Do you think it'll be a meaty role for Nimoy?
- Thread starter Jon1701
- Start date
I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Personally, I'd rather have a straightforward and simple flashback then some convoluted time travel ploy.
Oh, and just to bring something extra to the table, here's another scenario:
Kirk and Spock's first mission involved the Klingons (or whoever) and some "evidence" surface in the 24th century that Kirk allegedly committed war crimes during that mission. The Klingons are pressing the Federation to hold a trial/hearing/tribunal and the Feds (wanting to appease the Klingons) agree. Old Spock then goes to clear his friend's name and the main plot (that of the first mission) is "seen" through recorded evidence and testimonies (Klingons have along life span too...).
What do you think?
Personally, I'd rather have a straightforward and simple flashback then some convoluted time travel ploy.
Oh, and just to bring something extra to the table, here's another scenario:
Kirk and Spock's first mission involved the Klingons (or whoever) and some "evidence" surface in the 24th century that Kirk allegedly committed war crimes during that mission. The Klingons are pressing the Federation to hold a trial/hearing/tribunal and the Feds (wanting to appease the Klingons) agree. Old Spock then goes to clear his friend's name and the main plot (that of the first mission) is "seen" through recorded evidence and testimonies (Klingons have along life span too...).
What do you think?
A time travel story would take care of the central problem of this entire idea. Namely the audience knows that the main characters are never in any real danger. We know that they go on to live long lives. The fact that Nimoy is in the movie playing Spock means that this movie isn't a reboot, UNLESS the orginal Spock has to make changes to the timeline to save the galaxy or some such nonsense. If the timeline changes then all of a sudden things didn't happen the way they did before. That would effectively reboot TOS and we would no longer know what happens to our characters in the future. It also allows the writers to not be restricted by canon. That's really the only way the whole idea can work at this point.
^^^
Why does the "the characters are never in any real danger" argument always come up? Did you REALLY think either Kirk or Spock would EVER die permanently when watching the original 79 episodes of Star Trek?
Hell, back in 1981 when it was leaked the Spock would die in STII:TWoK; the fan outcry was deafening.
In ST:Generations, they did a full reshoot of the ending (and Kirk's death) just because of fan reaction to it a pre-release screenings.
It's the STORY that interests me - here's abother adventure with these characters taht we haven't seen that takes place before rge TOS TV series. As for that 're-adding the danger element with time travel'; please; are you gpingb to tell me that they would kill off the younger versions of Kirk or Spock and basically say - "Hey you know the 40 years of Star Trek adventures you watched with Kirk and Spock? They never happened." (and yes, I know were talking fictional universe and tnhat NONE of this has actually happened, but I think you can see where I'm coming from).
Yo0u must loath historical dramas tht actually contain or use real historical figures for teh same reason.
What, are you naive? Would anyone ever go to see a movie about a boat that everyone knows is going to sink? How about a movie about some "Aviator" guy who eventually becomes a reclusive billionaire? How about a film about ancient Greece, and Helen of Troy?Noname Given said:
^^^
Why does the "the characters are never in any real danger" argument always come up? Did you REALLY think either Kirk or Spock would EVER die permanently when watching the original 79 episodes of Star Trek?
Hell, back in 1981 when it was leaked the Spock would die in STII:TWoK; the fan outcry was deafening.
In ST:Generations, they did a full reshoot of the ending (and Kirk's death) just because of fan reaction to it a pre-release screenings.
It's the STORY that interests me - here's abother adventure with these characters taht we haven't seen that takes place before rge TOS TV series. As for that 're-adding the danger element with time travel'; please; are you gpingb to tell me that they would kill off the younger versions of Kirk or Spock and basically say - "Hey you know the 40 years of Star Trek adventures you watched with Kirk and Spock? They never happened." (and yes, I know were talking fictional universe and tnhat NONE of this has actually happened, but I think you can see where I'm coming from).
Yo0u must loath historical dramas tht actually contain or use real historical figures for teh same reason.
Noooo... nobody would ever go see a movie like that, would they?
Well, I can see my idea doesn't have much popularity around here. 
