Anyone feel Nimoy shouldn't be in this film?

[Samuel T. Cogley]

UWC Defiance said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

UWC Defiance said:
There's no way to know that it was a mistake, big or otherwise, until we see the completed film.

You incorrectly assume that some level of objectivity among the long-time fans will rule the day when the film finally comes out.

Well, "fairness" is what I was hoping for but you're probably right.

We need to get this whole notion of "objectivity" out of discussions about the popular arts, IMAO. Detachment, dispassion, fairness, balance - all those qualities I can buy into (though I've no intention of practicing any). But objectivity, nah.

THERE IS NO GRAY AREA!!!!

 

[number6]

I don't think anyone should be in this film. I just want to masturbate to a new CGI Enterprise and munch on some popcorn once I have finished jizzing listening to an Alexander Courage influenced soundtrack.

 

[Phantassm]

^^

 

[Holytomato]

"I don't think anyone should be in this film. I just want to masturbate to a new CGI Enterprise and munch on some popcorn once I have finished jizzing listening to an Alexander Courage influenced soundtrack."



My Wife just said this (in ASL).

What is wron with you people!?

:thumbsup:

 

[seigezunt]

I think it's great that he will be. I'm a little sad that the Shat won't be in it, but he is indeed a little girthy for the part. Not that he's a parody, I disagree on that, but he just doesn't look like Kirk now. Nimoy still looks the part, if old. He still has the Spock gravitas. It will be good to see him off in this venture.

 

[Balthier the Great]

23skidoo said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

UWC Defiance said:
There's no way to know that it was a mistake, big or otherwise, until we see the completed film.

You incorrectly assume that some level of objectivity among the long-time fans will rule the day when the film finally comes out.

That's the thing -- this has nothing to do about whether the film is any good. I trust Nimoy when he says he wouldn't have signed up if he didn't love the script. And unlike Shatner (Trek V, anyone?) I trust Nimoy's judgement.

I'm not sure I share this blind faith in Nimoy. For one thing, he cashed in on the "Klingons in the White House" comment by the Senator (I believe from Idaho). The next day the guy's on Daily Show making jokes about it. That doesn't sound to me like a guy who wasn't wanting a chance to mug for a camera.

The second thing is that money does talk. I don't care how much of an Artiste a person is, if you put enough $100 bills under a guys nose, chances are that he'll do it. Nothing agaist him, it's human nature.

But the fact is a year-long buildup of bad word of mouth is enough to sink any film. A prime example is Nemesis which was being badmouthed here (and elsewhere) for months, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy when those few Trekkers who bothered to go see it watched it with the eye of justifying their hatred of it that had built up. OTOH people who've watched it with an open mind -- and who could care less that young Picard wasn't bald, etc. -- seem to be of the opinion that it was an OK movie.

Well, considering the state of things now, I suggest Paramount save money and re-release some Looney Toons instead. We're already 3-4 months into the "We hate Trek" campaign. If what you say is true.

Honestly, I don't think Nemisis was heavily promoted either. I remember being somewhat surprised when I saw it playing across from LOTR. I had no idea that there were TNG movies.

And I fear the exact same situation is going to happen here. Especially when plot details start to leak or if they make a controversial choice for Kirk. Trek XI could be the best Star Trek movie ever made, but that could be moot if the fanbase turns against it.

I dunno. If there's good word of mouth, you could get Courage the Insult Dog interviewing Trek Nerds camping out in front of the movie theaters like they did for Star Wars. I'd love to see that.

Star Wars Nerds

Cheers

Alex

[/QUOTE]

 

[ChristopherPike]

I'll be honest. Nimoy's contribution is probably the only aspect of Star Trek (2008) that I actually care about. Having his role bookend the film is a smart move, forcing the hardcore to sit through the whole thing. We can all complain about Shatner in Generations after the fact but it did good business in 1994 based on little more than hype.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Since nobody (least of all the internet rumor-mongers who're having such a field day lately throwing out bogus claims and watching people jump), and DEFINITELY nobody on this board, actually knows what the plot of the upcoming movie really is, we don't know if Nimoy's involvement is good, bad, or indifferent.

We'll know in a bit over a year, though, won't we?

All we know for certain right now is that Nimoy claims (and we have good reason to believe that he's sincere, regardless of whether or not we believe he might be MISTAKEN) that it's a great script and a great role for him.

 

[Mr J]

UWC Defiance said:
There's no way to know that it was a mistake, big or otherwise, until we see the completed film.

That is pretty much my take on it at the moment as well. We won't honestly know if it was a good decision until we see how Nimoy is integrated into the movie.

