I think Spock is going to die.
- Thread starter Bad Atom
- Start date
Yeah, I have wondered whether the movie will have Nimoy's Spock dying. It could be sort of passing of the torch(character role).
Maybe having a person interviewing the dying Spock and Spock starts to recall an eventful time from his youth. Quite a number of movies use this strategy example Fried Green Tomatoes, Forest Gump, etc... Having the elderly version telling a story about their younger self. Spock is an iconic character. So, I think it would have enough mass appeal to work.
Maybe having a person interviewing the dying Spock and Spock starts to recall an eventful time from his youth. Quite a number of movies use this strategy example Fried Green Tomatoes, Forest Gump, etc... Having the elderly version telling a story about their younger self. Spock is an iconic character. So, I think it would have enough mass appeal to work.
I'm thinking along the lines of Spock dying peacefully of old age in bed. I don't want him being hacked to death by rabid Klingons! He's too old for such hijinks anyway.
He's gotta die sometime anyway, why not have it be the ending of Trek XI with Old Spock being the beginning and ending sequences or something along those lines? I just want to see Nimoy given the chance to really close out "his" Spock in some grand fashion and if it kind of overshadows the rest of the movie, good. Considering Nimoy's importance to Star Trek, it should.
My main concern would not be that it's morbid - it could very easily be handled in a touching, non-morbid manner, I've seen that done plenty of times - but that it's been done so often it's a cliche.
My vote: let him live.
I find it hard to get into a character when I already know how they're going to die. There just needs to be that uncertainty there.
And I can see Spock living a damn long time - I can see him being older (in equivalent Vulcan years) than Nimoy is now. At the very least, he should live to the age his father lived to.
I think Spock has years left in him.
I find it hard to get into a character when I already know how they're going to die. There just needs to be that uncertainty there.
And I can see Spock living a damn long time - I can see him being older (in equivalent Vulcan years) than Nimoy is now. At the very least, he should live to the age his father lived to.
I think Spock has years left in him.
Nimoy is 76 but he's a human being. He could easily portray Spock being 176, and looking exactly like he (Nimoy) looks. A 76 year old Vulcan wouldn't look like Nimoy looks, so it all works out nicely. The real issue here is, this may well be our last chance to have Nimoy in a movie at all.
And (like others have mentioned) I suspect what lured him back into Trek is the chance to play Spock's death scene and finish out the character. So regardless of whether anyone wants it, I think Nimoy wants it. Why wouldn't an actor want to play his character's death scene? It's a way of "owning" the character. Actor are kind egotistical that way, or so I've heard.
I tend to agree that Nimoy probably wouldn't have come back without the opportunity to finish up his role as the character.
As we all know, everyone is going to die eventually. Sure, things are different in fiction, but there is something to be said for the dramatic possibilities of a major character dying.
Granted, he's died once already, so who knows what the hell is possible?
As we all know, everyone is going to die eventually. Sure, things are different in fiction, but there is something to be said for the dramatic possibilities of a major character dying.
Granted, he's died once already, so who knows what the hell is possible?
In my opinion, bookending the movie with an aged Spock makes the most sense. There's no reason to introduce a prequel type story without Spock's death or deathbed or simple retirement recollections. Of course, it need not be so tragic. Think of the premise of the Princess Bride. We don't know why the grandfather is reading the story other than the fact that the boy is ill. We don't know how ill. It just bookends the story.
Something similar can be done for Spock. I don't think it would work well for the inevitable sequels.
Spock will certainly have outlived all the other primary Enterprise crew members. He will be the sole surviving member of the bridge crew of the historic adventures of the Enterprise. I can easily imagine the story starting with him recounting his memories of his days at the academy, perhaps for a 24th or even 25th century version of Behind the Music. Or he could just be recanting the tale to his great-grand children who can scarcely believe that he is the Spock of legend.
All I know about this project is that it has been the first Trek related thing to spark my interest since the end of DS9. So that's something.
Something similar can be done for Spock. I don't think it would work well for the inevitable sequels.
Spock will certainly have outlived all the other primary Enterprise crew members. He will be the sole surviving member of the bridge crew of the historic adventures of the Enterprise. I can easily imagine the story starting with him recounting his memories of his days at the academy, perhaps for a 24th or even 25th century version of Behind the Music. Or he could just be recanting the tale to his great-grand children who can scarcely believe that he is the Spock of legend.