Although I used "danger" as an example, its certainly not the only example. Unless they find a way to reboot, the characters aren't going to be able to grow and change past a certain point. Sure, we know they won't die, but we also know who and what they turn out to be twenty years on. For the first movie, it won't be a problem. The characters are probably quite different from what they turn out to be later, so that allows for some character growth. However, if they keep making these films, then they'll eventually have problems. They would still be able to make entertaining movies, but where's the drama? If they use a Spock time travel story to reboot, then that would free up the writers from the lack of drama AND the constraits of continuity.
Although I used "danger" as an example, its certainly not the only example. Unless they find a way to reboot, the characters aren't going to be able to grow and change past a certain point. Sure, we know they won't die, but we also know who and what they turn out to be twenty years on. For the first movie, it won't be a problem. The characters are probably quite different from what they turn out to be later, so that allows for some character growth. However, if they keep making these films, then they'll eventually have problems. They would still be able to make entertaining movies, but where's the drama? If they use a Spock time travel story to reboot, then that would free up the writers from the lack of drama AND the constraits of continuity.
And there's the rub... and I actually agree with you there.Ward Fowler said:
Well, I can see my idea doesn't have much popularity around here.
But you're assuming, and I think incorrectly, that this is the start of a new Star Trek TV series, or movie series, using these characters.
Is that POSSIBLE? Yes.
Is it LIKELY? I sincerely doubt it.
Will we see more Trek if this is a success? Oh, almost inevitably?
Is it inevitable that the "more trek" will be "Kirk and Spock Mark II?" I really, REALLY, don't believe that is gonna happen. For, really, the very reasons you stated, above.
This movie is set up as a one-off story, not as a "reboot." While Paramount, post-Abrams, could certainly hire someone else to make a reboot using the same actors and props and so forth... that's not even on the table right now. They just want to see if Star Trek is even a marketable, saleable product anymore.
Berman and Co. managed to convince most of the board at Paramount that Trek wasn't worth the investment anymore. Paramount stockholders didn't want to toss their money down a sewer, and that's what Trek looked like to the board and to many of the stockholders.
Abrams was seen as a "hot commodity." He could basically write his own ticket at Paramount. And the main thing he demanded (besides tons of cash... the guy's not STUPID!) was to be able to make the Star Trek movie he'd always wanted to see... the one we're going to see next year.
The board at Paramount is still edgy about Star Trek. They don't trust that it's still marketable. But because it's Abrams, they're willing to give it ONE LAST CHANCE. If he succeeds and gives them a good movie that's a financial success, they'll pull their hand away from the trash can and put Trek back up on the display shelf. If the movie tanks... they'll drop it into the trash and God only knows if it'll ever be seen again, other than in cheap internet fan-porn.
Think of this movie in those terms, not in terms of "starting a new series." That's how Abrams is thinking of it.
Now, if the next guy come along, decides to do another Kirk/Spock movie, but puts them in bat-suits with bat-nipples... I'll be right there with ya whinging about it!
I've always said there is a difference in seeing a movie based on a book, as opposed to a movie that isn't based on something previously available. I usually prefer to read the source book before seeing the movie as long as it isn't just a novelization.
Some stories are just better suited for different media types. Usually you get a better experience in the original media, not to say that the other type wouldn't bring enjoyment.
And that HP7 movie is going to kick a lot of ass.
You know, I haven't enjoyed the New Testament since I found out how the Gospels end. 
And First Contact was no good because we already knew that Zephram Cochrane survives.
I never enjoyed the New Testament at all. Several of you have mentioned movies based on books. Lets take LOTR as an example. Do you think even 25% of the people who went to see those movies had ever read the books? They didn't know how the movies were going to end. Plus, the movie changed quite a few things from the book. Same things apply to Harry Potter. Someone else mentioned Titanic. Sure, everyone knew the ship was going to sink at the end. That's why Cameron centered the movie around fictional characters whose fate you were uncertain of. After all, they both might have survived. Not knowing their fate is what invested you in the film. Not only that, but you can't compare Star Trek to a book. They are basing this project on a widely known tv show and series of films. Most everyone knows that the characters lived to be old because how old they were was a running joke when the original cast were making movies. In regards to the new movies, the lack of suspense and character drama might keep people away. Not from the first movie but perhaps for the next one. That's why I think it would be wiser to reboot.UWC Defiance said:
You know, I haven't enjoyed the New Testament since I found out how the Gospels end.
