I don't buy it... there IS another way...

[Commander_Mills]

Hey everybody!

I gotta say, it feels good to be keeping up with star trek news these days with news actually coming in! I'm a big LOST fan, and I'm very excited that Abrams is at the helm of this thing. We've been clamoring for a new and respectful creative team for a while now, and that is exactly what's happenning.

Now, on the topic of Shatner not being in the movie, I have a couple of views on this I would like to get your opinion on:
-First of all, Shatner agreed to kill kirk in Generations. I would love to see him in the new movie, but if there's no way, there's no way. Kirk didn't really go out with the bang that he should've, but that was his decision. It's kind of coming back to haunt him now.
-HOWEVER, what if abrams is toying with us? He's a pretty crafty guy... LOST poses more questions than it answers, he's got this really underground publicity campaign going on for his monster movie... what if Shatner is already slated to appear in the movie and they're just keeping it from us? I find that extremely likely as the ultimate surprise...
-There is one other possibility as well. Maybe Abrams is making another really gutsy move. If this Romulans traveling back in time to kill Kirk thing is true, meaning that they DO setup an alternate timeline as the reboot, Abrams has it in his power to make a really gutsy decision: LET THEM SUCCEED. Let's face it, the second draft of the script is ready, they shoot next month, you can't tell me that they're STILL trying to figure out how to work Kirk in when they've been working on this for about a year now. Either a way has been found, and we're not being told to keep the surprise, or they're just being polite saying they're still trying and they have no intention to do so. Abrams might want to introduce a new dynamic, maybe even a new central character to take over the reins in Kirk's place so that kirks' premature death isn't the catastrophe that it could be.

thoughts?

 

[theARE]

If they are going to reboot, I'd rather they just come out and say it. It would be much easier in my view for people to accept that, and the movie could get on with telling a Star Trek story.

I dont think rebooting through the back door is a good thing at all, and a convoluted time travel story is unlikely to appeal to non-fans.

To a non-fan:

Captain Kirks first adventure
That sounds cool

Romulans change the time line and old and young Spock have to repair the damage
Huhh? Roman who? Doing what?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kirk is definitely in the movie - that's not dependent on whether Shatner plays him or not.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm skeptical of time travel because it's been done so badly far more often than it's been done well and even more skeptical of reboots because it seems like a lazy "out" - but there's nothing preventing a time-travel reboot from being great. As ever, it's all in the execution.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Temis the Vorta said:
I'm skeptical of time travel because it's been done so badly far more often than it's been done well and even more skeptical of reboots because it seems like a lazy "out" - but there's nothing preventing a time-travel reboot from being great. As ever, it's all in the execution.

Orci addresses this when asked about why they aren't doing this the way Batman Begins restarted the franchise - his answer leads me to believe this isn't a "reboot" in the sense that I think you mean it - I am truly certain that by the end of two hours we're gonna still be in the "same" universe we all know and love in varying degrees.

Can you point out to specific cases of "Time Travel done badly"? Just want a sense of what you mean by that. I don't think becuse one team handled it bad therefore it must follow all others should has well. Given Abrams liking of none linear storytelling I think he'd be the kind of guy you'd want involved with time travel?

Sharr

 

[Commander_Mills]

Time travel has long been one of the more accessible high concept Sci Fi formulas leading to all kinds of philosophical and existential debate about the whole paradox. To me, it's not so much that it's been done badly, but Trek has done it to death. Think TNG: "Cause and Effect", "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Time's Arrow", "All Good Things", "Generations", "ST: First Contact", DS9: "Visionary", "Children Of Time", VGR: "Time and Again", "Future's End", "Year Of Hell", ENT: "Twilight", "Carpenter Street", etc. not to mention the entire temporal cold war arc, even the "Voyage Home" was about time travel (and a lot of these have the dreaded reset button).

Could this be WHY they're doing it? because it seems to work so well? Voyage Home and First Contact are both the top grossing trek films and both deal with the topic.

To be honest, what I'm most worried about right now is that all this seems to describe an action movie more than anything else. The next tidbits I want to hear about are how the movie contemplates and comments on the human condition...

 

[Sharr Khan]

To be honest, what I'm most worried about right now is that all this seems to describe an action movie more than anything else. The next tidbits I want to hear about are how the movie contemplates and comments on the human condition...

No... this isn't gonna be that kind of movie, at least not like say "The Cage", infact when Trek tries to hard to do this it looks silly and comes across as condescending.

I can tell you the central "theme" already, its apparent from whenever anyone in the know talks not excluding Nimoy: The bond between the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy - that is "Friendship" is gonna be at the heart of and message of this movie not some abstract comment on what it means to be human. If you (you in general) think that shallow... maybe you need to reconsider what it means to be "human".

