I suppose.
I don't want to, though, and apparently it won't be necessary.
Shat out / Nimoy in?
- Thread starter Jon1701
- Start date
I suppose.
I don't want to, though, and apparently it won't be necessary.
Out with the old..In with the old..
This is actually good news for everyone except the most die-hard Bring-back-Shat! fans, I think. Having Shatner could easily reduce the film to farce for all those casual fans that this movie will be leaning on. They won't be so forgiving of his over-the-hill age. Heck, I'm a fan of Shat, but he just is not so convincing as a space cowboy anymore.
I think the movie could pull off having Nimoy though. Though I'd just as soon see neigther, I can live with Nimoy.
I think the movie could pull off having Nimoy though. Though I'd just as soon see neigther, I can live with Nimoy.
But what's more important by far is whether this indication that Nimoy is "coming out of retirement" means that he'll agree to make an appearance in Boston Legal. Let's get the press release on that!
But seriously, I would prefer to see Nimoy as Sarek or Sarek's father, but I'm pretty flexible. I don't really feel that a 24th century frame is the direction they're going. We'll see.
But seriously, I would prefer to see Nimoy as Sarek or Sarek's father, but I'm pretty flexible. I don't really feel that a 24th century frame is the direction they're going. We'll see.
Sounds like the Shat is working some kind of angle here.
I'm well aware of this concept, "suspension of disbelief", but thanks for the lesson just the same.
If you feel you can suspend disbelief enough to look at a 70 year old bloated man stuffed into an outdated uniform and accept him as a character who has already been ingloriously and unfortunately killed off, then you have powers greater than I, my friend.
I think it would disrespect the character of Kirk to have us attempt to buy Shatner as him once again. Unless he's old, and playing old, I say let it be.
Just a couple of thoughts if there is a narrator and it's Nimoy --
1. The movie is supposed to be one of the most action-packed Trek stories ever told. Would a story like that need a narrator? Wouldn't breaks for narration bog it down? Slow the pace?
2. Would Nimoy be willing to come out of retirement to basically read exposition and scene tie-ins? Or to simply "bookend" the story? Unless he changed his mind, I thought he wanted to participate only if the role had substance.
3. Assuming he's narrating as Spock, doesn't that make it Spock's story? If the movie is about the making of Kirk, then we need to get into Kirk's head. How can we reallly learn what made him tick Spock is relating the story from outside? It would be about what Spock thought was important about Kirk, wouldn't it? (Or, doesn't that matter?)
If the focus of the story is indeed young Kirk, and one assumes a narrator is needed, then using Shatner would make more sense. Shatner as Kirk could legitimately get inside Kirk's head and talk about Kirk's feelings at certain moments and how events changed him.
So, if it's true that Nimoy is in and Shatner's not, I'm continuing to hope that means Nimoy is Spock and is somehow crucial to the story.
Let James Earl Jones just narrate.
1. The movie is supposed to be one of the most action-packed Trek stories ever told. Would a story like that need a narrator? Wouldn't breaks for narration bog it down? Slow the pace?
2. Would Nimoy be willing to come out of retirement to basically read exposition and scene tie-ins? Or to simply "bookend" the story? Unless he changed his mind, I thought he wanted to participate only if the role had substance.
3. Assuming he's narrating as Spock, doesn't that make it Spock's story? If the movie is about the making of Kirk, then we need to get into Kirk's head. How can we reallly learn what made him tick Spock is relating the story from outside? It would be about what Spock thought was important about Kirk, wouldn't it? (Or, doesn't that matter?)
If the focus of the story is indeed young Kirk, and one assumes a narrator is needed, then using Shatner would make more sense. Shatner as Kirk could legitimately get inside Kirk's head and talk about Kirk's feelings at certain moments and how events changed him.
So, if it's true that Nimoy is in and Shatner's not, I'm continuing to hope that means Nimoy is Spock and is somehow crucial to the story.
Let James Earl Jones just narrate.
Oh, I don't think so. Narration would only REALLY come into play at the opening and closing... the body of the story will let the audience forget that entirely, I'm sure. This style of narration has been used lots of times, to excellent effect.
What I expect to see is a brief narration by Spock, talking to SOMEONE who we can't really see, at the beginning... this fades into the storytelling. When there are big "era transitions" in the story (going from 12 year old Kirk to 17 year old Kirk and then to 27 year old Kirk) we'd get a brief narration just to help the audience transition without being confused. It would simply be the quickest and simplest way of telling the audience that "this is the same guy even though he doesn't look the same." And then, finally, at the end of the film, a closing narrative by Spock, where we finally see who he's talking to (and I'd like for that to be a young half-Vulcan/half-Romulan wearing a future Starfleet uniform, personally!)
You're assuming that this sort of role has no substance. Just because Nimoy won't be getting the lion's share of SCREEN TIME doesn't mean that, if well-written, the role can't be EXTREMELY substantial... and in fact might be the most MOVING part of the story. Not to mention that he'd be the one to let us all suspend our disbelief and see these characters as being the same guys... which is a HUGE hurdle for this movie to overcome, frankly, and is probably the single greatest pitfall that the film faces (and if done poorly, the most likely reason for the movie to fail).
