Has Chris Pine Yet Earned the Right to Give "THE Monologue"?

[Franklin]

It fit to do it at the end of ST09. I'm just wondering where the monologue would fit in this time. At the start, like in TOS? At the end? Would that make as much sense and mesh with the story as well as having it at the end of ST09 did? I'd be surprised if we hear it again said by anybody. I think Kirk not doing it in ST09 was a missed opportunity.

I understand why they went with Nimoy in ST09, but I've always been on record as wishing those in the room who wanted Pine (Kirk) to do it had been more persuasive. That was his shot. Spock (Nimoy) appropriated those lines twice on the big screen, now. ST09 was a turn of the page. A new start. It was Kirk who should've started things off. (Sorry, fighting an old battle.)

 

[Blip]

I refuse to accept Pine as Kirk until he does The Monologue. That is Captain Kirk to me.

And unless he wears contact lenses to give him hazel eyes, goddammit!!

Why does it have to be contact lenses? These days it's more likely they'd CGI them (as they did with Rebecca Romjin in the later x-men films)

I personally couldn't give a monkey fart about the monologue and who says it. I'm more concerned with getting a decent story with a solid plot, as opposed to the execrable fodder they presented to us last time. And for the love of god, NO MORE F&%/ING LENS FLARES! It doesn't matter how many times you try to blind me Abrams, you can't distract me from your awful set design.

At least the cast themselves are pretty strong; IMO at least.

 

[Set Harth]

They should have Khan do it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They should bring in Gerard Butler to do it. "Space... the FINAL FRONTIEEAAAAHH!"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Better yet: Faran Tahir.

You know you want it.

Mere death will not stop The Robau from delivering The Monologue!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Should they fix the grammar, "Broken Bow"-style? "...to go boldly..." or the traditional "...to boldly go..."?

Should it be "...where no man..." or "...where no one..."?

Meh. The split infinitive isn't as "wrong" as some people would lead us to believe.


From the Oxford English Dictionary:

What’s wrong with split infinitives?

Some people believe that split infinitives are grammatically incorrect and should be
voided at all costs. They would rewrite these sentences as:

She used secretly to admire him.
You really have to watch him.

But there’s no real justification for their objection, which is based on comparisons
with the structure of Latin. People have been splitting infinitives for centuries,
especially in spoken English, and avoiding a split infinitive can sound clumsy. It can also
change the emphasis of what’s being said. The sentence:

You really have to watch him. [i.e. ‘It’s important that you watch him’]

doesn’t have quite the same meaning as:

You have to really watch him. [i.e. ‘You have to watch him very closely’]

To split or not to split?

The ‘rule’ against splitting infinitives isn’t followed as strictly today as it used to be.
Nevertheless, some people do object very strongly to them. As a result, it’s safest to
avoid split infinitives in formal writing, unless the alternative wording seems very
clumsy or would alter the meaning of your sentence.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/split-infinitives

Although I admit that there is no confusion in meaning between "to go boldly" and "to boldly go", but (to me at least) "to go boldly where no one has gone before" sounds more clumsy than "to boldly go where no one has gone before", especially when you emphasize the word "boldly", as Shatner somewhat did, and as Stewart more noticeably did.


Another online source who doesn't think splitting infinitves is all that evil of a thing to do is the "Grammar Girl" (she does have am English degree).

Here is an excerpt from an article about splitting infinitives:

The Latin Origin of the Split Infinitive Rule

Many sources say the origin of the misguided rule against splittling infinitives in English
comes from a devotion to Latin that was prominent in the late 1800s. The Victorian Era
was a time of great language debate, with dueling dictionaries and people
pontificating about language. The conventional wisdom is that people decided that
because infinitives can't be split in Latin, they shouldn't be split in English...

...One of the earliest printed instances of the rule against splitting infinitives comes
from an 1864 book called The Queen's English by Henry Alford...Alford was the
Dean of Canterbury. He had given a series of lectures on language and compiled
them into a casual book, which became quite popular.

...Actually, other writers started arguing with Alford about his assertion pretty quickly,
but for some reason his dictum caught on with teachers who started teaching it as a
strict rule, and some continue to do so to this day, even though you won't find a
modern grammar book or style guide that says you should never split an infinitive

Source: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/split-infinitives.aspx

Actually, in another article about grammar myths, she debunks the myth against the usage of split infinitives using a familiar example:

[Myth]2. You shouldn't split infinitives.
Wrong! Nearly all grammarians want to boldly tell you it's OK to split infinitives.

 

[The Wormhole]

Should they fix the grammar, "Broken Bow"-style? "...to go boldly..." or the traditional "...to boldly go..."?

Should it be "...where no man..." or "...where no one..."?

Obviously to bold go. To go boldly just sounds boring and bland.

And since this is TOS we stick with where no man. When TNG gets rebooted we can use where no one.

These are the fundamentals of Trek that must be adhered to above all else.

Oh, and Pine also needs to wear a toupee.

 

[Greg Cox]

And since this is TOS we stick with where no man. When TNG gets rebooted we can use where no one.

