the "bridge" death of Kirk: REBOOT?

[Ovation]

Well, here's the rub.

Up until we saw the new bridge photos, pretty much everyone around here took Abrams and Co. at their word that that movie was going to be a prequel that preserved canon. Fans silenced any complaints of a reboot by citing Abrams and Co.

Then, the new bridge photos came out and pretty much all of those same people instantly acted not only as if the new movie is a reboot but also as if we all knew it was going to be a reboot all along.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of the above for a moment...

Abrams said he couldn't work Shatner's Kirk into the movie because (according to canon), Shatner's Kirk is dead.

But now that we are (mostly) all suddenly so sure that this new film is a reboot (or some variation of that word), that "excuse" no longer applies.

So, either:

A) The movie is a strict canon sequel and those bridge photos we saw exist only in the Twilight Zone, or...

B) The movie loosely follows something approaching canon, yet large enough liberties have already been taken to convince many of the fans here that the movie is now a reboot (which is inherently problematic), or...

C) The movie really is a reboot, invalidating Abrams' given reason for excluding Shatner from the movie, meaning either:

.....1) Shatner really is in the movie, or...

.....2) Abrams is a lying sack of shit.

OR, despite it being not "strictly canon", Abrams was correct in saying there was no satisfying way, as he and his team saw it, to include Shatner's Kirk as well into the story (which has been the crux of everything I've read) which would make your first option wrong and your second option wrong as well. Now, there may certainly be any number of ways that Shatner's Kirk could have been worked into A new film but it would seem there was not a satisfactory way to do it in THIS particular film. Abrams and his team have the final say and are entitled to their opinion about the feasibility of working in Shatner in a meaningful and satisfying way. Perhaps waiting until we've seen the movie is the best idea of all.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, here's the rub.

Up until we saw the new bridge photos, pretty much everyone around here took Abrams and Co. at their word that that movie was going to be a prequel that preserved canon. Fans silenced any complaints of a reboot by citing Abrams and Co.

Then, the new bridge photos came out and pretty much all of those same people instantly acted not only as if the new movie is a reboot but also as if we all knew it was going to be a reboot all along.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of the above for a moment...

Abrams said he couldn't work Shatner's Kirk into the movie because (according to canon), Shatner's Kirk is dead.

But now that we are (mostly) all suddenly so sure that this new film is a reboot (or some variation of that word), that "excuse" no longer applies.

So, either:

A) The movie is a strict canon sequel and those bridge photos we saw exist only in the Twilight Zone, or...

B) The movie loosely follows something approaching canon, yet large enough liberties have already been taken to convince many of the fans here that the movie is now a reboot (which is inherently problematic), or...

C) The movie really is a reboot, invalidating Abrams' given reason for excluding Shatner from the movie, meaning either:

.....1) Shatner really is in the movie, or...

.....2) Abrams is a lying sack of shit.

Aw, c'mon, Sam... surely there are other options as well.

Perhaps...

D) Abrams was kidnapped by aliens and has been replaced?

E) What we're actually seeing in the pictures is JJ's living room, at the wrap party?

F) Somehow, subliminal hypnosis has been used to cause all of us to hallucinate what it looks like in those pictures?

"There are always... possibilities."

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

OR, despite it being not "strictly canon", Abrams was correct in saying there was no satisfying way, as he and his team saw it, to include Shatner's Kirk as well into the story (which has been the crux of everything I've read) which would make your first option wrong and your second option wrong as well. Now, there may certainly be any number of ways that Shatner's Kirk could have been worked into A new film but it would seem there was not a satisfactory way to do it in THIS particular film. Abrams and his team have the final say and are entitled to their opinion about the feasibility of working in Shatner in a meaningful and satisfying way. Perhaps waiting until we've seen the movie is the best idea of all.

Abrams and Co. have said several times in interviews that Kirk's death in "Generations" was what prevented them from using him in Trek XI.

 

[Plum]

Well, here's the rub.

Up until we saw the new bridge photos, pretty much everyone around here took Abrams and Co. at their word that that movie was going to be a prequel that preserved canon. Fans silenced any complaints of a reboot by citing Abrams and Co.

Then, the new bridge photos came out and pretty much all of those same people instantly acted not only as if the new movie is a reboot but also as if we all knew it was going to be a reboot all along.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of the above for a moment...

Abrams said he couldn't work Shatner's Kirk into the movie because (according to canon), Shatner's Kirk is dead.

But now that we are (mostly) all suddenly so sure that this new film is a reboot (or some variation of that word), that "excuse" no longer applies.

So, either:

A) The movie is a strict canon sequel and those bridge photos we saw exist only in the Twilight Zone, or...

B) The movie loosely follows something approaching canon, yet large enough liberties have already been taken to convince many of the fans here that the movie is now a reboot (which is inherently problematic), or...

