I guess they are bringing out the big guns to revive fan interest?
Leonard Nimoy to Reprise Role as Spock in 11th 'Star Trek' Movie
Leonard Nimoy to Reprise Role as Spock in 11th 'Star Trek' Movie
Nimoy to be in Star Trek 11
- Thread starter Orintho
- Start date
And the writers are still pulling to Shatner appear too, if they can work out the Generations issue.
I'm of two minds of this. First it will of course be great to see Nimoy coming out of his announced retirement from acting to play Spock. No complaints. And I like the casting of Quinto as Spock. The problem I have is in having the two in the same film. I really fear that everyone will be distracted by Nimoy and it'll hurt Quinto's attempt at making an impression, especially since he will have by then spent 2 seasons playing supervillain Sylar on Heroes, thereby having to fight typecasting on top of everything else. And everyone will be comparing him to Nimoy. (Yes that would happen in any event, but even moreso since Nimoy will be in the SAME FILM). It's the same as the often-rumored desire to have Sean Connery appear as M or a villain in the Bond films. Yes, it would be fantastic and a lot of fun ... but it would completely destroy any effort being made by Daniel Craig or whomever.
I've been accused of passing judgement on Trek XI like many passed judgement on Nemesis a year before it came out (branding me a hypocrite since I criticize people who did that). But I'm not. In fact I'm confident that it'll be a very good film, well-written, directed, and acted. No worries there at all.
I am just concerned that the filmmakers are making some unwise decisions based upon prior experience with this corner of fandom. Trek fans hate prequels - see Enterprise. They hate flashbacks and holodeck recreations -- see These Are the Voyages. I've already seen many posts here and at Trekweb from people who hate the film already simply because they're recasting the icons. That's another strike against the film. And I also fear that by not only bringing in Nimoy as Spock but, presumably therefore, making a TNG-era tie (wait for the announcement of Patrick Stewart or Kate Mulgrew making a cameo -- I fully expect it) the studio is going to make the film less attractive to the absolute newcomers to Trek that the franchise needs to attract in order to remain viable.
With any luck I'll be dead wrong and Trek XI will be a huge success and Quinto will be nominated for an Oscar. But having seen how fandom has worked regarding Trek over the last 10 years since I first went online, my confidence is not very high.
Cheers!
Alex
I'm of two minds of this. First it will of course be great to see Nimoy coming out of his announced retirement from acting to play Spock. No complaints. And I like the casting of Quinto as Spock. The problem I have is in having the two in the same film. I really fear that everyone will be distracted by Nimoy and it'll hurt Quinto's attempt at making an impression, especially since he will have by then spent 2 seasons playing supervillain Sylar on Heroes, thereby having to fight typecasting on top of everything else. And everyone will be comparing him to Nimoy. (Yes that would happen in any event, but even moreso since Nimoy will be in the SAME FILM). It's the same as the often-rumored desire to have Sean Connery appear as M or a villain in the Bond films. Yes, it would be fantastic and a lot of fun ... but it would completely destroy any effort being made by Daniel Craig or whomever.
I've been accused of passing judgement on Trek XI like many passed judgement on Nemesis a year before it came out (branding me a hypocrite since I criticize people who did that). But I'm not. In fact I'm confident that it'll be a very good film, well-written, directed, and acted. No worries there at all.
I am just concerned that the filmmakers are making some unwise decisions based upon prior experience with this corner of fandom. Trek fans hate prequels - see Enterprise. They hate flashbacks and holodeck recreations -- see These Are the Voyages. I've already seen many posts here and at Trekweb from people who hate the film already simply because they're recasting the icons. That's another strike against the film. And I also fear that by not only bringing in Nimoy as Spock but, presumably therefore, making a TNG-era tie (wait for the announcement of Patrick Stewart or Kate Mulgrew making a cameo -- I fully expect it) the studio is going to make the film less attractive to the absolute newcomers to Trek that the franchise needs to attract in order to remain viable.