Sharr

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Sharr Khan said:
I can tell you the central "theme" already, its apparent from whenever anyone in the know talks not excluding Nimoy: The bond between the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy - that is "Friendship" is gonna be at the heart of and message of this movie not some abstract comment on what it means to be human.

Fantastic! So we're going to get another Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Sharr Khan said:
I can tell you the central "theme" already, its apparent from whenever anyone in the know talks not excluding Nimoy: The bond between the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy - that is "Friendship" is gonna be at the heart of and message of this movie not some abstract comment on what it means to be human.

Fantastic! So we're going to get another Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

I don't see a problem there at least it had the spirit of Trek which is more then I can say for Nemises...

Really what's wrong with that? Why does the movie need a huge abstract idea at its core? Can't it just be a fun two hours that people will want to go to a few more times for the ride. Can't it just be about Spock and the loyalty he has for his Capitan and friends and what helped cement that loyalty? There's nothing negative about any of that or shallow actually its all very human.

Its just I must admit I've found Trek's sermonizing of its later incarnations a real turn off, I don't feel like be talked down to by tv icons thanks.

Sharr

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Sharr Khan said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Sharr Khan said:
I can tell you the central "theme" already, its apparent from whenever anyone in the know talks not excluding Nimoy: The bond between the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy - that is "Friendship" is gonna be at the heart of and message of this movie not some abstract comment on what it means to be human.

Fantastic! So we're going to get another Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

I don't see a problem there at least it had the spirit of Trek which is more then I can say for Nemises...

I actually very much enjoyed the Kirk/Spock/McCoy moments in Star Trek V. In fact, I think it captured their relationship better than any other movie.

But the story itself and the execution were a mess.

My point is that "friendship" alone is not going to get us there.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Commander_Mills said:
LET THEM SUCCEED

Now, THAT would be cool! As much as I am against that whole prequel idea, I think that's the coolest idea I've ever heard about this movie. I might actually like the movie if it was done this way!

If it's true that it's supposed to be a trilogy of some kind, why not end part one with the Romulans killing Kirk? That could actually make room for another 24th century movie as part two or three, where Spock and some TNG era characters are trying to repair the timeline.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sharr Khan said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Fantastic! So we're going to get another Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

I don't see a problem there at least it had the spirit of Trek...

ST 5 was a dreadful, dreadful movie. Given that, I don't give a damn whether it had the alleged "spirit of Trek" or not. If separated from every other recognizable entertainment value, the "spirit" isn't worth ten cents.

 

[I Grok Spock]

Sharr Khan said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Sharr Khan said:
I can tell you the central "theme" already, its apparent from whenever anyone in the know talks not excluding Nimoy: The bond between the troika of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy - that is "Friendship" is gonna be at the heart of and message of this movie not some abstract comment on what it means to be human.

Fantastic! So we're going to get another Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

I don't see a problem there at least it had the spirit of Trek which is more then I can say for Nemises...

Really what's wrong with that? Why does the movie need a huge abstract idea at its core? Can't it just be a fun two hours that people will want to go to a few more times for the ride. Can't it just be about Spock and the loyalty he has for his Capitan and friends and what helped cement that loyalty? There's nothing negative about any of that or shallow actually its all very human.

Its just I must admit I've found Trek's sermonizing of its later incarnations a real turn off, I don't feel like be talked down to by tv icons thanks.

Sharr

Those "huge ideas" are what made Trek fun for me. The Giant Space Amoeba, the Giant Space Hand, the Giant Space Cornucopia, etc. Funky, concept-driven sci-fi that was made accessible and compelling by the interpersonal relationships you describe. If you just want a buddy comedy, just take any script for Two and a Half Men and swap the character names for Kirk-Spock-McCoy.

 

[Franklin]

I TOS had a spirit at all, it was, "don't take this too seriously."

[Pauses for the irony of that to set in on the BBS.]

Tribbles; preventing Hitler from getting the bomb; saving the whales; Trelane; gangsters; disembodied brains; green-haired beauties; Khaaaaan!; Herberts; NO KILL ME; Mudd; It's green!; the list goes on.

"Star Trek" is fun. It's well-told adventure. The characters make it believable and are believable enough that we take a stake in them. The characters also look like they're having fun.

From what I've read and heard, I think Abrams and Orci get that and we'll see it in their story.

 

[xortex]

It should be about things and ideas that are universal and not easily definable and relate to everything and everybody and plot driven with a high degree of personal involvement and stakes. Loyalty and freindship are nothing new. It should be exciting and entertaining and be about the characters decisions and inner conflict/journey, but ST has always been about the high concept and how it pertains to the character's situation. Situations create character, not visa versa.