Totally a non-issue. We have NEVER had Kirk narrate a story in which he was shown. Everything we know about the man has been external in nature. Except for Shatner's books, we've never been given a "Kirk's Eye view" of the action.
I don't agree. Let me give you a good (if different) example. Go watch "The Princess Bride." The story, as structured, made MUCH more sense being told from a third-person narrative than it would have if told from the perspective of any of the characters in the story.
This is what I expect to see... Spock will be INVOLVED, but it really isn't his story about himself... it's the story about his friend, as told through his own eyes and his own recollections (which also gives the uber-fans an "out"... anything that breaches continuity can be attributed to Spock becoming senile!)
No... the emotional connection (yeah, I get it... Vulcans aren't supposed to show emotions... but that just means that their emotions are all the more significant when they're expressed!) will be that much greater when we hear Nimoy's voice, in full Spock character mode, talking about his feelings about his friend, Jim.
^^^^^^^^^
Good counter-points. But, I would just say that if Nimoy's only involvement in the story is to be an older Spock in a rocking chair conveying the yarn to a young cadet, then why do it? What does that really add to the story? Emotional poignency? Sentimental treacle, others may say.
Having the older Spock truly involved in the story in some way or even instrumental to it, now that'd take imagination and an inventive plot. (Not that the movie cannot be that way, otherwise, of course.)
[For what it's worth, did I miss something somewhere that confirms this film even has or needs a narrator in the first place?]
Good counter-points. But, I would just say that if Nimoy's only involvement in the story is to be an older Spock in a rocking chair conveying the yarn to a young cadet, then why do it? What does that really add to the story? Emotional poignency? Sentimental treacle, others may say.
Having the older Spock truly involved in the story in some way or even instrumental to it, now that'd take imagination and an inventive plot. (Not that the movie cannot be that way, otherwise, of course.)
[For what it's worth, did I miss something somewhere that confirms this film even has or needs a narrator in the first place?]
Oh, c'mon... you're reaching.
A captain's log is an OFFICIAL RECORD. It's not like he's saying "Dear Diary... today I boinked another green chick, and she was SWEEEEEEEET..."
Many stories are told from the perspective of the hero. Particularly novels. But in Trek, we were always watching the hero from a pure third-person perspective. Most adventures are that way... as a rule, seeing the internal self-doubt of the hero is not what the audience really wants.
The only "self-narrative" I can recall from TOS, really, was when Kirk is infected by the Psy 2000 virus and is talking about the Enterprise with some obvious sexual confusion...
"The death of Spock is like an open wound...it seems that I have left the best part of myself back there..."
Very "official."
Very "official."
Nope, there has been no official release of ANY element of the script, and only a handful of people have seen the script in any form so far. And those who have are under a legal restriction preventing them from actually saying anything about it. We (that's ALL of us.. you and me and anyone else) can talk about things, project our own opinions, but nobody can say "I've seen the script and this is what happens." Anyone who'd actually read the script and said anything about it would likely end up facing legal trouble... which is why these people usually send their scripts "anonymously" to people like Harry Knowles...
Now, there ARE people who have seen the script (although we can count on it being revised... potentially drastically... before filming starts!) but you should simply assume that anything you see posted in a public place (like this forum) remains pure speculation without any foundation. If anything different were true, the people who were saying things couldn't confirm it anyway.
Make sense?
Seriously! This is one big pet peeve of mine about later Trek stories, how they seem to have forgotten about the Captain's Log being the official record of a mission. Now everybody and their Yeoman has their own log, which has become (even up to the Captain now, unfortunately), more like a diary. "Captain's Log, personal," or whatever it is they say, should never be heard, nor should "Chief Engineer's Log," "Chief Medical Officer's Log" (unless it's referring specifically to a medical mission), or "Random Lieutenant's Log." If the "log" isn't the official record of the mission, than it's not a log, it's a diary. And when Kirk starts waxing rhapsodic in his log entries, than they do cease to be an authentic "captain's log." So, Superman is right the the log entries in the movies did have some inner monologue of Kirk's, but the original seires stuck to the authentic ideal that the log was simply an official record.
End rant.
I can't comment on that. I'm sure that the "powers that be" at Paramount are not about to go suing Shatner unless he does something to HARM the movie, though... and this only serves to stir up attention. And Shatner apparently hasn't seen a script anyway... and it's unenforceable against Nimoy since it's simply "here-say" evidence.
Also... saying "I've read it and it's good" is not the same thing, NOT BY A LONG SHOT, as saying "I've read it and Darth Vader is really Luke's father!"
On the other hand, if the secretary to the production designer were to leak the script and it got tracked back to him or her... we'd be talking about that person basically kissing their career in Hollywood goodbye (though I sorta doubt there'd be any real fiscal penalty and, not being a FELONY, almost certainly no jail time involved!).
Similar threads