With any luck I'll be dead wrong and Trek XI will be a huge success and Quinto will be nominated for an Oscar. But having seen how fandom has worked regarding Trek over the last 10 years since I first went online, my confidence is not very high.
Cheers!
Alex
Well, I think at this point Abrams knows he's put himself in a corner.
Most Trek fans are going to hate the film due to the prequel and redo aspect, his only real hope for gaining their approval and money is by throwing in a couple of clear draws like Nimoy and Shatner.
On the flip, I suspect having them won't hurt the film for non fans much. People like seeing Shatner ham it up, and Nimoy is such a household legend they'll want to see him if only to laugh if he totters while walking.
Appearance wise Quinto looks like a Spock, I'm not really impressed by him otherwise, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, like any other casting choice.
Most Trek fans are going to hate the film due to the prequel and redo aspect, his only real hope for gaining their approval and money is by throwing in a couple of clear draws like Nimoy and Shatner.
On the flip, I suspect having them won't hurt the film for non fans much. People like seeing Shatner ham it up, and Nimoy is such a household legend they'll want to see him if only to laugh if he totters while walking.
Appearance wise Quinto looks like a Spock, I'm not really impressed by him otherwise, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, like any other casting choice.
Regardless of who is in the film (and I do not like to 'blame' actors so I hope Quinto does well), Abrams has his work cut out for him to overcome franchise-killing debacles like 'Nemesis'. And I don't think the reboot format is the strongest way to revive Trek.
And Shatner? I am on the fence about this one. Much as I love Kirk the character, Shatner the actor has aged quite a bit and for a long time now, seems to play himself as Kirk rather than play Kirk. And one thing I tire of in Trek films is when the writers constantly throw out all "logical" progression just to squeeze the same characters into their same positions again and again and again.
And Shatner? I am on the fence about this one. Much as I love Kirk the character, Shatner the actor has aged quite a bit and for a long time now, seems to play himself as Kirk rather than play Kirk. And one thing I tire of in Trek films is when the writers constantly throw out all "logical" progression just to squeeze the same characters into their same positions again and again and again.
Not necessarily. The first DC Comic ST annual, "All Those Years Ago...", is fondly remembered, as is the "giant" novels "Enterprise: The First Adventure", "Strangers from the Sky" and "Final Frontier". Being a prequel isn't why ENT is hated.
You could also say that fans hate time travel, reset button and Borg episodes, but they still rated better than other episodes, so they kept on being used and reused. As did the holodeck.
The flashbacks are one of the strengths of "Lost", and many ST fans enjoy watching "Lost".
No one will ever please the petulant youth of ST's online community. A ST film doesn't need the undying blind support of the online ST community to succeed. It simply needs a good script, strong performances, lots of nostalgia value and compelling publicity materials to pique the interest of the general public.
If ST XI also thrills the ST fans, that's a bonus.
This is so obviously not a reboot, to even float that idea anymore is purely academic.
And remember, that on some level things are being done for the hardcore fan sake - that isn't the target here. The fans are way to small a group to bother trying to please.
For the first time ever, they aren't making a "Star Trek Movie TM", they seem to be approaching it the right way, and making a Movie - I'm not sure that distinction is clear in what I wrote but its all in the artistic tackling of the material. In one case one adopts a franchise formula in the other one looks at it as any other film.
Simply being a "prequel" won't matter to the average Joe, being none linear, I say if Trek fans can't cope with that valid story telling device they need to open their minds some - and chances are this won't be a holodeck thing like the horrid Enterprise final either.
Sharr
I think it's a non-issue. Those who can't accept a younger actor playing Mr. Spock will either not go, or be pre-disposed to hate the film no matter what. As for any comparison of Quinto to Nimoy in the Spock role, THAT would happen REGARDLESS of whether Nimoy is actually in the film itself or not. Fans that go understand that "Hey, this is a story from the 23rd century. There's NO WAY you could get Nimoy at 76 to look like he did 40 years ago with makeup." Quinto's acceptance or denial by fans will be based on his own performance in the film. Again, the fans (both casual and hardcore) that cannot accept this situation are going to have their minds made up LONG before the film is released.