C) The movie really is a reboot, invalidating Abrams' given reason for excluding Shatner from the movie, meaning either:

.....1) Shatner really is in the movie, or...

.....2) Abrams is a lying sack of shit.

Quite right. Well put, I feel.

I remember my first posts here waaaay before the film even had JJ Abrams directing it for sure. I'd posted the film would be a reboot using the angle 'when Kirk and Spock meet'.

I was shouted down so fast and hard...

 

[Ovation]

OR, despite it being not "strictly canon", Abrams was correct in saying there was no satisfying way, as he and his team saw it, to include Shatner's Kirk as well into the story (which has been the crux of everything I've read) which would make your first option wrong and your second option wrong as well. Now, there may certainly be any number of ways that Shatner's Kirk could have been worked into A new film but it would seem there was not a satisfactory way to do it in THIS particular film. Abrams and his team have the final say and are entitled to their opinion about the feasibility of working in Shatner in a meaningful and satisfying way. Perhaps waiting until we've seen the movie is the best idea of all.

Abrams and Co. have said several times in interviews that Kirk's death in "Generations" was what prevented them from using him in Trek XI.

Which in NO WAY contradicts my point. That they could not find a way to get around his death in Generations in a satisfying way does NOT mean Abrams is EITHER "a lying sack of shit" OR "Shatner is in the movie". It means that Abrams and Co. did not find a way to get Shatner into the film in a way that they found satisfactory--AS IS THEIR RIGHT. You've set up a false dichotomy and an unreasonable one at that.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

OR, despite it being not "strictly canon", Abrams was correct in saying there was no satisfying way, as he and his team saw it, to include Shatner's Kirk as well into the story (which has been the crux of everything I've read) which would make your first option wrong and your second option wrong as well. Now, there may certainly be any number of ways that Shatner's Kirk could have been worked into A new film but it would seem there was not a satisfactory way to do it in THIS particular film. Abrams and his team have the final say and are entitled to their opinion about the feasibility of working in Shatner in a meaningful and satisfying way. Perhaps waiting until we've seen the movie is the best idea of all.

Abrams and Co. have said several times in interviews that Kirk's death in "Generations" was what prevented them from using him in Trek XI.

Which in NO WAY contradicts my point. That they could not find a way to get around his death in Generations in a satisfying way does NOT mean Abrams is EITHER "a lying sack of shit" OR "Shatner is in the movie". It means that Abrams and Co. did not find a way to get Shatner into the film in a way that they found satisfactory--AS IS THEIR RIGHT. You've set up a false dichotomy and an unreasonable one at that.

If it's a reboot, then they don't need to "find a way to get around his death in Generations" at all.

Your move.

 

[Ovation]

Abrams and Co. have said several times in interviews that Kirk's death in "Generations" was what prevented them from using him in Trek XI.

Which in NO WAY contradicts my point. That they could not find a way to get around his death in Generations in a satisfying way does NOT mean Abrams is EITHER "a lying sack of shit" OR "Shatner is in the movie". It means that Abrams and Co. did not find a way to get Shatner into the film in a way that they found satisfactory--AS IS THEIR RIGHT. You've set up a false dichotomy and an unreasonable one at that.

If it's a reboot, then they don't need to "find a way to get around his death in Generations" at all.

Your move.

Among your original options, option B) seems most likely (indeed, necessary if it includes Nimoy). Given all that I've read (actual quotations from those on the production team, not just the "interpretation" of "purists" or the laziness of entertainment beat reporters' copy), option B is not only most likely, but makes the most sense--particularly with the divergent pressures (necessarily required, perhaps not, but there nonetheless) of trying to satisfy "fans" (in the broad sense, not the "purist" sense--the latter are incapable of being satisfied and should NOT be catered to in the slightest) and the clear corporate imperative to reinvigorate the moribund franchise (Paramount went to Abrams, not the other way around). Is it how I would have done it? Probably not--but I don't work in that field, nor do I want to.

Bottom line, Shatner's absence is the result of a creative choice, one the filmmakers are free to make, and this in no way makes them "lying sacks of shit".

As for me, I don't give a rat's ass whether Shatner is in the movie or not. My ONLY concern is that it be a good movie. The rest is a bonus.

If it IS a "reboot", they are still not REQUIRED to include Shatner. And I don't buy it as a "reboot"--not all "continuity violations" constitute a "reboot" (even big ones). The characters and sets may look different (obviously unavoidable), some minor backstory details may be different but the overall premise is the same. New Battlestar Galactica is a lot more a "reboot" than this Trek movie is (unless Nimoy is actually playing a Klingon or something).

 

[seigezunt]

I thought the book "A Star For Every Wandering" fixed the Generations "problem" very well.

As to the movie, I think it will be about the young Kirk, et al, and won't even get into it.

That said, it's clear the rebootyness of it will change the time stream, so who's to say he doesn't get a better death. No big whoop, I'm more interested in how Kirk spends the exciting life before he checks out.