Star Trek XI FAQ 1.01

There's no need for you to apologize for your opinion's Woulfe.

I just think your making a lot of assumptions based on your personal biases of how the elderly should behave, not on how they actually act.

My job entails working with folks over the age of 65 on a regular basis and I think you'd be surprised just how active many of them are now-a-days!

Just because Shatner is seventy-something doesn't mean he's incapable of doing his 'Boston Legal' role & a Trek-XI stint at the same time.
(You ever watch him on BL, most of the time he's sitting anyway, it's not really a strain on his system!)

As for Nimoy, just because he has said he's retired, doesn't mean that Mr. Abrams couldn't entice him back to TREK one more time.

"WE" (Trek Fans) have no idea how these two gentlemen have reacted to their meetings with JJ (other then I believe that they have been quoted saying that the meetings went well??),or for that matter, what they think of the completed 'Script'.

If they feel it's really good they might just agree to become involved one last time.

 

^ Problem is I would love Shatner & Nimoy to return....

However Hollywood doesn't give a rat's ass what I want anymore....

They're after the 'younger' crowd not the over 30 crowd....

Remember there are 'new' folks in charge at Para, not the 'old' guard we knew from before....

I just don't see Hollywood catering to 'us' over 30 folks who grew up w/ TOS, they want to be more 'hip' and 'cool' then that....

Don't you hate when Hollywood types use those words ?

- W -
* Sometimes it's hard to be a Star Trek fan from the early 1970's *

 

I can't see Shatner doing the film either, in part because he's too old (yes I know that's ageism but we have to face the reality that he's in his mid-70s now and by the time this film comes out nearly 15 years will have passed since he played Kirk on film not counting that video game he did). But more importantly is the fact this film is supposed to be a relaunching of the franchise aimed at non-Trekkies. Regardless what the final storyline ends up being, this is an established fact. Paramount will not invest in another Trek film that will only be understood by the Trekkie fanbase. There simply aren't enough of us to sustain a major film like this, not anymore.

What this means is if Shatner were to appear as Kirk, it would require the writers to insert into the film an explanation as to how Kirk came back from his apparent death in Generations. That would stop the film dead in its tracks and derail any intent of relaunching it for a new audience. Unless Abrams is intending to somehow discount the Generations film and, by extension, TNG which by extension would also mean discounting DS9 ... the remaining Trekkie fanbase would be fractured even more than it has ever been if this happens. So many people hate Voyager and Enterprise that the effects on the fanbase would be minimal, but TNG and DS9 have huge fan support. It would be a bad scene. I still remember the infighting that occurred between Trekkies back in 1987 and I'd rather not see this repeat itself with Trek XI.

It's been suggested that Shatner could appear as another character, but that's as bad an idea as having Sean Connery play M or a villain in a Bond film (an idea that's been floated from time to time). It would immediately undermine and overshadow any of the work being done by the current actor playing Kirk and would probably deep-six any hope for a renewed film franchise as people would expect Shatner to come back for Trek XII.

I hope Shatner and Nimoy are involved in some way, as consultants to make sure their iconic characters are done right. But I think we're going to have to accept the idea of someone new donning the golden pajamas and the ears.

Cheers

Alex

 

Actually, I've always wanted to see Connery in another Bond film, alongside the current James Bond... but playing the SAME CHARACTER he played before.

I'm not talking about a "Doctor Who" concept where we see various incarnations of a character. I'm saying that each "James Bond" we've seen is a different character... an entirely new person. Basically, the name "James Bond" is a new name given to agents... sort of a "witness protection program" concept. Each "James Bond" we've seen... except, probably, the first one who was active shortly after WWII... was born with a different name, and had his identity "deleted" and took on the new name once he became a top-level spy.

I've always sort of assumed that all but two of the "Bonds" we've seen have died. The George Lazenby "Bond" was retired due to his devastation of losing the woman he loved (who, of course, became part of the "backstory" of new "Agent Bonds" who followed on, but only as part of their "cover"). And the Connery "Bond" retired... and was brought back... and retired again... and was brought back again... and retired "for good."

Well, Connery is way too old to be a "secret agent" now... but he's not too old to have the MIND of a secret agent.

Here's what I'd love to see...

James Bond... Daniel Craig, that is... is sent to investigate the death of a high-ranking former spy. This former spy turns out to be the "Roger Moore" Bond, who has since been living under another name. Seems that someone is killing off retired agents... for reasons unknown.

Eventually, Bond starts to become suspicious... that perhaps the deaths of the former spies are "inside jobs." In the course of his investigation, he tracks a suspicious character down...

... who turns out to be Connery's "Bond." And it turns out that Connery's "Bond" (operating under a different name of course) has figured out that it's someone inside the government who's trying to "clean up" and cover up some old indiscretions. Connery takes on the role of guide to this new, capable-yet-inexperienced "new Bond."

It turns out that the villain is actually the current "M." She was involved in some dirty dealings back in the early 70's... when she was a much lower-level official (possibly a junior level agent herself?). The story would wrap up with Connery's character becoming the new "M" (which, realize, is merely short for "Minister of Intelligence"... FYI, "Q" is merely short for "quartermaster," too!).

THAT would be a movie I'd pay to see more than once!

 

^ You know, thats exactly what my take on James bond has been.

Well, the Bond being an identity part. There are worse roles to play in the spy world. Going round the world stopping evil and shagging birds. Do you think they got given the cheesy one-liners by Mi:5?

 

I think you kinda-sorta misunderstood my point...

I wasn't espousing that Shatner & Nimoy would be seen throughout the entire movie, just that I believe that they will be seen in the movie in some way, shape or form (such as at the beginning and/or at the end or both).