Persnally, since it does seem they are now attempting to set this is existing Star Trek continuity, and not doing a 100% re-imagining/reboot; I'll be really curious to see just what they do with the interior film sets of the 1701. Will it look like it did in The Cage or Where No Man Has Gone Before, or will they take some creative license?
If anything, Enterprise proved the old set designes still work today; and the camerapeople were making comments like, "Yes, this is very workable. I could shoot things here for years..."
All in all, I'M more concerned that they actually have a good story rather than who plays Kirk, Spock, etc. (And I AM an old TOS fan who saw the series first run on NBC); because the main problem with Star Trek films is that either the studio and/or the producers seem to have felt there's elements that must ALWAYS be in a Star Trek film, and they've done a 'Trek by the numbers approach'.
In the end, I think either teh story will sell me on the film or it won't. The actual script will make or break this film; not the actors they get to play the younger Kirk and Spock (imo).
PS - and BTW this old TOS fan liked and still likes Enterprise quite a bit. It was the first 'modern' Star Trek series that actually felt more like TOS then ANY of the others.
Correction: Fans 'hate' badly written prequels...
A lot of people were excited about ENT, but the show slapped the fans in the face with trying to re-write Trek history, and give us characters we couldn't identify with. Of course, that 'Trek feel' (and characters which were somewhat being shaped) somewhat approached in the 4th season when the ratings had plummeted...
I think people were upset with the death of a character, as well as TNG stepping on ENT's shoes, when it should have been a farewell with the ENT crew...
Not too mention, it showed an older Riker and Troi taking place during an episode where they should have been a bit 'younger'...
For me, with any luck...this will be a TOS film, with no TNG tie...(Introducing characters and a storyline with a strong interpretation of Kirk, Spock and the other characters)...
I think if this was a 'Berman' production, some TNG tie would be in there...(and not so much to move the story forward, I think).
They cannot push Star Trek forward without the current fanbase. We are the ones that are going to be the biggest vocal proponents of any Trek endeavor. Without us, they would have to spend a small fortune just in advertising to get people's attention. Let alone the fact that Star Trek has become stigmatized. Overcoming the stigmatism will take more than getting JJ and cres to make a movie. It will take a concerted effort and require a consistent effort to bring Trek back to it's heyday.
I personally think the TOS era should be left alone and let the legends remain legends. I don't know hoe they are going to make a major motion picture set in the era without damaging established canon.
I personally have not heard anything coming out of the Trek XI project that is making me want to go spend alot of money for the theater experience. There is nothing original about what they are doing. I think they threw Nimoy whatever it took to get him to sign on to the project. And a cameo by Stewart would only confuse the issue even further.
I personally think the TOS era should be left alone and let the legends remain legends. I don't know hoe they are going to make a major motion picture set in the era without damaging established canon.
I personally have not heard anything coming out of the Trek XI project that is making me want to go spend alot of money for the theater experience. There is nothing original about what they are doing. I think they threw Nimoy whatever it took to get him to sign on to the project. And a cameo by Stewart would only confuse the issue even further.
^ If what you've "heard" is more than enough for you to judge a movie that hasn't even been filmed yet, I'd hate to see what else you've thrown under the bus in your life. Of course, you also think you're the definition of the fanbase using "we" and "us," when you sure as hell don't speak for me.
So Nimoy is the Rashard Lewis of Star Trek?
So Nimoy is the Rashard Lewis of Star Trek?
So you've read the script, then?
