Star Trek 13 question

[balls]

At the rate we're going, it may not be until 2013 before we get Trek 12. My question is about Trek 13. If it were to be slated for 2016, that would be the 50th anniversary of Trek. Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point). It would seem like the deleted scene for Trek 11 would have been their only shot to put him in without messing with contituity. What do you think?

 

[Set Harth]

I thought the "deleted" scene from STXI actually did mess with continuity.

 

[Bread]

At the rate we're going, it may not be until 2013 before we get Trek 12. My question is about Trek 13. If it were to be slated for 2016, that would be the 50th anniversary of Trek. Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point). It would seem like the deleted scene for Trek 11 would have been their only shot to put him in without messing with contituity. What do you think?

How, ON EARTH, could a multi-national corporation like Paramount, which spends 100's of millions of dollars on such projects, plan or put pressure on Abrams to script a film, which includes an already 80 year old actor, for 5 years hence when he could conceivably be DEAD from old age?

NO!

It's too risky for all manner of reasons and what would be the point?

LMAO.

 

[Set Harth]

If Guinan is any indication, there's still an echo of Kirk in the Nexus...

 

[C.E. Evans]

At this rate, we'll probably get a new TV series in 2016 before Star Trek XIII...

 

[F. King Daniel]

James T. Kirk is played by Chris Pine now. Get used to it.

 

[Shatinator]

At the rate we're going, it may not be until 2013 before we get Trek 12. My question is about Trek 13. If it were to be slated for 2016, that would be the 50th anniversary of Trek. Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point). It would seem like the deleted scene for Trek 11 would have been their only shot to put him in without messing with contituity. What do you think?

Exactly how could they mess up continuity, they are essentially making it up as they go.

More directly--that is a very long time from now.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the reboot will probably be a three movie deal so Star Trek 13 will be the end of the franchise in that form. I suspect that the 50th anniversary will launch some new kind of TV franchise.

 

[Ssosmcin]

More like

James T. Kirk is played by Chris Pine [for] now.

Not that I feel Pine is doing a bad job or have some sort of wish for old Shatner and Nimoy to get back into harness, but I get some amusement out of the whole "JJ Abrams Trek is the future" type posts. Can anyone really see him and the whole cast involved after 3 films? And what happens after that? Do they reboot again? Recast? Let it go back to TV? Drop Kirk and Spock altogether?

The old Trek is done, yes, but "new" Trek will not be THIS forever either. It's not like Trek is run by one producer who guides the franchise anymore. Abrams doesn't strike me as the type to "take ownership" of it and will eventually get tired of Trek and move on. Who knows? James T. Kirk may well be played by Angus T. Jones in ten years. He'll do two and a half Treks.

"Trek Trek Trekkie, Trekkie Trek Trek - ah haaaaa - Trekkkkkk...."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

At the rate we're going, it may not be until 2013 before we get Trek 12. My question is about Trek 13. If it were to be slated for 2016, that would be the 50th anniversary of Trek. Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point). It would seem like the deleted scene for Trek 11 would have been their only shot to put him in without messing with contituity. What do you think?

I don't think Shatner would do it. Despite what we keep hearing in the rumor mill, he probably doesn't want to do Trek anymore. (He'd be almost 90 by the time Trek XIII came out, right?)

Even if he did want to appear, his ego would surely demand more scenes than they'd be prepared to give him.

I get some amusement out of the whole "JJ Abrams Trek is the future" type posts. Can anyone really see him and the whole cast involved after 3 films?

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[balls]

At the rate we're going, it may not be until 2013 before we get Trek 12. My question is about Trek 13. If it were to be slated for 2016, that would be the 50th anniversary of Trek. Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point). It would seem like the deleted scene for Trek 11 would have been their only shot to put him in without messing with contituity. What do you think?

I don't think Shatner would do it. Despite what we keep hearing in the rumor mill, he probably doesn't want to do Trek anymore. (He'd be almost 90 by the time Trek XIII came out, right?)


Even if he did want to appear, his ego would surely demand more scenes than they'd be prepared to give him.

