Why I think ST XI will be better

[Lord Garth]

I'm killing time right now; long story. Hopefully it's not too obvious but if it is, there we are.

My belief is that whenever a film series screws up and it's finally admitted that something has gone wrong somewhere along the line, i.e. they're being honest with themselves instead of spinning, and there's a break of several years, the movie that results is always better.

After too many sequels, a film series can get careless and will coast, they don't have to try as hard because they know they'll already be able to make money anyway and they don't have to prove themselves because they've already been proven.

After a bomb, if you're given another chance, you have to have to prove yourself again, you have to conciously avoid making the same mistakes as before, and are now conciously trying to make a good movie once again instead of just making a movie for its own sake.

If TPTB, any PTB, are satisfied with the direction a series is going in, no effort is made to change things unless they're forced into it, which creates a "do or die" motivation.

 

[Superman]

I think you're right.

I also think the fact that this particular film series is getting a completely new creative team (except for ILM), we're going to see not only a better film, but a very different film than the last ten Trek movies.

That's what I think will make this movie special.

That said, it still needs to have William Shatner as Kirk. If it doesn't, it'll be shit.

I'm mostly serious about that last part...

\S/

 

[number6]

Superman said:
That said, it still needs to have William Shatner as Kirk. If it doesn't, it'll be shit.

Though many have said that, not one person has really nailed why that is so.

Shatner is too old to play a 20-something Kirk.
There us no reason to have him in this film.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Superman said:That said, it still needs to have William Shatner as Kirk. If it doesn't, it'll be shit.

Well, I think that if that's the rule, Star Trek will totally die within a few more years (I doubt that Shatner will live to 90, after all).

The trick is, to have a performance that is completely consistent with Shatners (without being a PARODY of Shatner's occasionally... stacatto?...speech style), given by an actor who sufficiently closely resembles what Kirk (as originally portrayed by Shatner) would have looked like at that same point.

In other words, we need to see the same Kirk. If that can be done without having Shatner play the role (and I think it possible, though extremely challenging, to accomplish that), I'm all for it.

The trick is to get someone who has the same level of slightly smarmy charisma, along with the intensity, that made Shatner as good in the role as he was. (And before any post-TOS-ers start in on how horrible Shatner has always been... realize that NONE of the later incarnations of Trek would ever have come to pass if Shatner, the STAR of the show, had been as bad as some fans would like to pretend.)

 

[Superman]

Cary L. Brown said:
The trick is to get someone who has the same level of slightly smarmy charisma, along with the intensity, that made Shatner as good in the role as he was. (And before any post-TOS-ers start in on how horrible Shatner has always been... realize that NONE of the later incarnations of Trek would ever have come to pass if Shatner, the STAR of the show, had been as bad as some fans would like to pretend.)

Preach it, brother!

Shatner is an extremely talented actor, which is sadly missed by a lot of people to stupid to really look and see what the man did with Kirk and with his other roles. His style is different and unique, but by no means bad.

I don't want Shatner to play his younger self, obviously, but I refuse to believe the writers can't come up with a way to resurrect Kirk or to bypass GEN altogether.

Trek would be the better for it if they did.

\S/

 

[number6]

How will that make Trek better? There is really no reason for Shatner to be in this film.

 

[Superman]

^^^I meant if someone could find a way to exorcise GEN from continuity.

And if I have to explain Kirk and Shatner's appeal, well...you just don't get it.

\S/

 

[number6]

You don't need to explain Shatner's appeal to me, thank you very much..

You need to explain why the next Trek film will suck if Shatner isn't in it, which so far you have yet to do.

Kirk died in GEN. They're not going to change that. That is something you just need to live with.

 

[Jon1701]

Anyone catch Sunshine yet?

Chris Evans really is good in this film. A very Kirk-esqe performance. He's got a lot of onscreen presence.

Dont judge him by Fantastic 4 (he's pretty good in that though) - he gives a very mature performance. He has many of the qualities that Cary describes. Heres a link to the trailer (although he doesnt feature in it too much)

A good outside bet for Kirk I would say.

ON TOPIC

I'm not sure its a given, Garth. They can still fuck this thing up. The Transformers script was a little loose for my taste. I enjoyed the film, but the script wasn't particulary tight. Too much humour in my opinion. I'm not sure who's idea this was, but it was a little too much.

I still have faith. I agree, a fresh start does wonders. Lets see whether I've still got faith on Thursday. Casting is going to be (excuse the pun) paramount in this new movie. Two great central performances will drag a weak script along. Weak performances or miscast actors wont be able to do anything with a great script. For a long time i've been saying that script is the key. Now i'm not so sure. Just think of all the times that Shat & Nimoy dragged a piss-poor script up by the bootlaces.

I've got everything crossed at the moment.

 

[Superman]

Excuse me, but I don't think you need to tell me what "I have to live with," buddy.

The fact is, it's a possibility Kirk could be resurrected. It's science fiction after all, and Star Trek has often brought characters back.

And until you bring me proof from Abrams's mouth to the contrary, you can't say "they're not going to change" jack squat.

\S/

 

[number6]

Superman said:
Excuse me, but I don't think you need to tell me what "I have to live with," buddy.

The fact is, it's a possibility Kirk could be resurrected. It's science fiction after all, and Star Trek has often brought characters back.

And until you bring me proof from Abrams's mouth to the contrary, you can't say "they're not going to change" jack squat.

\S/

Four posts and you still can't answer my question. Clearly you have no real answer.

 

[Superman]

Here's my real answer: William Shatner IS Star Trek.

Go ask anyone in an on the corner type interview what they know about Star Trek and they're going to mention Shatner.

Shatner is Kirk, Kirk is the heart, the very soul and spirit of Star Trek.

