Why include McCoy, Uhura and Chekov for that matter?

[Brutal Strudel]

Therin of Andor said:

Brutal Strudel said:
Why not... just adapt Vonda McIntyre's The Entropy Effect?

Because the avid ST fans know the ending of that one, and there'd also be no need to do a movie novelization.

I'm looking forward to a new story, an untold one.

Huh. The last time you shot that one down, it was because we'd seen time travel/dead Kirk stories before. Guess that argument wouldn't work now given the current rumors.

Anyway, we know how this one's gonna end, too.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Brutal Strudel said:
Huh. The last time you shot that one down, it was because we'd seen time travel/dead Kirk stories before. Guess that argument wouldn't work now given the current rumors.

Well, I'm looking forward to the movie and I'm not going to let a rumour spoil my enthusiasm. And if it's really a "save Kirk from being killed" story, then so be it, but if pressed then, yes, I'd tell JJ that the plot is a bit "old hat" for Star Trek.

It'll still be fairly unpredictable, because the journey through the new storyline is unknown - except that we can assume Old Spock is ultimately successful at the end, and (I reckon) would probably forfeit his life to see Young Kirk survive and the universe's balance restored.

Anyway, we know how this one's gonna end, too.

The old character coming back to save the new one is very cliche these days: it's a bit "Yesteryear" (TAS), "The Entropy Effect" (TOS novel), "Yesterday's Enterprise" (TNG), "Firstborn" (DS9), "Past Tense" (DS9), "Endgame (VOY), Temporal Cold War arc (ENT), etc. I'm not so sure that JJ Abrams would go with cliche; he's constantly surprised me in "Lost", and I reckon he has several tricks up his sleeves.

Timo said:
What is the complete roll call here? Any obvious "villain's chief henchman"

"Character actor Clifton Collins Jr. has been cast in the new TREK film as Ayel, the henchman to the Romulan villain Nero played by Eric Bana says Variety..."

Link

And Ben Cross has just been announced as Sarek. There's a new "big name" for you.
Link

 

[MadBaggins]

Re: man on the street

I asked my cousin (who isn't a Trek fan) to name Star Trek characters and she said "Kirk, Spock, Picard and that black guy with the forehead (Worf)." So I think they should be the only character in the movie.

 

[Dorothy_Zbornak]

Re: man on the street

A better question is what the hell is Janice Rand going to do? Bring everybody a salad? Get stopped in the corridor by a drunken crewmember? Almost get assaulted?

What did she ever do?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: man on the street

I can't keep up with all the character discussion and casting stuff about this movie. So let me ask: is there any reason to think that either Rand or Chapel is in this movie, based on the actual information given so far about characters?

 

[Dorothy_Zbornak]

Re: man on the street

Roberto Orci said as much though not specifically whom to Trekmovie in early October:

TrekMovie.com: Beyond the regulars - might we see other familiar faces, such as Kyle, Rand, Chapel, etc.?

Roberto Orci: Yes. I can’t say which. We are aware of all of them, but we are mindful that you can’t just try and stuff everything into a first movie just to stuff it in. Our hope is that this is ‘movie one’ of several and so anyone who gets omitted is immediately on the list for movie two. It is a factor of what can one movie tolerate and how well can a character be serviced and if they can’t be serviced correctly we would rather do it well later than do it poorly now.

Source: Trekmovie.com

 

[jimbo1973]

Re: man on the street

It wouldn't be Star Trek without them IMHO

 

[Arlo]

Re: man on the street

^ actually it would be. Who the hell NEEDS to see EVERY character? That's what ruined the damn movies. Everyone wanted face time, compromising clean narratives.

 

[number6]

More casting announcements..

I'm still wondering who they'll cast as Ensign Farrell. He has to be in this film!!!

 

[Akiraprise]

Re: man on the street

Arlo said:
^ actually it would be. Who the hell NEEDS to see EVERY character? That's what ruined the damn movies. Everyone wanted face time, compromising clean narratives.

Exactly.
We do not need to see every single character ever shown on TOS. We need Kirk and Spock. That's it. Even Bones is optional.

 

[Tralah]

Re: man on the street

I doubt Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and Uhura will have big parts in the movie. They'll probably have some lines each, but be background characters for the most part. I think it's fine if they're worked into the story organically, but their presence shouldn't feel forced and shoehorned. Hopefully the script writers managed to pull that off.

 

[gastrof]

Matt said:

jayrath said:
None of them were in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," which supposedly featured the crew closest to Kirk's taking command.

The movie is a reboot, silly.

According to "Team Trek", the existing timeline will be respected. He/They said this is meant to fit INTO the existing timeline, not to change it.

If we can believe TT is legit, then this counteracts what you're saying.

Of course, if the Enterprise or anything else looks different from how it did on the series, then this counteracts what TT claimed.

 

[Sharr Khan]

According to "Team Trek", the existing timeline will be respected. He/They said this is meant to fit INTO the existing timeline, not to change it.

If we can believe TT is legit, then this counteracts what you're saying.

I'd say, that's very likely. If any of these Guardian of Forever rumors are true... if Spock's purpose old & young is to preserve Kirk's life you remove any of the story jeopardy by making the result a "rebooted timeline", which isn't to say the restored might not have some oddities in it after words.

Sharr

 

[gastrof]

Umm...WHAT's very likely?

That the timeline will be changed, or not?

TT said it won't be.

Any changes to the Enterprise say it will be

 

[Sharr Khan]

gastrof said:
Umm...WHAT's very likely?

That the timeline will be changed, or not?

TT said it won't be.

Any changes to the Enterprise say it will be

That it won't change, that was my point. To change it kinda undermines the jeopardy of the whole thing.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We're not going to wind up with the Enterprise the way it looked in TOS, no, and I'd be real surprised if some other things aren't left at variance with the way they were portrayed in TOS.

You can call it a "reboot" or, I think more accurately, a revision and update of the original.

It'll certainly be a lot less radical a change than between the old BSG and the current one, and AFAIC that's worked out great.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Mind you my thinking is all rooted in the notion that any of these rumors are true.

I've no doubt the butterfly effect will be at play to a degree. I expect some changes - welcome them even.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

According to "Team Trek", the existing timeline will be respected. He/They said this is meant to fit INTO the existing timeline, not to change it.

If we can believe TT is legit, then this counteracts what you're saying.

No one who's been paying attention "believes TT is legit." TeamTrek has visited these boards before, posting some fairly entertaining nonsense prior to the premiere of "Enterprise." He/she makes it all up.

What's going to be changed in this movie? Answer: almost everything will be changed at least a little bit, and some things a great deal.

 

[Plum]

^^^
I so hope the nacelle pylons are vectored.

Starship Polaris said:
Well, probably because a lot of people want and expect to see them.

There doesn't have to be another reason.

Quite so.

May I say in general - Star trek, with these characters included, is part of the cultural memory. It's Americana.

No one remembers Gary Mitchell. No one cares.

Star Trek should just be a good story first, I could care less about missing continuity with the 40 year old pilot episode. Let's move on shall we?