Who is the "Federation Captain"?

[Dark Gilligan]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
I think it is possible that Old Spock's role in this film is much more important than "bookending" this film by merely thinking back. Nimoy's Spock could be involved in a very important mission of his own, happening (maybe 6 years) after Nemesis, while vital information regarding that mission is shown to us in a backstory involving young Spock and Kirk. In this scenario, there is no reason NOT to make reference to his timeframe.

Agreed to a point. But once again bowing to the general public, the average movie goer will remember Spock as the "science guy" and Young Spock will certainly be portrayed as that. His later career as a diplomat probably won't be touched upon as it might be confusing and would require a backstory of its own (a backstory of course that fans already know). Abrams wants to make this movie as "user friendly" as possible.

That's a delicate line to balance. I like Garth of Izar as the villain but, along with Christopher Pike, these are characters that only a fan would know. Then again, so was Khan.

 

[Sharr Khan]

cueballb said:
I figure it is going to be someone completely new. We will get a few scenes explaining his character and link with Pike, Kirk or whoever, and it's going to go from there. Fresh start completely. A bit like the screwing over of transformers, this will be screwing over Star Trek. I'm just very very very glad it's not M. Bay thats directing.

Star Trek as a movie and frachise could only hope to be as "Screwed over" as Transformers...


Sharr

 

[cueballb]

Sharr Khan said:

cueballb said:
I figure it is going to be someone completely new. We will get a few scenes explaining his character and link with Pike, Kirk or whoever, and it's going to go from there. Fresh start completely. A bit like the screwing over of transformers, this will be screwing over Star Trek. I'm just very very very glad it's not M. Bay thats directing.

Star Trek as a movie and frachise could only hope to be as "Screwed over" as Transformers...


Sharr

Question is: what do you want out of it? Do you want a Trek movie, true to its priciples? Or do you want a movie that aims for a Trek revival by turning it into a pure actionflick, senseless and explosive.

Well, i think this all has been covered already, but i can't help thinking about these things.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Question is: what do you want out of it? Do you want a Trek movie, true to its priciples? Or do you want a movie that aims for a Trek revival by turning it into a pure actionflick, senseless and explosive.

Well, i think this all has been covered already, but i can't help thinking about these things.

I want a Trek movie to be a success, and I want a Trek movie to be fun to watch. I don't want a Trek movie to have any other agenda other then to be successful. Right now if it doesn't do that there won't be anymore Trek.

Trek can't afford to stand on some idealistic "principles", it needs to be fun again and find its sense of adventure. Ponderous speeches quoting the Prime Directive aren't what is good about Trek - at least TOS.

But saying all this I really think you're worrying about nothing at all. Do you think Leonard Nimoy would be part of this if he thought it was "Screwing over Trek"?

I don't.

Sharr

 

[Franklin]

Let me try this out:
-- Many folks are thinking in terms of Nimoy playing an aged, perhaps even very elderly Spock. But, Spock was "only" 147 when "Nemesis" ended the run of 24th century Trek (assuming everyone accepts Spock was born in 2232 and NEM was 2379). If Nimoy's bit takes place post-NEM, Spock could be a vital functioning Vulcan well into the 25th century. He hardly has to be in his dotage.
-- Perhaps Spock is on a diplomatic mission or something of the sort as the story unfolds. The "Federation Captain" on the casting sheet could be the captain of the starship on which he is travelling.
-- Perhaps the captain is unnamed because he meets a quick and early fate due to whatever is driving the plot in this period of XI.

I'm overthinking it, maybe. But there you go.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

A lotta people have a lotta different ideas about what this movie will be about.

But the most telling thing to remember is that according to J.J. Abrams, this is a "story he's wanted to tell for his whole life" (or words to that effect). Therefore, any direct relationship to TNG-era stuff is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

That's made all the moreso true by the fact that he claims to have significant interest in and knowledge of TOS while having limited (or in some cases, essentially NO) knowledge of the latter-day series.

Abrams is going to tell a story that (1) involves the TOS characters, (2) has never had anything like it done before on Star Trek, and (3) is something that is deeply emotionally connected (this coming from Leonard Nimoy's interviews on the topic).

Oh, and it will have ZERO "confusing technobabble" (which, I think, pretty much precludes the use of time-travel in the film, as well as any of the other hackneyed TNG-era "technobabbly-solution-to-problems" things we've all come to loath). Also, based upon statements by Nimoy.

If it's a story that Abrams "always wanted to tell" then it can't have anything to do with restoring Kirk, because Abrams wanted to tell this before Kirk was killed off. Abrams is the exact same age that I am... so when he had these views, he was at the same point in his life that I was at. I can easily relate to his perspective as a result.

