggest that it might not fit, there is absolutely nothing which suggests that it might—beyond the writers’ own admitted fanboyish inclinations to try.
With that said, I submit that tendancies to believe that it would or would not work (even without any of us having seen the film) are not exactly standing upon equal ground—even if neither point of view is *completely* informed at this point.
#193:
Wouldn’t your “Farpoint-style” tip-of-the-hat only be a cameo? — and Shatner publically stated that he was NOT interested in doing a cameo.
“IMO—resurrection should be out of the question.”
I totally agree. Spock was resurrected. That’s enough from that particular well.
” If he participated at all, it should have been in a flashback-cameo scene, in which a conversation between he and Spock might have remainded Spock of something he could bring to the “conflict resolution”. Such a scene could have been quite warm, emotional, and relevant without taking the story in the direction of a convoluted and unnecessary subplot.”
Flashback good, yes. I’m all for warm and emotional! I’m also for alternate timeline….i.e, events in this movie change Kirk’s fate cause let’s face it…..Generations just sucked. (and while they are at it, let’s somehow make STV disappear. You know I’m kidding…sorta.)
#205—”…and while they are at it, let’s somehow make STV disappear. You know I’m kidding…sorta”
I would donate at least a week’s income to Orci’s favorite charity if he would have Spock, once again posing as Cousin Selek, sneak into the crib room of baby Sybok and smother him with a pillow as justice for that abomination!!!
:)
I don’t want my pain taken away, I need my pain.
#207—I think I can say with certainty that I am *not* a better man for having sat through STV!
You can have “my pain” too, if you want it.
#192.
BOB ORCI, ALEX KURTZMAN, please talk to me!
Why does it have to be a TOS movie? A prequel that splits the fanbase by default because it changes and redesigns and reboots everything?
Couldn’t you have told the same story in the TNG timeline? With a new crew? A new ship?
You are marketing this as a movie for a whole new generation of fans, so who in that whole new generation cares, as long as the movie is good?
The old generation of fans does care, well at least half of it. Why couldn’t you simply leave TOS where it is? It was over. It had a wonderful ending with The Undiscovered Country, and the story was told and finished.
Never fix something that ain’t broken.
The Next Generation was broken. The Original Series wasn’t.
But TNG fans got seven seasons of episodes, and an additional four movies; plus there were two more series in that timeframe, each going seven years. TOS got cancelled after three seasons on television, and though it was good to see them in the six movies, the cast was older and couldn’t do the kind of high-octane thinking-man, action/adventure the TV series showed they were capable of. I liked TNG and loved DS9, but neither series crossed over into legend, like TOS did. Since sci-fi movies are highly expensive ventures and a hugh gamble, studios have to minimize that gamble and go with less riskier subject matter. TOS simply fits the bill more so than TNG and is the best TREK can offer at this time. I do have reservations this TOS movie will make much of a profit, though I do think it will do okay.
“However, we do have the statements of those creatively responsible for the film suggesting that it wouldn’t fit, therefore, all things are *not* equal. Given the fact that it is *their* story, I fail to see the reasoning behind assuming that they are not the ones *most* qualified to make that judgement.”
Why does JJ get this free pass? Just because it’s “their” movie won’t make all their choices good. STV, Generations and Nemesis were the apple in someone’s eye at one time too and I think you and I are on the same page about how those turned out for the most part. ;) Even in the films I loved, I can find creative decisions which I thought were bad choices — we’ve talked about a lot of them over the months. I have absolutely nothing against JJ & Co, but I’ve got to see the film first and can’t grant automatic immunity.
“With that said, I submit that tendancies to believe that it would or would not work (even without any of us having seen the film) are not exactly standing upon equal ground—even if neither point of view is *completely* informed at this point.”
My field is level. I can see variables that would make it work, not work, or actually not matter but I won’t really know until I see the film. It’s like a lot of the outtakes we end up seeing from movies (not just Trek)…..they can be nice but in or out doesn’t really change much, neither hurts nor helps. Now certainly some scenes do not work and are rightly left out. It will just be fun to read the Orci scene. Heck, any deleted stuff for me. I love that.
