Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by The Overlord, Oct 1, 2011.
'Jaws' to me is a person.
Yeah, in the James Bond movies.
Then let me set you straight: Jaws is most definitely not a person.
By that logic, the dikironium cloud creature from TOS's "Obsession" was a person too.
I guess that they could have scratched out Q in the script and replaced it with Trelane. I presume that they could have gotten William Campbell to reprise Trelane if John DeLancie wasn't available. ;-)
While villain can be used to describe a person or thing (the villain in the mass extinction was the asteroid), I think in common usage villain is used to refer to a person. One could argue that the shark in Jaws is the problem that needs to be solved, whereas the antagonist/villain is the mayor who refuses to close the beaches.
Maybe alive is a better way to rephrase it and not just a circumstance.
True, but I guess I need to clarify. What I mean to suggest in my earlier post was writing a draft that didn't have Q in it and another that did. Depending on how Q was used and whether or not he could be altered to a different character if needed.
We all know scripts go through several drafts and changes before they get to the filming stage. I'm sure if they wanted to use Q, they would try to sign the actor as early as possible. If DeLancie decided not to do it, they could easily do a rewrite to alter it without Q. Obviously I'm talking in general terms.
For example, look at the early drafts of Insurrection when compared to the final product. Very similar in theme and general outline, but very different in the details.
However, in the end, this is all speculative. The likely truth is that TPTB didn't want to make a movie with Q. If they did, I am sure they would have found a way to make it happen.
Q is no more silly or cartoony than any of the other stuff in Star Trek.
Yea, they could have kept writing him in and out until his price came down to nothing. I had a girfriend do that to me last year.
Bang goes the budget.
Well, I guess you should see above and realize why.
I don't know why you'd think that. Scripts get rewritten constantly and to excess in the feature film business. Script drafts are considered as disposable as tissue paper.
Then how do you explain when a project gets initiated specifically with one actor in mind? That is done and has been done. Roles in certain TV shows and movies are written with an actor in mind - entire TV shows and movies are birthed to be "vehicles" for a particular actor. Sometimes they don't get them and abandon or go to someone else, but things are created with one person in mind.
Q has lost his powers, and restrained or refused from using his powers. He also has "superiors."
And what if there's something out there stronger than he? What if the continuum faced a threat?
If I was in a meeting where a Q movie was being discussed, I'd start at what Q said to Picard at the end of AGT - that his future lay not in cataloging planets and what not, but in exploring the "limitless possibilities of existence," and then he went to tell him something, but stopped... what was he going to tell Picard, but didn't?
A story where the primary threat is to a guest star rather than the leads? Might fly in the series, but not a movie.
Unless that threat to the guest star has even greater repercussions to the leads.
Exactly. And the way the TNG movies were done, the writer pretty much stayed with the project the entire way through doing rewrites (at least, according to Michael Piller).
Plus, if they were worried about actor availability, they probably would have signed DeLancie after a first or second draft was completed.
For Q to work in a film would be to place him in a role not too different than what his role was in "Encounter at Farpoint", "Q Who", or "All Good Things" where he wasn't the star or central antagonist, but rather there to propel the characters on whatever else is going on. Just my two cents.
I find sarcasm to be sexy. What's your phone number?
I wasn't being the least bit sarcastic. Q is Mxy. I never quite realized just how identical they are.
Ooops! Sorry! I'm so used to snark on the 'net, that I can't even spot sincerity anymore.
Separate names with a comma.