Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by skep155, Jun 26, 2009.
Now that you mention it, I hope they will follow the super secrecy strategy like with Star Trek.
oh they will.
but we'll still get something.
Well, I hope the first thing they do is make clear if Shatner will be in it or not.
I don't think I can take two more years of threads about it.
I don't think the Shat can, either!
surely no one wants that!
but isn't a cast list usually the first thing that is released about any upcoming film? so we should find out whether it includes shatner by, say.... next spring.
so, only about a year of threads about it. yikes.
Well heres my shot at the next movie, Do the end of speace seed like (Thingol Wrote) Have Shatner play MUDD, Mudd and kirk meet, at some bar, on a star base. Mudd tells Kirk about the Doomsday Machine but this time its dead in space, Mudd says he will take Kirk to it but, He and his woman need a ride to a plant called Janus IV, after he shows them.
So the ENT and the Constellation's, go off to check it out, and find the Doomsday Machine, but also find 3 Klingon ships With Koloth, Kor, Kang.
Ooo, spoiler jones.
And you know that it's exactly what we're going to be in for, too, no matter what TPTB say or don't say.
I'm not saying it has to be dark, but it doesn't need black hats and white hats to differentiate the good from bad. Moral ambiguity is almost exclusively a quality seen in struggles to do the right thing (what a "humanitarian armada" would do), as opposed to doing what's expedient, (we'll take what we want, no matter the cost to others) Doing good ALWAYS involves shades, not absolutes.
Glad you like the concept, I know I'd be excited to see this movie!
Sometimes moral complexity can be used as an excuse for evil people to get away with doing what they want to.
I liked that DS9 episode where Sisko engineered that Romulan involvement in the war. I like all section 31 episodes. They were understandable to me.
How about Tom Hanks as a Section 31 operative? Interesting confrontation between means versus ends...
How about Tom Cruise as a 23rd century M:I agent gone bad ? 2 birds one stone for Abrams
I don't know... I want the sequel to do good...
Actually, I think the former Tom is better at ego suppression than the latter Tom.
Plus Hanks is less likely to step on Pine's toes, since Cruise and Pine are "similar" in their intensity.
Whatever they get him to play, I sure hope that *somebody* gets Hanks on board! Does Abrams know that one of the biggest box office draws in Hollywood is a gigantic Trekkie? That's major bank potential, baby!
Tome Hanks for Khaaaaaannn!
[gump]From Hell's heart I stab at thee, Jenn-nee...[/gump]
Bad choice in both cases.
But, to play devil's advocate, Abrams has a point. "The Unknown" as the antagonist sounds good but would probably just result in a Voyager-style anomoly of the week story.
Tom Hanks = Q
But it'll never happen.
I'd love it, though.
Hmmm; I like it.
DeLancie personified that role, not sure I'd like to see Hanks do it, although I suspect he'd do great.
but, see, if they redo Khan, they might as well redo Q.
I'd rather see redone Q than redone Khan.
Separate names with a comma.