All I know about this project is that it has been the first Trek related thing to spark my interest since the end of DS9. So that's something.
Think of it this way - once Nimoy has performed Spock's "real" death scene, Quinto can't do it! Well I guess he could, but it's unlikely - why have two versions of the same event? So Nimoy would get one last chance at glomming onto a very important event in Spock's whole saga, for his own, nobody else can ever take it away. I think Abrams knew that something of that magnitude would be needed as an "offering" to get Nimoy back in front of the cameras. But because Nimoy deserves it, I don't think anyone would begrudge him. I'm just saying this makes the death scene more likely because it all kinda fits the public events.
I've always had that same problem with the whole "Jesus" thing...
I agree with pretty much all of your post except for this.
I really don't see there being an "inevitable sequel" to the story I'm convinced is going to be told, here. At most, there could be a "spin-off" (set in the same timeframe, on a ship seen in this film perhaps, and involving to one extent or another several characters who may be introduced in this film).
There are some films that, due to their structure really lend themselves to sequels. There are others which, for the same reason, simply do not. For instance, it's awfully hard to imagine a sequel to "Titanic." (And I'm picking that for a reason that you might miss... remember the "bookending" that was used in THAT movie.)
The Star Trek universe is big enough for a lot of stories... and the general timeframe and setting of this movie certainly will allow for a lot of stories to be told in the same general "set-dressing" situation. Yet, from what I believe the film is going to be, there is no real "inevitability" of a direct sequel to this film, and in fact I think it would be a remarkably BAD idea.
It's like King Kong. Yes, you can do "Return of Kong" but it'll always feel like a rip-off... the original film is intended to stand on its own. Doing a sequel where it turns out that Kong somehow survived the fall would not only feel "shoddy" to the audience but would also undercut the drama of the original film.
This film is designed, I'm entirely convinced, to be a stand-alone tale, not a "two hour episode." And it's intended to tell a story of the sort that we didn't see during the original series... a story involving CHANGE AND GROWTH (and real... not melodramatic, episodic... losses). That's going to be the whole point of the film... so while it'll be set in the Trek universe, and will involve Trek characters we know, it's not going to feel like a TOS episode in terms of the story being told (though hopefully in the atmosphere and continuity, IMHO).
I'm still convinced that we'll see the opening bookend with "old Spock" then a short scene with 12-year-old Jim Kirk, then a narrative transition to 17-year-old Jim Kirk, just arriving at the Academy, with another short scne, then another narrative transition to 27 year old Lieutenant Kirk. This will be where the bulk of the movie will take place. Then we'll see a couple of narrative transitions to significant events (probably not fully dramatized, just shown and talked over), and finally a return to the "old Spock" bookend.
I'm convinced that the theme will be "how does a young, inexperienced, and unseasoned 'average guy' become the 'Living Legend'... and now REAL legend?" And the point of the story will be to pass along the reality concerning this "legend" to the next generation of future heroes (who we may well see show up in a future series.)
I'm not a gambler... but if I was, all my money would be on this. Not that I'm claiming any inside information, of course... just that I believe this, for reasons that are my own.
Take it for what it's worth...
^ Given that Star Trek produced 10 movies and 4 spin-off tv series, I think it's inconceivable that this movie won't lead to sequels, assuming that it's a success. Paramount considered doing a prequel once before, with Harve Bennett's proposed Starfleet Academy movie. The thinking then was to have a new cast play the roles Shatner, Nimoy et al were felt to be too old to play. If that movie had been made and succeeded, it's likely that that cast would have carried on for a few sequels, which Shatner mentions in his movie memories book.
The problem is Cary, you're thinking artistically. You have to think like a bean counter. The Titanic example you cite is an exception. Movies like The Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean and The Terminator would have stood alone very well and made perfect sense on their own - and in the case of the first two, they'd probably be more fondly remembered without the crappy follow-ups - but led to sequels because people smelled $$$$$$S. To hell with stories, movie studios are interested in profits! If the tale of how James T. Kirk first came to boldly go makes money, then we'll get to see where he went next!
