I am almost certain the movie will come down to a decision that Spock will be forced to make. He'll have to choose between his universe, the one that proceeds the way he knows it (friendship with Kirk and Pike, the adventures, the memories) and have the destruction of the Federation...or choose to reset it all for the good of the universe. He'll choose to reset and he will fade from existence, telling his younger self to live long, prosper, and never forget the importance of friendship.
What I See Taking Place In 'Star Trek'
- Thread starter slappy
- Start date
I think Old Spock's efforts will be instumental in restoring the original timeline, or so he thinks!
At the end of the movie, Old Spock will comment, "And with much toil and struggle, the original timeline was restored. Of course, there is no way of knowing if subtle variations in the timeline may have occurred. We must trust that the future has unfolded as it should."
And then the camera pans over to reveal James T. Kirk, sitting at Spock's side.
At the end of the movie, Old Spock will comment, "And with much toil and struggle, the original timeline was restored. Of course, there is no way of knowing if subtle variations in the timeline may have occurred. We must trust that the future has unfolded as it should."
And then the camera pans over to reveal James T. Kirk, sitting at Spock's side.
me too
Sam, not to say that I personally wouldn't like to see this but it would be a total fan wank and will never happen.
If they can bring Kirk into the plot in a meaningful role, then yes, but nowhere do I see Abrams being such a Trekkie that he's mad that Kirk was killed at the end of Generations. Damn it, Sam, he's a producer, not a Trekkie.
He's killed off dozens of characters in his time.He is not going to resurrect Kirk just to make fans happy. If it can make a better movie, he might. But not just for fans. No way.
I get the impression that the Star Trek universe will be substansively the same, albeit that younger Spock (and possibly Kirk) will be somewhat aware of future events.
There was talk of parallels to Back to the Future, and whilst initially I thought this would be a horrible idea. Now, i'm not so sure. If the changes to the timeline are minor (such as Spock & Kirk being vaguely aware of the future), it allows us to revisit TOS era during the next couple of movies without fear of trampling on what has gone before.
Of course, it also allows for the possibility that Spock was always aware of future events, which may alter the way we view TOS and the first 6 movies (kind of how the original Star Wars trilogy now plays differently due to the prequels - Darth vader and so forth). Which I cant decide would be a good or a bad thing.
Just my take on it anyway...
There was talk of parallels to Back to the Future, and whilst initially I thought this would be a horrible idea. Now, i'm not so sure. If the changes to the timeline are minor (such as Spock & Kirk being vaguely aware of the future), it allows us to revisit TOS era during the next couple of movies without fear of trampling on what has gone before.
Of course, it also allows for the possibility that Spock was always aware of future events, which may alter the way we view TOS and the first 6 movies (kind of how the original Star Wars trilogy now plays differently due to the prequels - Darth vader and so forth). Which I cant decide would be a good or a bad thing.
Just my take on it anyway...
Outpost4 said:
Sam, not to say that I personally wouldn't like to see this but it would be a total fan wank and will never happen.
If they can bring Kirk into the plot in a meaningful role, then yes, but nowhere do I see Abrams being such a Trekkie that he's mad that Kirk was killed at the end of Generations. Damn it, Sam, he's a producer, not a Trekkie.
He is not going to resurrect Kirk just to make fans happy. If it can make a better movie, he might. But not just for fans. No way.
See, I don't see it as fanwank as much as: A) it is an opportunity to take advantage of the fact that both Shatner and Nimoy are available for a Star Trek movie (probably for the last time); B) it sends the movie off on a high-note, even a touching one; C) it will serve as Pepto-Bismol for old-school fans who are having a hard time accepting the new cast (How could they not accept as canon the movie that brings their Captain back?) It's a dirty trick!
The reason it wouldn't be fanwank is that it doesn't interfere with (or distract from) the story. The casual or non-fan would watch that scene and say, "Hey, cool, I think that's Captain Kirk from the old show." The would have no reason to think it's odd that he's there because they wouldn't even know he was supposed to be dead. And Spock would be reacting to him as if everything was normal, so there is nothing to make fans scratch their heads and say, "That was weird, what the heck was that all about?"
The few that are confused but invested will research it online and then buy all the DVDs. Cha-ching Paramount!
Seriously, the reason I like it is because it does not interfere with the story. It's just an added bonus to a pre-existing story that would probably have played out exactly the same way whether they use my ending or not.
And it takes no time to set up. And no explanation is required.
And we get to send Spock and Kirk off into history together, as it should be. And Sam Cogley can shed a tear.
Outpost4 said:
Sam, not to say that I personally wouldn't like to see this but it would be a total fan wank and will never happen.
If they can bring Kirk into the plot in a meaningful role, then yes, but nowhere do I see Abrams being such a Trekkie that he's mad that Kirk was killed at the end of Generations. Damn it, Sam, he's a producer, not a Trekkie.
He is not going to resurrect Kirk just to make fans happy. If it can make a better movie, he might. But not just for fans. No way.
I wonder if this would be a fan-wank. I think Kirk's demise in Generations was distasteful even to the casual fan. I remember "Mad TV" had a skit where some guy gets upset about the killing of Kirk in GEN, and this character (as the audience targeted) was not a Trekkie. It may be no surprise that interest in Trek petered out after Kirk was killed - his death made the Trek franchise less appealing to a larger viewership than just the Trekkie fanbase. Bringing Kirk back in such a simple, tasteful way as Outpost 4 suggets may bring the casual-Trek-fan back to Trek as well.
That being said, I prefer the prediction of the OP. Let's bring it all down.
Or if Shatner won't appear in the movie, the final scene shows Original Spock back in his own time. A chime sounds at his door and the camera stays on him as he opens the door.
The expression on his face says it all. He may even exclaim, 'Jim!' much like he did at the end of Amok Time.
OK, and this scene would be when? Back in old Spock's time? If that's around the time of GEN or after, then Shatner is going to have to do some aging. Assuming the Ent-B/Nexus thing didn't happen, Kirk would be almost 140. Assuming it did, we're left with a big hole in exactly why everything unfolded pretty much as it should've but Kirk survived what happened on Veridian. To that end, why not a touching scene of Stewart as Picard reintroducing Kirk to Spock? Seeing Picard, we fans would know the time frame must've unfolded quite correctly -- except for Kirk being alive in the 24th century.
I'm overthinking it really. So I'll stop.
These ideas are all very intriguing and would make an EXCELLENT film. I would love to see something that clever in the movie, but Hollywood is rarely so bold. Current movie-makers tend to stick to simple, familiar formulas. I hope I'm wrong and they truly deliver this time.
Outpost4 mentioned 'He's killed off dozens of characters in his time', wonder if Nimoy's Spock gets killed somewhere in the movie. Don't see why he would but something I've thought of.
And the Borg never went back in time in First Contact, the Enterprise D is flying overhead, and the Dominion are in total control of the Alpha Quadrant.