In theory I think that it is a good idea. First of all, having Nimoy as Spock older than we have seen him before is more easilly incorporated into the movie than Shatner as an older Kirk because we know that Spock isn't dead and that he would look older. That gives it some instant credibility right away IMO, as his appearance doesn't require any complex explanation that could potentially detract from the story or require any prior knowledge of the franchise (i.e, Generations). That is, of course, assuming that they intend to follow the existing canon to some extent.

Secondly, it seems like Nimoy's input into the promotion of the movie so far has definitely had a positive effect on the fan reaction to it. People trust Nimoy's opinions about Star Trek and his blessing of Quinto and Abrams seems to have reassured people quite a bit. I don't know, Nimoy just seems to tie into this movie more naturally in every way than Shatner does IMO.

Of course, if Nimoy's apperance is due to some time-travel do-hickey and him and Quinto go on a massive time-hopping trek across the galaxy together then I might think that Nimoy was a a bad idea. Therefore, at the moment I am taking the 'wait and see' approach.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Cary L. Brown said:
Since nobody (least of all the internet rumor-mongers who're having such a field day lately throwing out bogus claims and watching people jump), and DEFINITELY nobody on this board, actually knows what the plot of the upcoming movie really is, we don't know if Nimoy's involvement is good, bad, or indifferent.

We'll know in a bit over a year, though, won't we?

Well, yeah, probably 3 days before the official trailers, we'll find something on youtube.

All we know for certain right now is that Nimoy claims (and we have good reason to believe that he's sincere, regardless of whether or not we believe he might be MISTAKEN) that it's a great script and a great role for him.

I think you're taking two things for granted that I don't really necessarily buy.

First, that he's actually the "Sensitive Artiste" that he portrays himself as. Somebody willing to cash in on his fame the first time somebody says "Klingons", especially when it's some dumbass senator trying to compare an actual war to a 1960's TV show may not have all that integrity.

And secondly, that he's not actually doing this for the money. Nobody's a saint here, but honestly if Nimoy was wanting to come out of retirement and have one more movie role, this is probably the only real chance he'll get. And honestly he's getting paid quite well to play Spock in this movie.

Why wouldn't he kiss Paramount's ass and sell their movie if he's getting what he wants? I'd do it. Besides which, it could very well be a part of the contract.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

"Reunification Part II" is one of TNG's worst episodes (if you start counting with season 2) and he did that.

Just sayin'...

 

[Vulcanian]

Of course Nimoy should be in the film!

 

[Phantassm]

Brutal Strudel said:
"Reunification Part II" is one of TNG's worst episodes (if you start counting with season 2) and he did that.

Just sayin'...

But he only did that to promote/tie into star trek 6.

 

[Mr J]

Phantassm said:

Brutal Strudel said:
"Reunification Part II" is one of TNG's worst episodes (if you start counting with season 2) and he did that.

Just sayin'...

But he only did that to promote/tie into star trek 6.

Plus, it is also worth considering his many positive contributions to the franchise over one creative misfire IMO. Not only through his performance as Spock (which has very rarely faltered, IMO, even when the material is pretty bad), but through his directorial and writing contributions which have been for the most part very good. Most importantly however, he understands TOS and the character dynamics of the show better than most, and that gives him weight when he says that Abrams' TOS movie script is good IMO. I'm not saying that he is the best person to run ST or even the most reliable of all involved with the franchise but he certainly knows his stuff IMO and if he says it is a good script then it is probably not bad at the very least.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I just want to second the opinion that Shatner is too rotund to play Kirk. Afterall, how many portly (Schwarzkoff {sp.?}) career (Powell) officers do you see in RL?

Also, he's too old! As opposed to an actor who has looked at least 10 years older than him for the last 20 years and plays an alien with a much longer lifespan. (Nimoy looked older than Lenard--that's why Sarek had to go snow white.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

None of which has anything to do with which of the actors will be more plausible and a greater asset to the film, of course. Nothing about Trek has ever been a "realistic" portrayal of military officers, and no one but a few fans have ever given the whole Kirk/Spock relative age thing a though.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Right. Plausibilty has nothing to do with plausibility.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Brutal Strudel said:
Right. Plausibilty has nothing to do with plausibility.

You don't quite get it.

Reality is not terribly congruent with plausibility in fiction.

"This is the way it is in real life" is not a good excuse to put something into a story.

That there are fat military officers in the real world, for example, has no bearing whatever on whether William Shatner would (or would not) look silly as Fat Kirk.

That's self-evident to anyone, of course. Misrepresenting it as "plausibility has nothing to do with plausibility" is a fairly transparent dodge.

 

[T'Cal]

Nimoy as Spock in the film is a smart move as is not having Shatner play James T. Kirk. The reason: he is too old to play a guy who died 13 years ago. Resurrecting Kirk would come across as too contrieved. He's dead, Jim! Let it go. However, having younger actors playing teenaged, cadet, and lieutenant Jim Kirk make great sense to me.