I know that I've always wanted to see how Kirk became the youngest captain in the fleet... and not just the youngest captain, given command of a freighter or a science probe vessel, but of one of the twelve most advanced ships in known space... obviously one of the most sought-after positions in all of Starfleet. How did he get there? What made the powers-that-be decide to give this job to him, instead of to the various experienced, 40-to-50-year-old officers who by any reasonable measure SHOULD have gotten the job?

I really truly believe that we're going to see a film whose point is "what makes a normal guy into a hero?" And Kirk couldn't tell that story about himself... it would be arrogant as hell. But SPOCK... Spock can tell it and have it have real impact.

 

[digifan]

ancient said:
Possibilities:

1-Pike
2-April
3-Garrovick
4-Garth
5-Someone new

One word - Archer.

We'd met many other Federation captains during Kirk's tour of duty including Bob Wesley and Matt Decker. Or it could be someone new from a later period of TOS era including Captain Sulu, the unidentified Vulcan captain of the Intrepid; etc. No matter what I do know one thing - We've yet to meet an alien captain from the Federation.

Why is that?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I hope it's Captain Garrovick.

The Farragut disaster would be a *perfect* way to begin this film.

And Garrovick would be a perfect role for somebody like, say, the main man, Vaughn Armstrong, who deserves a role in TOS (the only Trek he has never appeared in) after all these years!

 

[ancient]

digifan said:

ancient said:
Possibilities:

1-Pike
2-April
3-Garrovick
4-Garth
5-Someone new

One word - Archer.

I doubt Abrams even knows who Archer is, since he's not a fan of the spin-offs.

In any case, Archer wouldn't be on the casting sheet, since Archer would be played by Bakula and therefor would not need to be cast.

Whoever it is, it's not someone who has an actor picked to play them already. (Assuming the casting sheet is real.)

We'd met many other Federation captains during Kirk's tour of duty including Bob Wesley and Matt Decker. Or it could be someone new from a later period of TOS era including Captain Sulu, the unidentified Vulcan captain of the Intrepid; etc. No matter what I do know one thing - We've yet to meet an alien captain from the Federation.

Why is that?

]
Aside from Spock, did we ever see any alien Starfleet personnel, period? I don't remember any. In TOS Starfleet was an Earth organization that was part of the Federation. It was even called UESPA at first. (United Earth Space Probe Agency)

Aliens would be rare in Starfleet because most would probably choose to join the space fleet of their own home-world.

Heck, Spock only joined SF to spite his father.

In TNG and the TOS movies SF seems to have been melded with all the other space fleets, leading to the large number of alien crewmen and possibly the extreme changes in ship design from TMP.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Can't be Archer. He's already dead by TOS' time. (He dies on the day after the NCC-1701 is commissioned for the first time)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Babaganoosh said:I hope it's Captain Garrovick.

The Farragut disaster would be a *perfect* way to begin this film.

It would be nice to see, but I think that's too big of a story for just a vignette. It'd have to be the main plot of the film, IMHO.

And Garrovick would be a perfect role for somebody like, say, the main man, Vaughn Armstrong, who deserves a role in TOS (the only Trek he has never appeared in) after all these years!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Seriously, one of the most annoying aspects of Trek... subject to mockery from TOS until present day... has been the tendency to recast the from the same limited gene pool of talent.

Why not just have it be Jeffry Combs? That way he could have an even six-hundred roles played?!?!?

Seriously... there are lots of actors out there, and I'm sure that they can find someone great who isn't immediately recognizeable as having been sixteen different Trek characters before.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Are you dissing Armstrong's talent?

Seriously, everyone *knows* he's played like 13 or 14 different roles, but have you ever considered maybe that's because he's GOOD at it? He's one of the best actors Trek has ever had. Maybe...just MAYBE...he keeps getting recast simply because the casting directors LIKE him, and he WANTS to return, and he's GOOD at it, and he makes his performances WORK? They could cast anyone they wanted, but time and again, they intentionally choose him. Don't you think that means something?

I mean, you don't see B5 fans bitching because Wayne Alexander plays all those different roles there, do you?

 

[RookieBatman]

Babaganoosh said:
Seriously, everyone *knows* he's played like 13 or 14 different roles, but have you ever considered maybe that's because he's GOOD at it? He's one of the best actors Trek has ever had. Maybe...just MAYBE...he keeps getting recast simply because the casting directors LIKE him, and he WANTS to return, and he's GOOD at it, and he makes his performances WORK? They could cast anyone they wanted, but time and again, they intentionally choose him. Don't you think that means something?

Now, that's certainly a valid point. But I think we all acknowledge in the back of our minds that Captain Koloth looked (and to some degree, acted) a lot like the Squire of Gothos, but with facial hair (the mirror Squire of Gothos!). All talent aside, it can be distracting even if the actor is very good.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Babaganoosh said:Are you dissing Armstrong's talent?

If you can find anyplace in my post that I "dissed" anyone's talent, please point it out.

My comment was not about talent at all, and you know it. My comment was about one of the things that people make fun of regarding Star Trek.