These are the fundamentals of Trek that must be adhered to above all else. .

I honestly can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not.

But, given that it's 2012, we can probably retire the "no man" business in favor of "no one," even for a Kirk-era movie.

What's the point of rebooting TOS if you're not going to tweak things?

 

[Captaindemotion]

And when Patrick Stewart first spoke it, he was not iconic.

He wasn't, but it was and he still got away with it.

Pine plays Captain Kirk and the Captain of the Enterprise. That in itself earns him the right to do the monologue; in fact, it's more than a right, it's his duty. It's like how the actor playing James Bond gets to say 'The name's Bond...James Bond.' Comes with the role. Literally.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Pine did record a "Space, the final frontier..." speech for the end of STXI, although they eventually chose to have Nimoy say it. Pine's version is on the DVD, at the start of the gag reel.

He should have done it then. Thematically, it would have been perfect: the crew was assembled, the ship was ready, the Enterprise was just about to boldly go into the unknown. They got timid. Oh well.

 

[Greg Cox]

They got timid. Oh well.

Or maybe just sentimental. How do you resist the temptation to let Nimoy deliver the monologue one last time?

That strikes me as more nostalgic than "timid." I seriously doubt they were worried about some sort of Trekkie backlash if Pine delivered it. It was just a nice, crowd-pleasing touch to have Nimoy do it.

(If you're worried about that, you don't recast Kirk or reboot STAR TREK in the first place . . .)

 

[iguana_tonante]

Maybe you are right. I can understand the nostalgia angle, but I felt it was a wasted opportunity not having Pine doing it at the time. In any case, he should do it this time.

 

[M'Sharak]

And since this is TOS we stick with where no man. When TNG gets rebooted we can use where no one.

These are the fundamentals of Trek that must be adhered to above all else. .

I honestly can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not.

I wouldn't take it as given in all instances, but I'd say that the odds here are distinctly in favor of tongue-in-cheekery.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well obviously it's tongue and cheek. This isn't something that actually matters in the grandf scheme of things. The Kelvin's regsitry, on the other hand...

 

[BillJ]

And since this is TOS we stick with where no man. When TNG gets rebooted we can use where no one.

These are the fundamentals of Trek that must be adhered to above all else. .

I honestly can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not.

But, given that it's 2012, we can probably retire the "no man" business in favor of "no one," even for a Kirk-era movie.

What's the point of rebooting TOS if you're not going to tweak things?

Didn't Shatner use "no one" at the end of The Undiscovered Country?

The use of "away team" did irk me in the most recent movie.

 

[The Wormhole]

And since this is TOS we stick with where no man. When TNG gets rebooted we can use where no one.

These are the fundamentals of Trek that must be adhered to above all else. .

I honestly can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not.

But, given that it's 2012, we can probably retire the "no man" business in favor of "no one," even for a Kirk-era movie.

What's the point of rebooting TOS if you're not going to tweak things?

Didn't Shatner use "no one" at the end of The Undiscovered Country?

It's kind of both. "To boldly go where no man...where no one has gone before." Where no man was still their, therefore it meets the necessary criteria for TOS purity.

 

[Aragorn]

SULU: "Space, the final frontier."
MCCOY: "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise."
SCOTTY: "Its ongoing mission..."
UHURA: "...to explore strange, new worlds..."
SPOCK: "...to seek out new life and new civilizations..."
KIRK: "...to boldly go where no one has gone before."
SHERIDAN: "The year is 2259. The name of the place is Babylon 5."

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

here is that gag reel with Pine's version, just for everyone to hear.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoRHoxN4KKo[/yt]

 

[Franklin]

They got timid. Oh well.

Or maybe just sentimental. How do you resist the temptation to let Nimoy deliver the monologue one last time?

That strikes me as more nostalgic than "timid." I seriously doubt they were worried about some sort of Trekkie backlash if Pine delivered it. It was just a nice, crowd-pleasing touch to have Nimoy do it.

(If you're worried about that, you don't recast Kirk or reboot STAR TREK in the first place . . .)

Maybe you are right. I can understand the nostalgia angle, but I felt it was a wasted opportunity not having Pine doing it at the time. In any case, he should do it this time.

Nimoy was the nostalgic choice, to be sure. One last look back. But as I posted above, I agree with iguana tonanta, the timing was perfect for Pine to have delivered the line. In this coming movie, it won't have the same impact.

The SENTIMENTAL choice in ST09 would've been Shatner. Maybe he doesn't "do cameos," but maybe he could've been convinced of the emotional impact doing the lines would've had (with enough money to back it up). It may have kind of broken the fourth wall to have him do it (since Pine is now Kirk), but it would've been cool.

 

[Franklin]

here is that gag reel with Pine's version, just for everyone to hear.

Pardon the double post, but that's the first time I've heard that, and if that was how Pine was going to deliver it, maybe it's better he didn't. I should probably ask the BBS secretary to retract the prior statements I made on his behalf. I've said the monologue better than that myself in the shower (oh, yeah, like none of you have ever done that).