Do you think it'll be a meaty role for Nimoy?

[RookieBatman]

But that's the thing about the mortality factor. This guest character isn't actually going to die, because the whole point of that plot thread is that Kirk and Spock do save him. See, even if the main characters lives twenty years hence weren't already on screen, I don't think anybody would really think they had even the slightest chance of dying. Did anybody think that John McClane was gonna die in Die Hard 4? Jack Sparrow? Spider-Man, for heaven's sake? (That's probably the most apt analogy.) Main characters just don't die in most movies, and usually when they do, it's part of the plot. So as far as mortality is concerned, I don't think there's any issue there. As far as character growth, I see what you're saying. But, as I think Cary said, they can still grow in this movie up to the characters they become in the series. After that, we'll just have to wait and see. No use stressing over what they're going to do in the next movie. Let's just enjoy this one, I say. If Nimoy ain't full of crap, it's shaping up to be pretty good.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I'm not stressing. In fact, I have high hopes for this movie and think it will be entertaining. I truly hope its great. As I stated above, I don't think character development is going to be a problem in this particular movie either. However, if the movie is successful (and I hope that it is) it will be a concern in the future. That's why I think it's best to "nip it in the bud" while they have the chance. You mention Spider-Man as a perfect example. First, let me mention that the writers essentially rebooted Spider-Man for film. Secondly, of course I knew Spider-Man wasn't going to die in those films. However, I did expect for him to change as a character throughout those movies and I didn't how he was going to turn out in the end or why. I knew that he wouldn't end up being a villain, but short of that and death most anything was possible. There was a major shock in the comic world when they killed Gwen Stacey back in the day. That moment changed Peter Parker forever. Is any such thing possible with the TOS characters? The writers can't change the Enterprise crew significantly because/unless they end up being the people they were in the movies. In my view, it creates a predicament that is needless. Just use this film to reboot.

 

[RookieBatman]

There's a little something to that, but I think a lot of character development isn't exactly written on people's foreheads. People can go through deep personal changes and still act the same way outwardly, and I think that this is usually the case in fiction, because people usually want to maintain the status quo. I don't think there are too many things that would alter Our Heroes outward actions significantly enough for it to be considered a deviation from their actions on the show. Even so, there's also the possibility that this will only ever be a one-off for these characters. That's why I say let's just wait and see. There are too many variables at this point. Heck, for that matter, we don't even know how the characters will end up in this movie. The movie may well end years before the show, with plenty of room to see the characters grow into what we see on the show. But again, I'm in the "wait and see" camp.

 

[Ward Fowler]

RookieBatman said:
People can go through deep personal changes and still act the same way outwardly, and I think that this is usually the case in fiction, because people usually want to maintain the status quo.

That may be the case, but how does the audience get invested in that sort of scenario enough to pay $10 a ticket to see it?

I don't think there are too many things that would alter Our Heroes outward actions significantly enough for it to be considered a deviation from their actions on the show.

If that's so, why should a general audience invest their time and money in these characters?

Even so, there's also the possibility that this will only ever be a one-off for these characters. That's why I say let's just wait and see. There are too many variables at this point. Heck, for that matter, we don't even know how the characters will end up in this movie. The movie may well end years before the show, with plenty of room to see the characters grow into what we see on the show. But again, I'm in the "wait and see" camp.

As fans, you are right that we should take the wait and see approach, I'm just not sure that it makes business sense for Paramount to do the same. I really do have high hopes for the movie and expect it to do well. That's why I'm looking to the future. I hope Star Trek, and particularly the characters from the orginal series, survive the ages.

 

[RookieBatman]

Ward Fowler said:
That may be the case, but how does the audience get invested in that sort of scenario enough to pay $10 a ticket to see it?

My point was that this is usually the case for major motion pictures, and thus, the audience hasn't had a problem spending their money on it before.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Well, I disagree with you there. When I watch a movie I expect the characters to be noticably, outwardly, and permanently affected by what happens in the movie. That was even true of your best case example, the Spider-Man movies.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Ward Fowler said:
Well, I disagree with you there. When I watch a movie I expect the characters to be noticably, outwardly, and permanently affected by what happens in the movie. That was even true of your best case example, the Spider-Man movies.

I would say a lot of growth and deep insight can happen over a trilogy of films without running over TOS in any glaring way...

...Which brings me to another point. Outside of a couple of the first few first season eps no one much "grew" (That is to say Spock noticeably became less loud and closer to Kirk but I think was something of a direction shift rather then character growth per se) in any substantial way in Star Trek. Sure Kirk and co. had experiences but there were deep character arcs at play most everything remained the same.

Growth really didn't start until the films.

Sharr

 

[Ward Fowler]

Sharr Khan said:


I would say a lot of growth and deep insight can happen over a trilogy of films without running over TOS in any glaring way...

...Which brings me to another point. Outside of a couple of the first few first season eps no one much "grew" (That is to say Spock noticeably became less loud and closer to Kirk but I think was something of a direction shift rather then character growth per se) in any substantial way in Star Trek. Sure Kirk and co. had experiences but there were deep character arcs at play most everything remained the same.

Growth really didn't start until the films.

Sharr

You could be right and they might be able to stretch it out into a trilogy of films. I certainly hope so. I also agree that there wasn't a tremendous amount of character growth in the televsion series. However, that doesn't change the fact that the audience knows exactly who these characters turned out to be and that the writers have to stay within those perimeters.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Ward Fowler said:

Sharr Khan said:


I would say a lot of growth and deep insight can happen over a trilogy of films without running over TOS in any glaring way...

...Which brings me to another point. Outside of a couple of the first few first season eps no one much "grew" (That is to say Spock noticeably became less loud and closer to Kirk but I think was something of a direction shift rather then character growth per se) in any substantial way in Star Trek. Sure Kirk and co. had experiences but there were deep character arcs at play most everything remained the same.

Growth really didn't start until the films.

Sharr

You could be right and they might be able to stretch it out into a trilogy of films. I certainly hope so. I also agree that there wasn't a tremendous amount of character growth in the televsion series. However, that doesn't change the fact that the audience knows exactly who these characters turned out to be and that the writers have to stay within those perimeters.

I'm pretty sure they can manage it. But I do think and presume the only thing anyone involved mind at this point is making this one rock first. The future... is for later.

Now I hope they know better then to write themselves into a closed circle like say "Highlander" where the film was written without forethought that hey this might catch on.

I also just can't buy into the concept of a "One off", it doesn't strike me as a movie studios mind set. Yeah sure do something to test the waters... but leave an opening if the waters are nice and warm so you can take another dip. Usually that doesn't involve playing to much with what made you the money to begin with.

(Re)introducing these charactes and then in a "Sequal" attempting to start off with a new crew or new era would be jolting to your average joe "Hey What happened to Kirk And Spock?"

Sharr

 

[Ward Fowler]

That's what I'm thinking as well. I think Paramount is committed to this concept. If the movie does well, we'll see more of Kirk and company. If not then I'm afraid it'll be a long time before we see new Trek again.

 

[GMDreia]

Maybe it'll be the last Trek we'll ever see. But it'll end with closure, in a poetic manner. That'd be fine with me.