Orci & Co wrote a scene which I doubt they would have presented to JJ if tney thought it sucked; JJ however didn’t think it worked. OK. Well, I can’t wait to see who I think was actually right! ;)
#206 — Funny!! I’ll chip in too. Who do we see? Maybe the Make a Wish foundation can help us out? We should have a contest to name the Top 5 WORST ideas from the Trek movies. Sybok has to be up there.
#211—”I’ll chip in too. Who do we see? Maybe the Make a Wish foundation can help us out? ”
Lol!
I *wish* it were that easy.
#210—”Orci & Co wrote a scene which I doubt they would have presented to JJ if tney thought it sucked; JJ however didn’t think it worked. OK. Well, I can’t wait to see who I think was actually right! ;)”
According to Orci, they thought the scene was great, but he does suggest that it didn’t fit—
“I think it would have felt a little bit cheap, is what we all decided. And, you know, we really struggled with it, because we wrote a scene that we really loved, and, ultimately, I think it might have felt like an add-on, you know?”–Roberto Orci.
“Just because it’s “their” movie won’t make all their choices good.”
Certainly not, but the fact that those in creative charge of the film now seem to be in agreement that it wouldn’t work doesn’t exactly bode well for the possibility that it would. And that is only part of the reasoning behind the tendancy to believe that it wouldn’t.
From what we *do* know of the film’s storyline, none of it takes place within a time period that Shatner could plausibly appear as JTK.
The character would be too old to appear in the post-Nemesis era in the story’s beginning, and the actor would be too old to appear (as Kirk) in the various time periods depicted prior to the five year mission.
Given the fact that the new cast is signed on for three films, and Paramount seems set on a sequel with that cast (and the apparent conclusion to “Countdown” suggesting that Spock’s ship isn’t really a “timeship” after all and that both he and Nero find themselves back in time by accident), it is unlikely that the story returns to the 24th Century in the end—IMO.
And even if it did, and somehow Kirk never boarded the Enterprise-B, he would be about 18 years older than McCoy was in “Farpoint”.
If he *did* still enter the “Nexus” (which is right up there with “Sybok”, IMO), and somehow only his death on Veridian III was prevented—-he would certainly be at a more realistic physical age post-Nemesis, but I would want some explanation. What, in the timeline changes, prevents him from falling off that bridge—yet not his being there in the first place?
How do you prevent his death from happening, and manage to communicate that to the audience within the story (which doesn’t cover a time period where Shatner can play Kirk) in order to get him a scene—and assure that it will not only avoid being out of place, but not come off as even more lame than his death in Generations?
But the prospect of finding out exactly what the scene that O/K wrote was is indeed intriguing.
JJ says it was a “flashback-type scene”, but Orci says “not really”.
So what the hell was it?
“…but not come off as even more lame than his death in Generations?”
This really made me smile Closet. Could anyone even come up with a lamer death if they tried? I mean, without permanent brain damage?
“JJ says it was a “flashback-type scene”, but Orci says “not really”. So what the hell was it?”
Yes. Curious and curiouser and does make one itching to read it. And see, this is exactly why I am firmly planted on the fence about the scene — they can’t even agree on its nature in the first place so I can’t just accept their judgment that it didn’t work.
Hell, is it May yet? I’m so done with the waiting. ;)
Honestly, Data’s death was lamer than Kirk’s. Nemesis was ghastly, I can’t even think about it now. If nothing more, at least with this film, if there’s never another film, Nemesis will not be the last Star Trek film ever made. Personally, I think the TOS cast should have been left out of this film entirely. Unless you gave the effort to include the living actors, it’s not fair nor right to have just Nimoy. These characters were always about being a team, not individuals. I have a very lousy feeling about how everything went down, and frankly, if Orci were not so open and accessible to fans, something he’s done before on films, it would be a lot worse.
#209 – Because a cadet to Captian/Chief Medical/Chief Engineer and so on story set on any ship in any time because the previous fellow dies is massively stupid. So naturally that means erase TOS and at least get icons to be the cadets.
———————————————————————
What’s In: The popculture caricatures.
What didn’t make it in:
Any reference to any of the character’s histories.