I know lot of folks around here think that Shatner & Nimoy won't be in the movie unless they have major roles, but I don't believe that.

I think Mr Abrams may have just enough moxie (& a very good story) to get the two of them to participate, in lesser roles, at least as far as the overall story-line goes.
But I also think that how they are involved in the story-line will be an extremely important aspect of the overall concept, in other words...

...What happens with their characters in this movie will span their entire lifetimes, thus making it completely necessary for Shatner & Nimoy to be involved in the first place and it will also do so in such a way without having to "ignore" anything from previously televised Trek shows and the movies.

This story-line will also keep Shatner & Nimoy from taking anything away from the new actors that will play younger versions of themselves, by virtue of it entailing the characters throughout their entire lifetimes.

"WE" (Trek Fans) just have to trust that Mr Abrams & his writing team know what they are doing and are planning to do it in such a fashion that will impress just about everyone.

This is an extremely tall order, and I'm sure they realize that if they don't succeed, STAR TREK will be dead for a Very, Very Long Time.
I believe that they are such big fans of Trek that they are going to pull out all the stops to keep that from happening!

It appears that CBS/Paramount know this too and are giving them plenty of leeway & money to make it happen.

 

George are you posting again on the internet?

What they need to do is get Nimoy to go on Boston Legal around the time the movie is to come out. That would be a hoot.

 

Do we know who the casting director is yet?

 

i wouldnt mind seeing shatner play kirk's father.
we really know next to nothing about him.

 

I could never watch the movie if Damon is set to play Kirk.
Also, what's with all these prequels? Is it really that hard to follow a timeline?

 

Speaking of Star Trek XI, and I just saw this dude here on Youtube... he has some pretty funny things to say about this project... and before you think it's me, I just wanted to say that it's absolutely NOT... anyone else... but me.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=27439jGTAoE

 

^ That video shows just why Paramount stopped listening to us.

- W -
* Sad, isn't it ? *

 

^ It was funny, but yes, that video just shows why Paramount has stopped listening to us

 

I'm glad it's funny, but how is it a reason Paramount stopped listening to us? The video was a joke of sorts. I don't think that's why Paramount stopped listening to us, I rather think that Paramount decided that they wanted to attempt bigger ratings with t & a, thinking that if they showed Seven of Nine prancing around or T'Pol half-naked in a de-tox chamber that it would distract us from the weak stories. Berman & Braga might as well have been the creators of the Man Show, because there just wasn't much of any substance in what they did. Mainly, just T & A. But I would love an explanation as to how the video shows why Paramount doesn't listen to us anymore.

 

It all goes down to a little phrase at Paramount:

"Us and Them". "Why should we (Us) input loads of money into something they (Them) will diss for years and years to come and thus resulting into them not buying our product?"

 

That's an excellent question, though an even better question for them to ask would be, "WHY are they dissing and not buying our products?" And that's a question that most Star Trek fans don't have to think too long or hard about. Star Trek has fallen due to sloppy, lazy writing, tired characters with little development, and flat dialogue. The problem is NOT the fans who gripe about things. The problem is that Paramount is trying to expand and get new audiences for Star Trek by making it something less than extraordinary. Paramount should focus on re-building trust with the fans, not bringing in new ones. They have yet to accept that Star Trek, in the pop-culture world is a no-no, and the only way to get new fans is through old fans. But what happens when the old fans grow tired of Paramount messing with canon, revamping, and generally trying to undo everything we hold dear? We stop tuning in. We stop buying merch. We disown. It has nothing to do with me or my video, it has to do with an out-of-touch studio with less-than-respectful intentions for a franchise with too little quality these days to even be taken seriously by anyone but the die-hards. The magic is simply gone.

 

Wait, what? You'd rather Star Trek remains stagnant with the same number of old fans and never gain any new ones? What kind of Vulcan logic is that?

 

guys...this FAQ is not the place for this debate

 

It is my belief that Paramount is discarding the intelligence of Star Trek to cater to mainstream audiences. This is obviously not keeping the current Star Trek fans happy. Let's face it, non-Star Trek fans look at Trek, and they disregard it because a)it's a geek thing, and b)the canon is just so massive. The odds of new people coming in by themselves are remote. The best way to get new fans invested is through people who are already fans. This will not happen if the fans themselves have decided that Star Trek is lame. Pretty much everyone knows at least one Trek fan. If they hear Star Trek sucks from a TREK FAN, they certainly won't go see it. That's not to say that we shouldn't complain, because in the past, Trek fans have always rallied against administrations. Word of mouth is more important than any fancy trailer with special effects. Even the most simplistic people are suspicious of movie trailers. Most think that the trailer features the best of the movie, so there's no reason in going to see it. Science Fiction, especially that with the name STAR TREK is especially esoteric! People just won't go see a new property. Look at Serenity by Joss Whedon. It did terribly in the box office, but was a better movie than any Star Trek since First Contact.
Now look at what Berman and Braga tried to do with Enterprise. They took the Star Trek title away initially to gain new fans. Instead, they alienated the Star Trek fans, and I doubt there were but maybe five people in the whole country who thought, "oh, this isn't Star Trek--I'll watch it". That wasn't the bulk of the reason for Enterprise getting canceled, but in show business, every little bit of support you get from your fans helps. I don't understand why Paramount can't get it right. To me, keeping the fans happy and providing good stories is a NO BRAINER. First Contact was a movie that pulled in newcomers left and right while still sticking to what makes Star Trek great. It's really not difficult.

 

Rihann
can you please create a new thread for these....this thread is for the faq and questions about the faq