Rumor mongering part 300: Russell Crowe as villain?

I'm missing your point.

We know the following:

1) Garth was a fleet captain when Kirk was a cadet.

2) Garth is an insane inmate when Kirk is Captain of the Enteprise.

3) Kirk MET Garth at one point (presumably after he'd left the Academy)

4) SOMETIME between the two times that Kirk met Garth, something bad happened to Garth.

SO... assuming that this film is set several years before TOS... I'm not sure, at all, how having the character involved would involve any "Retcon."

Clarification, please?

 

Did you see "Cinderella Man?" I've never been a particularly big fan of Russell Crowe, but after seeing him in that movie, I became convinced that the guy, if properly directed, has some pretty good acting ability.

That movie didn't get a lot of viewership... probably a case of bad title-choice (no, he doesn't wear glass slippers!). But it was an EXCELLENT MOVIE, and he carried the whole thing remarkably well. I went from disliking the guy to having a grudging admiration for him, based purely on his performance in that film.

Take that for what it's worth... but I think that guy is IDEALLY suited for a role like Garth... both pre-and-post-lunacy.

 

^ He's already set to hate everything about the next movie. Don't even bother with him.

 

For what it's worth, insane (end evil -- the two always seem to go together, don't they?) Garth had become able to shape-shift. So his looks are problematic. Also, is shape-shifing a desirable trait for the movie's villain to have or not? Just throwing that out to chew on.

 

That thought occurred to me as well. The whole shape-shifting thing seems just a bit cheesy and clichéd for the kind of Trek film I’d like to think Abrams is trying to make. However, it’s possible—even probable—that Garth did not develop the shape-shifting ability until some time after he was incarcerated at Elba II, in which case it probably wouldn’t be a factor in the film’s plotline. If he had been able to do it before then, it wouldn’t have come as such a surprise to everyone.

 

You're jumping waaaaay ahead, and doing something that Trek fans are frequently guilty of.

That is... assuming that the character, as we know them, is who they've always been, and who they'll always BE.

Don't assume that, IF we see Captain Garth, we'll be seeing him after his experience on Antos IV. And don't assume that he's a VILLAIN.

Who's to say that we're not going to see a story where Garth is a tragic hero, and that the end that he is "left for dead" someplace.. and the last time we see him here, he's rescued by a shape-shifting Antosian?

We might see hints at some megalomania (madness always has to grow from a seed, after all.) But he'd be a heroic figure, if we saw him in this film, I think. A "living legend."

 

I'm not set to hate everything about the next movie, I just haven't seen or heard anything I liked come out of the production crew.

I was excited LAST year, this year seems to be another lackluster year for this project.

And then we have to wait ALL of next year too.

Can anyone back up Paramount and convince me that they have been paying Trek the attention it deserves. It doesn't seem like they have.

For such a well established property, a movie project (After they have done 10 of them) shouldn't take this long to come to be.

 

Anyone else remember the dinner scene from Master and Commander where Crowe as Captain Aubrey was regaling his officers with an anecdote of his brief encounters with Lord Nelson years before? Remember how he spoke of Nelson with such reverence? Consider the parallels between that scene and the conversation between Kirk and Spock about Fleet Captain Garth at the beginning of “Whom Gods Destroy.”

Given those parallels, the mere suggestion that Russell Crowe is being pursued to play the villain in this film lends some additional credence to the Garth of Izar theory, in my mind at least. If I were Orci or Kurtzman or one of those guys and I wanted to tell a story about young Kirk and Spock’s involvement in the events surrounding Fleet Captain Garth’s fall from glory, I imagine Crowe might be one of the first people I’d think of to play him just because of that one scene in Master and Commander. Again I find myself drooling at the dramatic possibilities of Kirk being forced to confront and ultimately bring about the disgraced defeat of his own personal hero. We’re talking about a clash of truly epic and tragic proportions.

Of course, just because those kinds of parallels exist doesn’t mean that anyone besides me has actually scene them, let alone the people who wrote the script, or that Garth of Izar is even remotely who they had in mind, but I can dream.

 

Thanks, hee hee. If Bailey really does end up as Kirk, I might try heading for Hollywood - or Vegas.

 

Why the hell should anyone bend over backward to convince YOU of anything? You strike me as someone who would read the entire script before hand, and then be pissed that you weren't surprised while watching the movie.

 

It's been a while since I've seen this episode; I don't remember the reference to Kirk having met Garth before (only that he was required reading at the Academy). Could you refresh my memory?

 

It should, because of the scope of the project. They have to install a completely new creative team and a completely new cast. The script has to go through several rewrites and it's bound to take ages to recast these characters.

The movie has to be a fall/winter movie (Star Trek isn't a summer project) so if they were rushing it out for this year (they'd have to for that to happen) I'd be worried about a slipshod final product.

 

Anything's possible, I guess. Especially considering this thread is the only place I know of where Garth and Crowe have been connected. A purely hypothetical little idea in thread of a universe of its own that we are playing in.

If we meet Garth before he was screwed up, and he's a tragic hero, then what would make him a villain? The subject of this thread was the RUMOR Crowe might be the A-list VILLAIN. Then, someone made the connection that he'd make a good Garth and that discussion took off.

Certainly your example is as possible as any of our speculation and idle chit-chat. But wouldn't that make Garth the center of the movie? After all, he's the "living legend," becomes the tragic hero, and has a mysterious end. Top that, Kirk and Spock.

 

I am perfectly capable of reading a book, and then seeing the movie adaptation with an open mind.

I'm really glad that you take such peresonal offense to my statements, you sure are going out of your way just to gripe aout what I say. I must be striking a nerve, or you just can't come up with any valid objections to my comments.

 

Garth’s derangement didn’t necessarily occur overnight. A good analogy might be what happened to Howard Hughes, only Garth became much more megalomaniacal and dangerous. After his “accident” and subsequent convalescence on Antos IV, it may have taken several years for him to go completely off the deep end, thus allowing him to be the tragic hero and the villain at the same time.

You make a good point. As intriguing and appealing as the Garth of Izar storyline may be, it’s hard to imagine how it could avoid overwhelming all other aspects of the film, especially with somebody like Crowe in the role. Much would depend on exactly how the story was written and, probably, the caliber of whoever they get to play James T. Kirk.

 

I think Garth posting and moderating on TrekBBS around the turn of the millennium is a violation of continuity.

 

That would be awesome but I doubt an actor like Russell Crowe would even consider Star Trek.

 

Let's just blame Future Guy.

 

It would take too long for me to go back and watch the episode and I'm really just too tired.

Besides that's why I said "may be problematic". This could also mean that they MAY BE able to make it work.

Man, you really like to jump on people's asses for little minutiae, don't you?

 

Not at all. You made several reasonable comments, but then took what appeared to be a wild, unreasoning "logical leap" to the statement that it would require "retcon." I LITERALLY see no "retconning" required here, so I said so. You can always attempt to explain how this qualifies as retconning, but so far, it's pretty far from being self-evident, at least from my perspective.