I get some amusement out of the whole "JJ Abrams Trek is the future" type posts. Can anyone really see him and the whole cast involved after 3 films?

Yes. Absolutely.

He'd be 85 in 2016.

 

[Transk53]

I liked the last film and I thought Chris Pine was rather good. However, Paramount learnt with Enterprise that overall, no one really wants to go back to the 22nd, 23rd or even TNG. As a fan, I personally want to see a Trek envisaged in Enterprise, the distant future. Like 26th, 27th Centuries. If you have to attribute an AU to something, it's time to change direction.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

However, Paramount learnt with Enterprise that overall, no one really wants to go back to the 22nd, 23rd or even TNG.

What Paramount learned with Star Trek 2009 is that people love Kirk and Spock and will pay lots of money to see them in movies that kick ass.

Movie studios pay a lot more attention over time to what they learn from stuff that makes them money than stuff that doesn't.

If you have to attribute an AU to something, it's time to change direction.

Abrams changed Trek's direction, all right, for the better.

Do you think Abrams and Co. would be pressured by Paramount to put Shatner in that movie? (assuming the Shatman is still with us at that point).

Not as long as Star Trek 2012 is a success. Keep Shatner out.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I liked the last film and I thought Chris Pine was rather good. However, Paramount learnt with Enterprise that overall, no one really wants to go back to the 22nd, 23rd or even TNG. As a fan, I personally want to see a Trek envisaged in Enterprise, the distant future. Like 26th, 27th Centuries. If you have to attribute an AU to something, it's time to change direction.

Erm.... STXI was the most successful Trek movie ever. By a wide margin. People don't care about whether it's 100 or 200 or 300 pretend years in the future, they care about quality - something Enterprise didn't have enough of, especially in the shoddy first and second seasons.

 

[Greg Cox]

Why do people keep wanting to bring Shatner back one more time? The man has already had two curtain calls, in Undiscovered Country and Generations, which is more than enough. He had a good long run, but it's time to move on.

I mean, you don't hear Bond fans lobbying for Connery to come back one more time . . . .

 

[Patrickivan]

I don't think it would be so bad for the 50th anniversary. Though I think his role should be simple. Some Admiral who delivers a few lines or something- and as long as it's pertinent to the story too. It could be any secondary character role.

Regardless, it wouldn't hurt it to NOT have him in it in such a role. I think lots of people would find it really cool to see... Hell, everyone I know would think it to be cool.

I can't emphasize enough that I wouldn't want him in a supporting large role or anything in a character related to Kirk... It would seem to contrived.

 

[Transk53]

Abrams changed Trek's direction, all right, for the better.

I personally do not agree. Obviously I respect your opinion, we all love Star Trek, but I am somewhat of a revolutionary. I want to see that future and I believe that is the future. 2009 was a great film, but I want to see that as a homage to the Great Shatner, and time for new heroes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Shatner's portrayal of Kirk is classic, no question, but it's time to stop clinging to the past. The baton has been passed. Shatner has already appeared in seven Star Trek movies. Why do we need to squeeze some sort of the nostagic cameo into the next generation of Trek films?

Again, nobody expects to see Connery in the next Bond movie, or Adam West in The Dark Knight Rises . . . .

 

[Lonemagpie]

Why do people keep wanting to bring Shatner back one more time? The man has already had two curtain calls, in Undiscovered Country and Generations, which is more than enough. He had a good long run, but it's time to move on.

I mean, you don't hear Bond fans lobbying for Connery to come back one more time . . . .

Barry Nelson, you mean...

Or even Bob Holness, come to that...

 

[Greg Cox]

Why do people keep wanting to bring Shatner back one more time? The man has already had two curtain calls, in Undiscovered Country and Generations, which is more than enough. He had a good long run, but it's time to move on.

I mean, you don't hear Bond fans lobbying for Connery to come back one more time . . . .

Barry Nelson, you mean...

Or even Bob Holness, come to that...

I think Barry Nelson is to Connery as Jeffrey Hunter is to Shatner.

(Yeah, I know Hunter didn't actually play Kirk, but you get the idea.)