^^^^^
I hate to bring up facts, but, if the hardcore Star Trek fanbase was still as large as you think, Nemesis wouldn't have only had 19 million in it's opening weekend. Would Paramount like us to come and see the film? You bet. But if there's one thing CBS and Paramount have learned it's that the hardcore Star Trek fanbase is too segmented and fragmented to be satisfied as a cohesive by ANYTHING they do.
Therefore, they (with this film) want to try and reach the more genereral population (as the names Kirk, Spock, USS Enterprise are still more ingrained in pop culture than anything else); and see if they can get a newer fanbase that uses this film as a 'starting point'.
Will all this work as they hope? Who knows; but at this point I beleive they figure this project will sit about as well as the last few projects did with the old hardcore fanbase, and they'll get what they can from there regardless.
But, I'll wait until the film is finished, and they start showing trailers and advertising the finished film before I decide if I'll see/skip it.
shouldn't this be in Future of Trek?
How about everyone that's been knee jerking my statements coming up with some form of valid support for this project, Just because they slap a Star Trek label on it doesn't make it good.
TOS has been around over 40 years, how is there anything original left there that hasn't been dissected already?
Can anyone answer that.
How are they going to develop a new fanbase without the existing fanbase?
Do they really think they can start fresh with a property that is highly developed and has already permeated pop culture?
I didn't make the comment about Nimoy to insult him, he does deserve to set his own terms for projects he gets involved in. I meant it to cast doubt upon the production crew.
If they want a fresh fanbase they need a fresh approach, not a recycling of the oldest property in the book.
TOS has been around over 40 years, how is there anything original left there that hasn't been dissected already?
Can anyone answer that.
How are they going to develop a new fanbase without the existing fanbase?
Do they really think they can start fresh with a property that is highly developed and has already permeated pop culture?
I didn't make the comment about Nimoy to insult him, he does deserve to set his own terms for projects he gets involved in. I meant it to cast doubt upon the production crew.
If they want a fresh fanbase they need a fresh approach, not a recycling of the oldest property in the book.
Originality isn't time period, it lays in use of art form. Plus ah, since when did fictional universes have finite space in their timelines? That's absurd.
The fact is the TNG movies floundered and people are generally more aware of Kirk Spock ect and more importantly this is a story Abrams wants to tell.
Just because the characters aren't "new" the equation isn't or should not be that they are "unoriginal". People who make that link in my opinion have a limited view of the dynamic structure of fiction. Any era of any fictional 'verse is always worth taking a look back into.
Clearly there's some story to tell here, something worth exploring - you might not see it yourself or grasp how that is so, but someone managed to write such a script.
Not having details this is hard to debate.
Sharr
We do?
Damn, I must have missed that issue of What All Star Trek Fans Hate. Where can I get one online?
--Ted (a FORTY-Year Fan)
I don't know about this. I've never personally been a fan of setting a whole movie up as a flashback, especailly since the ones I've seen are pretty bad. The only time I can recall a good flashback movie was Green Mile, but I think that was because the hero regrets his failure
.
I won't say it can't be done, but it's hard to do well.
The other thing is that I've never ever seen a major film where the producer is going so far out of his way to *not* to reveal anything of substance about the film. When the producers lack confidence in the project, I see no reason to anticipate it.
to save the healer guy
I won't say it can't be done, but it's hard to do well.
The other thing is that I've never ever seen a major film where the producer is going so far out of his way to *not* to reveal anything of substance about the film. When the producers lack confidence in the project, I see no reason to anticipate it.
Well, until the movie is done and in theaters, we won't know either way, will we?
Sure. A good, creative writer can do extraordinary things, even with a 40-year-old franchise.
I don't think it's about fanbases - they're just trying to make a good movie to draw as large a general audience as possible.
Which was the goal of all previous Trek films as well, by the way.
Sure. If it's a good, compelling story, there's no reason why the movie shouldn't be successful.
Where, exactly, did you get your insights into the script and the production? Are you working on the film? Oh, wait, it's just your own speculation and nothing more. Got it.
Similar threads
- Locked