For example I was watching “the Apple” recently and a very frustrated Kirk was lamenting how the dead redshirts father helped him get into the academy. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Mallory
Also recently I noticed in TNG: RELICS how Scotty mentioned he had served on ELEVEN ships but he only misses the Enterprise.
96 Thank you ;-)
#216—Why *should* any reference to the characters’ previous backstories be made, if those very backstories become altered due to a timeline incursion?
The attack upon the USS Kelvin in 2233 (and subsequent incursions by the Narada) is most likely a catalyst for changes (or “ripples”) in the timeline.
Think of relatively recent examples of such turning points in Western history, like the attack upon Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 or the attack upon the Eastern Coast of the United States in September of 2001.
How many young men and women had their lives and paths dramatically altered after Pearl Harbor, and how many people’s lives and perspectives were changed in similar fashion after the 9/11 attacks?
The single most important difference of course (beyond the fact that this is fiction), is that the attack upon the Kelvin in 2233 did not occur in the previous timeline. But the effects would be similar. People who were not *supposed* to die would, and people who were supposed to be in certain places at specific times in history would no longer be in those places at those times.
To expect each and every event to play out exactly as it did in the previous timeline, despite the appearance of what would most likely be perceived as a new and significant threat to the Federation would be quite absurd.
I suspect that this story has an underlying theme (at the least– a secondary one) of “nature vs. nurture” for the heroes of the Original Series, with the answer to that question falling more on the side of the former than the latter.
Despite obstacles that were not present in the previous timeline, our heroes will triumph and the challenge by the villain Nero (”James T. Kirk was a great man—but that was another life”) will be answered in spades.
“Honestly, Data’s death was lamer than Kirk’s. Nemesis was ghastly, ”
I keep saying I’m going to finish watching NEM but then I don’t. I’ve only seen the first hour. Lamer, huh? That’s a scary thought. Course I don’t have the emotional investment in Data that I had in Kirk so I’m not sure I’ll care to be honest. I *do* want to see the entire movie however one of these days.
#218 “…the challenge by the villain Nero will be answered in spades.”
Not bad. You’d have made a fair writer, Closet. :-)
#219—”I keep saying I’m going to finish watching NEM but then I don’t. I’ve only seen the first hour. Lamer, huh? That’s a scary thought. Course I don’t have the emotional investment in Data that I had in Kirk so I’m not sure I’ll care to be honest.”
That is so true. That’s exactly how I feel about it as well.
Even if the TNG-era films had been well-written, I still could only have watched them with casual interest. The attachment to the characters simply isn’t there for me.
In contrast to that, even a “bad” episode of the Original Series was salvaged somewhat by the fantastic characters and the investment we were drawn to make in them.
I never got “chills” when the Enterprise-D was destroyed in GEN, and Pinnocchio’s end in NEM was equally bland.
Once again—in stark contrast, Spock’s death in TWOK is still an emotional wrench (even knowing that he is not “permanently” dead), and the hairs on the back of my neck still stand tall when Kirk gives the order to enable the self-destruct program on board the Enterprise in TSFS.
TNG movies in general were just—-bleh.
Nemesis is probably as poor in quality as TFF, but the difference is—as you said—who cares?
“I *do* want to see the entire movie however one of these days.”
You’re not missing anything.
#220—Lol.
I’ll probably need to keep my day job!
“Once again—in stark contrast, Spock’s death in TWOK is still an emotional wrench (even knowing that he is not “permanently” dead), and the hairs on the back of my neck still stand tall when Kirk gives the order to enable the self-destruct program on board the Enterprise in TSFS.”
Oh gosh! I was amazed at how emotional the death of a SHIP made me. What a scene. And Spock’s death….well you already know that makes me a puddle of goo. Hell, I sat and cried sitting on a hotel bed reading the script almost a year before the movie came out! I knew actually SEEING it was going to require valium or something. ;)
213. Closettrekker
“… but I would want some explanation. What, in the timeline changes, prevents him from falling off that bridge—yet not his being there in the first place?”
Just have Kirk wear Spocks antiGrav boots when he shows up in ST09.
.
No wait. That still really sucks.
#224—”Just have Kirk wear Spocks antiGrav boots when he shows up in ST09.
.
No wait. That still really sucks.”
Lmao!