The problem is Cary, you're thinking artistically. You have to think like a bean counter. The Titanic example you cite is an exception. Movies like The Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean and The Terminator would have stood alone very well and made perfect sense on their own - and in the case of the first two, they'd probably be more fondly remembered without the crappy follow-ups - but led to sequels because people smelled $$$$$$S. To hell with stories, movie studios are interested in profits! If the tale of how James T. Kirk first came to boldly go makes money, then we'll get to see where he went next!
And I think that's exactly what Abrams is doing. I have never gotten ANY indication that HIS concern is "reviving the franchise" (though it's likely that this movie is the last, best hope to do so for a loooong time!). Everything he's said is that he has a specific story he's wanted to tell for a long time, and he wants to tell that particular story.
Obviously, the folks on the Paramount board of directors are thinking of it in broader terms... but I doubt that they are so much thinking "should we do a direct sequel" so much as they're thinking "can a different production team make a success where the prior one was making failures?"
If this movie is a success, we'll see more Trek, no question. The issue here really is... what form will that "new Trek" take?
I'm just not convinced it'll be "more Kirk and Spock," though many of you here seem to be.
I think the idea of Spock on his "death bed" hallucinating (which gives a perfect reason for Shatner as Kirk to be there) and dreaming of the "old days" wouldn't be so bad.
That said, I can't see how killing him will be good for business since there will be sequels.
What they should do is have Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the galley of the Enterprise with "Don't Stop Believin'" playing in the background as unsavory characters come in and the screen fades to black.
That said, I can't see how killing him will be good for business since there will be sequels.
What they should do is have Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the galley of the Enterprise with "Don't Stop Believin'" playing in the background as unsavory characters come in and the screen fades to black.
If this movie has anything to prove it's this....
Is all of Star Trek dead Or is it just new Star Trek is dead ?
This is why Paramount is only too happy to go all the way back to square one, is the entire thing dead or is it that folks got sick of all the newer stuff ?
The old show is still popular after all the time that has gone by, so Paramount sees by going back that will tell them if the entire concept still rings true or they should let it rest again, possibly forever or 'till a new hot shot wants to take a shot at it.
Basicly this film is a TEST.
If the TEST fails, then Star Trek is pretty much outlived it's usefulness as a franchice, for now, it will then be placed in the Vault 'till someone else wants to have a go.
We could be waiting a long time for the next chapter.
- W -
* My $0.02 *
Is all of Star Trek dead Or is it just new Star Trek is dead ?
This is why Paramount is only too happy to go all the way back to square one, is the entire thing dead or is it that folks got sick of all the newer stuff ?
The old show is still popular after all the time that has gone by, so Paramount sees by going back that will tell them if the entire concept still rings true or they should let it rest again, possibly forever or 'till a new hot shot wants to take a shot at it.
Basicly this film is a TEST.
If the TEST fails, then Star Trek is pretty much outlived it's usefulness as a franchice, for now, it will then be placed in the Vault 'till someone else wants to have a go.
We could be waiting a long time for the next chapter.
- W -
* My $0.02 *
I'm hoping that we'll see another ship (or station, if you must) in the TOS era. Maybe not quite like Vanguard (in which I'm in the minority view that it doesn't really uphold the TOS spirit), and certainly not characters that are just thin budget-clones of the original characters. (Like, "Hey, we had a black woman communications officer and an asian helmsman. Let's do a black helmsman and an asian woman communications officer! That'll be original!") And don't just have characters that fill untapped demographics (don't have a Middle Eastern captain or Italian captain just because there hasn't been one; if you find a strong, charismatic leading man that's Middle Eastern or Italian, so much the better, but don't go looking to fill a slot on the census board). And have some events that play off of things seen in TOS, but don't make it like the whole Federation revolved around the adventures of the Enterprise. Get a little into the cultures of the Klingons and Romulans, like ENT did with the Vulcans and Andorians, as long as you make those races deep and interesting, and not just cardboard cut-out stereotypes. And if you're gonna do social commentary, don't make it painfully, ridiculously obvious, like "Let That be Your Last Battlefield," or ENT's "Stigma." That's something like the "new Trek" that I'd want to see.
Similar threads
- Poll