Now, granted, Shatner sold out in 94 and let Kirk die in GEN. He regrets it, the fans regret it.

Should it keep him from being in this movie? I don't think so.

Will "Star Trek" suck without Shatner having a cameo, like Nimoy will? I probably shouldn't say it will "suck," but I do think it will be lacking the charm, charisma, and spirit of wonder and fun that Shatner brought to Kirk and which Kirk brought to Star Trek.

At the same time, if Shatner can't be in the movie, I'm hoping he's coaching this new guy who's playing Kirk, so that the new guy can get that sense of "boldly going wonder" that Shatner gave his Kirk.

\S/

 

[number6]

Actually, you didn't say that it would suck, only that the new film would be shit.

How Shatner not being involved would make it so is still something that makes no sense to me.

First Contact was arguably one of the best TNG films.

Shatner isn't Star Trek. There have been four series without him.

Since the powers that be seem to imply that this new film will be about the first Kirk and Spock mission, it is hard to see Shatner in this role. It has to be recast. Now will a 20-something Kirk act like the Kirk we see in TOS and beyond?? Hard to say, but I think just getting someone in to do nothing else but "be" Shatner is short changing the potential of the character, based strongly on Horatio Hornblower, not based on Shatner. Granted, Shatner brought a great deal of personality and bravado to the character, but he certainly can be recast and if the story is well written and well cast, only obstinate purists will even know the difference and they will hate it anyway. Thankfully this film is being made for the rest of us instead.

 

[Lord Garth]

jon1701 said:
I'm not sure its a given, Garth. They can still fuck this thing up.

Absolutely, I'm not ruling that out either, but...

Batman Begins is better than Batman & Robin.
Casino Royale is better than the uneven Die Another Day.
Rocky Balboa is better than Rocky V.
GoldenEye is better than Liscence to Kill.

The track record for revivals works in favor of this movie.

The Transformers script was a little loose for my taste. I enjoyed the film, but the script wasn't particulary tight. Too much humour in my opinion. I'm not sure who's idea this was, but it was a little too much.

I don't know. I wasn't really expecting anything when going into Transformers. When I saw it, I thought the humor worked better than the drama. Whenever the movie tried to be serious it fell flat.

 

[Admiral2]

Superman said:
Shatner is an extremely talented actor, which is sadly missed by a lot of people to stupid to really look and see what the man did with Kirk and with his other roles. His style is different and unique, but by no means bad.

Horseshit!

His acting ability is only "unique" if you consider a complete lack of dramatic range "unique." I've seen this man do Shakespeare, Twilight Zone, Star Trek, TJ Hooker, various guest shots and DennyCraaane, and I've yet to see him actually do one part any different from any other part! Wait! Scratch that! He actually managed to eke out five ounces of range when he was doing the voice of the Mayor of Frank in Osmosis Jones! So he can manage dramatic range as long as there's no camera around!

And...talkinglike this is...NOT a uniquetalent! It's A speechimpediment!

The man cannot act! This is not coming from a fuzzy-headed TNG-era fan. I grew up on TOS.

The man. Cannot. ACT!

 

[number6]

I grew up on TOS. Shatner is my hero!! I still think having him in this new film (and Nimoy, too for that matter) would be a mistake and certainly not a forward thinking decision.

 

[Broccoli]

Lord Garth said:
GoldenEye is better than Liscence to Kill.

Hey now! Lets not say things we can't take back!

I don't know. I wasn't really expecting anything when going into Transformers. When I saw it, I thought the humor worked better than the drama. Whenever the movie tried to be serious it fell flat.

I completely agree. I really liked the whole Transformers-trying-to-hide bit. :thumbsup:

 

[T'Cal]

Gotta love the passion here!
Superman said:

Now, granted, Shatner sold out in 94 and let Kirk die in GEN. He regrets it, the fans regret it.

I couldn't agree more. His hindsight is 20/20 here. It's time to move on. I love the guy and what he's done or Trek but he allowed his character to be killed off. Shame on him. I've even read that he approached Berman (I think) while filming GEN and told him that he had a great idea for bringing Kirk back but Berman was uninterested. The Shat was very short-sighted. I don't get how he could've not seen this coming. Pity.

 

[seigezunt]

Number6 said:
I grew up on TOS. Shatner is my hero!! I still think having him in this new film (and Nimoy, too for that matter) would be a mistake and certainly not a forward thinking decision.

I agree heartily. I'm a huge fan of the Shat and TOS, but trying to bring Shatner's kirk back from the dead would be a waste of time and hopeless fanwank. It's time for a fresh start, TOS-style.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Admiral2 said:

Superman said:
Shatner is an extremely talented actor, which is sadly missed by a lot of people to stupid to really look and see what the man did with Kirk and with his other roles. His style is different and unique, but by no means bad.

Horseshit!

His acting ability is only "unique" if you consider a complete lack of dramatic range "unique." I've seen this man do Shakespeare, Twilight Zone, Star Trek, TJ Hooker, various guest shots and DennyCraaane, and I've yet to see him actually do one part any different from any other part! Wait! Scratch that! He actually managed to eke out five ounces of range when he was doing the voice of the Mayor of Frank in Osmosis Jones! So he can manage dramatic range as long as there's no camera around!

And...talkinglike this is...NOT a uniquetalent! It's A speechimpediment!

The man cannot act! This is not coming from a fuzzy-headed TNG-era fan. I grew up on TOS.

The man. Cannot. ACT!

Well, I think Crane is different from Kirk. I won't comment on the other roles (I was 6 when TJ Hooker was on, and so I preferred He-man to TJ). But he isn't bad by any means. He's been playing the campy side for deacdes, but I don't think it means he couldn't do something else.