I agree with you up to a point. I think that Paramount always intended to revisit Trek, but perhaps not this soon. As you said, it's only because Abrams was intrested that this is happening now as opposed to a few years from now. I agree that if the next movie fails, it will be a long time before we see new Star Trek.Cary L. Brown said:
The board at Paramount is still edgy about Star Trek. They don't trust that it's still marketable. But because it's Abrams, they're willing to give it ONE LAST CHANCE. If he succeeds and gives them a good movie that's a financial success, they'll pull their hand away from the trash can and put Trek back up on the display shelf. If the movie tanks... they'll drop it into the trash and God only knows if it'll ever be seen again, other than in cheap internet fan-porn.
Abrams seems to be pretty smart. I imagine he's thinking ahead just a bit. It's hard to make a Star Trek movie without at least acknowledging in your mind that there could be a sequel. I imagine he'll make the movie to be very sequel-friendly.
They better not let Joel Schumacher anywhere near Star Trek.Now, if the next guy come along, decides to do another Kirk/Spock movie, but puts them in bat-suits with bat-nipples... I'll be right there with ya whinging about it!
Dramatic tensions are not born out threat of death, or knowing the end result - they are fashioned out of resolving conundrums for our heroes to combat. That we know they survive is beside the point and not the real story, the real story is how they get there. The journy and real story is "in getting there" not the end result itself.
With Star Trek particularly I am never worried a lead will buy it its just not part of the franchise short of contract issues...
A good writer can make something dramatic even with beginning at the end of a story and building up to how you get there. Trust me there are ways that will perhaps extend this further then you might imagine - I would say even bring a bit of the "cerebral" nature back to Star Trek some are always complaining about not being there since it won't be so much about surviving the fight as it will be about resolving the problem...
It is limiting to say becuse we know they'll live there will not be a possibility for growth or dramatic conflict.
Sharr
If you read my other posts you'll see that I'm not talking exclusively about character mortality. I'm also talking about character development. The characters will only be able to evolve up to a certain point. Knowing that all of these people are going to be relatively happy and healthy 20 years later takes a bit of the drama out of it. Kirk and Spock and the rest will only be able to change so much. There has to be some jeopardy, whether it be mental or physical, to get the audience involved.
Not at all a sufficiently nuanced performance and script (written by a good creative writer) can still allow for growth, or at least a deeper understanding of these people.
If what you said were true Pocket Books wouldn't still be churning out Star Trek books.
And who says there needs to be giant leaps in the time line anyhow or that all 79 broadcasted Star Trek eps are all that ever befell the crew. I've always treated any of the episodes like a brief glimpse into a world that still moved on well I wasn't looking in on it.
A gifted writer could write a whole movie that took place between the first episode the one following right after it.
The answer at any rate isn't so reducible to timelines and such since its all about a creative process and the imagination behind it.
Some might not be able to see room for further growth or drama at an arbitratly chosen point - doesn't mean there isn't any just you can't imagine how there could be any.
jeopardy, can be limitless with the correct writer and imagination involved and can also be really internal as well. A good writer can turn a man in a room alone with his thoughts into good drama filled with tension.
Sharr
Also, as far as mortality is concerned, there could always be another character's life in the balance, that Kirk and Spock must fight to save. If you adequately build up the character, but also make Kirk and/or Spock the ones responsible for keeping them alive (so as not to take the focus away from them), it can be just as dramatic as having Kirk or Spock's life in the balance.
How many people read Star Trek novels? I happen to, but I'm one of a few thousand at most. Plus, most of the novel line is open-ended now. The TNG novels take place after Nemesis and the DS9 novels take place after the 7th season of that show. Anything can happen to those characters. As far as TOS is concerned, I love those characters so I want to read of their exploits even though I know at the end they have to be the relatively the same as when they started the adventure. How many people in the general public can say that?
Not me.
I agree.
Again, we agree.
I imagine there could be plenty of drama, but I disagree about the growth. Those character have to end up being fundamentally the same at the end of the story. They cannot be measurabley different from what was depicted in the series or the movies.
What you're describing there is akin to a chamber drama. While they can be highly entertaining, I doubt it would make for a mainstream Star Trek movie.
I agree with you on this point. However, say the guest character does die. What's the cost to our main characters? Any chance that Kirk will become a broken man and resign from Starfleet? Any chance that Spock would transfer to another ship? I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Similar threads