How a Starfleet commodore and a security guy on the Enterprise look identical.

How a science officer, a Medusan go-between, and a 24th-century doctor all look identical.

How James T. Kirk and his brother Sam looked just the same except for a mustache.

And I won't even go down the Jeffrey Combs path... too many entires to list.

Don't get me wrong... I LIKE Combs. But at this point I don't see an Andorian or a Vorta or whatever... I see an actor in makeup playing yet another part.

Same thing goes, only slightly less strongly, for Armstrong. Or for the "nu Zephram Cochran" for that matter...

Seriously... in REAL LIFE, how often do you see someone who looks identical to anyone else (unless they're a twin and even then they look at least a LITTLE different).

This all has to do with "willful suspension of disbelief" and, honestly, there's enough of a challenge to "win over" the audience with this movie that I think it would be a massive mistake to do anything that would potentially dump the audience out of their ability to be absorbed by the story.

I mean, you don't see B5 fans bitching because Wayne Alexander plays all those different roles there, do you?

Well, two things...

1) Wayne Alexander's FACE was only ever seen on screen once (as Jack).

2) Yes, some B5 fans do "bitch" a bit about that... but not too much. He was available, was willing to work under massive layers of rubber, and they had a good face-casting already available for him so it was a time-saver.

Now, there is ONE bit that DOES get some mockery... but only a tiny bit. The guy who played Morden also played a "C&C Officer" early on. No hiding of his face or anything. So yeah, it's a distraction when, after having seen the whole series, you go back and see Mr. Morden working there.

It was also a distraction, though it turned out pretty well overall, that John Sheridan's wife completely changed appearance between the first time we saw her and the second time... that's something that, if I were doing the show, I'd go back and "fix"... replace the original appearance with new footage, to make it match. Ah well...

The point is... having a very recognizable face playing supposedly different roles, or having significantly different actors playing the same role, both qualify as DISTRACTIONS FROM THE STORYTELLING.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Cary L. Brown said:1) Wayne Alexander's FACE was only ever seen on screen once (as Jack).

And Admiral Forrest was the only human role Vaughn A. has played on Trek.

Yes, some B5 fans do "bitch" a bit about that... but not too much. He was available, was willing to work under massive layers of rubber, and they had a good face-casting already available for him so it was a time-saver.

Those are EXACTLY the reasons why Vaughn keeps getting called back. He's available. He's good. He enjoys the work (even under massive alien makeup - much more than Wayne has ever worn, AFAIK). If there's anything wrong with that, I'm not aware of it.

Now, there is ONE bit that DOES get some mockery... but only a tiny bit. The guy who played Morden also played a "C&C Officer" early on. No hiding of his face or anything. So yeah, it's a distraction when, after having seen the whole series, you go back and see Mr. Morden working there.

Maybe that *was* Morden all along?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm guessing that the Federation Captain is actually the villian.

That might be a way to get Crowe to take the role. As fun as he would be as a Klingon, I dunno if he would sit still for the makeup...

 

[Sharr Khan]

Maybe that *was* Morden all along?

I think JMS pretty much said "No" to that notion.

Crowe as Garth of Izar, that would be fun!

Sharr

 

[Lumen]

Temis the Vorta said:

I'm guessing that the Federation Captain is actually the villian.

That might be a way to get Crowe to take the role. As fun as he would be as a Klingon, I dunno if he would sit still for the makeup...

An actor like Crowe isn't used to the rigorous make-up jobs required of some aliens, so you might be right. I sort of want our A-lister not to be obscured by make-up, and Paramount might be thinking along the same lines for advertising purposes?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sharr Khan said:

Maybe that *was* Morden all along?

I think JMS pretty much said "No" to that notion.

The Lurker's guide says this:

Ed Wasser, the actor who played Morden, also appeared as the main C&C technician in the pilot movie, "The Gathering." The same character? JMS won't say.

Crowe as Garth of Izar, that would be fun!

Actually, it would, now that you mention it. I don't see somebody as famous as him, wanting to play an alien. Garth, OTOH, is human, no alien makeup required but a real chance for Crowe to emote and sound insane. He'd love it.

 

[Joisey]

Cary L. Brown said:

SA22C said:

SeamusShameless said:
The fact that Nimoy/Spock is in it suggests a 25th century reference, or at least late 24th.

No, it really doesn't.

I suspect that there will be no references at all to the timeframe of 'old Spock' in the movie.

If you're saying what I THINK you're saying... I agree. We'll see Spock as an aged man, setting it well after his TNG appearance. But there's no reason to overtly state anything of the sort... just to show that the guy is old and is revisiting his past (and thinking about his friend Jim for some reason).

As far as the STORY is concerned... Spock could have travelled back in time to the ancient past... it shouldn't matter... all that matters is that this is HIS past.

We may even see Spock on his deathbed, remembering his life, and the movie ends with Spock's death scene.