If Nimoy's Spock is to be from the TNG or post-NEM era, I would love to see him on screen with another character from that time. The most logical (sorry!) would be Picard played by Stewart.

I can imagine the setting being six or more years after the events depicted in Nemesis and the Romulan Star Empire is joining the UFP. Present at the ceremony is Spock, or course, and Picard who is now an admiral (or ambassador if more time has passed). This is the first time Spock and Picard have seen each other since the events depicted in TNG's Unification, when they melded. During that meld, Picard shared Sarek's thoughts with Spock, but Spock also shared some other thoughts including some of Kirk. Picard now has the opportunity to ask Spock more about the man who helped Jean-Luc save Veridian III and the crew of the Enterprise-D several years before (Generations). The two slip away to an ante-room where Picard briefly shares with Spock the events surrounding Kirk's heroic death. He tells the aged Vulcan that he knows the legend of James T. Kirk but barely knows the real man. Having had such intimate contact with him in the past, Spock doesn't hesitate to tell his trusted friend, Picard, of his first adventure with Kirk. Spock is considerably less inhibited in displaying his emotions (having spent so much time with the rather emotional Romulans) and he tells Picard a dramatic and exciting tale.

As the story ends, Spock asks Picard for the opportunity to meld with him one more time so that Spock may better understand Kirk's final moments. Spock places his finger tips on Picards face and head and the two inhale sharply as their eyes close in unison. We see a brief montage from the Nexus/Veridian III scenes with Kirk, Picard, and Soran. As we see Kirk die, the scene fades so that we see Picard and Spock again locked in the meld, and both simultaeously and silently shed a single tear. Spock gently breaks the meld and the two look at each other somewhat exhausted. Picard wears a slight grin and Spock, Vulcan as ever, responds with a raised eyebrow and a mild smirk of his own. "Till we meet again, Admiral, live long and prosper," says Spock with his hand raised in the traditional Vulcan salute. "Peace and long life, Ambassador," Picard replies as he responds both verbally and in gesture. They leave the ante-room and head off in opposite directions as the theme music swells and the credits roll.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

UWC Defiance said:

Brutal Strudel said:
Right. Plausibilty has nothing to do with plausibility.

You don't quite get it.

Reality is not terribly congruent with plausibility in fiction.

"This is the way it is in real life" is not a good excuse to put something into a story.

That there are fat military officers in the real world, for example, has no bearing whatever on whether William Shatner would (or would not) look silly as Fat Kirk.

That's self-evident to anyone, of course. Misrepresenting it as "plausibility has nothing to do with plausibility" is a fairly transparent dodge.

I get it, my old friend: once more, you change the parameters of the debate while it is in progress and do so in the guise of enlightening the opponent. Allow me to enlighten you.

1. Portly career officers are omnipresent in real life--we aren't talking about one of those coincidences which occur in real life but would appear ridiculous in a story, we are talking about a commonplace. But, even if we are going to employ the inane argument that Trek differs from real life...

2. Portly creer officers are likewise a commonplace in Trek. TNG showed us a few fat admirals, Scotty became rather Santa Claus-ish in his latter years and even Riker went from being boyish and somewhat trim to looking like a star from bear porn. In comparison to many of those examples, Shatner falls somewhere in the mid-range. Though he no doubt has surgery to thank, he still looks very good for a man his age. Shot, clothed and lit properly, he would carry a lot of gravitas (go ahead, take the cheap shot, make the cheap pun) as a retired captain. Surely, no Trek fan worthy of listening to is expecting the dashing Kirk of 1966, '79 or even '92.

4. Nimoy's apparent age has been a concern since at least Trk III and fans have commented on it--one article in Best of Trek went so far as to suggest that he inheritted Amanda's human lifespan.

And so...

5. It is ridiculous to fixate of Shatner's weight like a bunch of Paris Hilton's and his age when Nimoy's age should be of as much concern unless his portions of the film are near the end of Spock's life, sometime in the 25th century. Which leads to...

6. If we can suspend that kind of disbelief for Spock (we've been doing so since 1979--and at least there, we could chalk up his appearance to, as GR writes in the TMP novelization, 2 years spent in the Vulcan wasteland of Gol), why can't we suspend it for Kirk?

You will note that, at no place in my original post do I address the one solid argument for not having Shatner in this film: Kirk is dead. As regrettable an episode as that was and as execrable a film as it took place in, it cannot simply be shrugged aside (though I would be satisfied with a simple title card telling us that piece of feculent celluloid never happened, I know most fans would not) and explaining his return would take too damn long. But we can make that point without resorting to gratuitous and poorly thought-out Shatner bashing and the subsequent apologetics for it, can't we?

But please, continue to make your posts in as condescending a manner as is possible. I find it amusing.