Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble film?

[Franklin]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I like the approach in Star Trek IV: the format of splitting up meant everyone had more to do, though Kirk and Spock's adventure was still clearly the focus and the most plot-relevant.

I liked Scotty and McCoy together in TVH, and I'd have liked to have seen more of it before and after. I always think of this quote from Scotty's character description in Whitfield and Roddenberry's, The Making of Star Trek: "Scotty is intensely loyal to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. His relationship with Dr. McCoy, on the other hand, is a different one entirely. Scotty and McCoy are extremely close friends. They enjoy drinking together and are more alike as characters as either Kirk or Spock" (p. 245).

Seems like an opportunity wasted. That could have led to a lot of good moments.

I wonder where that description came from. Scotty and McCoy didn't really pal around in TOS.

The book came out in 1968. I bought my copy in the book's seventeenth printing(!) in 1975. It was a collaboration between Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry about the creation of "Star Trek", what it took to get it on the air in the first place, production ideas, finalizing characters and principles for writing for them, getting into the swing of putting a weekly series on the air, and so on.

Maybe this was an idea for the characters that never came to fruition or was abandoned as the Kirk, Spock, McCoy triad grew. Still, I always thought it was kind of a neat idea, which is why I found the McCoy-Scotty team in TVH quite satisfying.

(This is also the only place I've ever read that said Kirk was from Iowa -- finally canonized in TVH.)

 

[StarMan]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

Not being a fan of Quinto and barely being a fan of Pine, I'd love to see more out of Urban and Pegg.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I thought one of the weaknesses of the 1980s films was the obligatory moment each of the third bananas was given. That said, I think the new cast are overall better actors and might be able to serve a bigger part. Ideally, each character will get a little arc through the movie, rather than just a couple of cool lines and otherwise serving as background (I'm thinking of Worf in NEM here).

As far as Scotty's part goes, that character was actually very prominent in the last two films, so I don't think they can bring him any more into the foreground. I would like to see McCoy play a major part in the plot for a change. If they are meeting new species, I can see his exobiology speciality coming to the fore. (His "not a brick layer" protestations notwithstanding.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

Probably too soon to tell.

"I don't know. It's all speculation."

Kirk: "I'd buy speculation."
Scotty: "I'd sell it if I had it."

 

[Mudd]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

McCoy has been demoted in the nuTrek films; Uhura is the third starring character.

I like Urban's McCoy well enough, but it's too much of an impersonation to really shine next to Pine and Quinto.

 

[Disco]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

More McCoy is key for me. I think Urban shines more than Pien or Quinto.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

Yes.

That said, the original Star Trek was not an ensemble. It was about Kirk and Spock.

Agreed it wasn't an ensemble, but I think it was more Kirk & Spock, and much of the time, McCoy.

I'd like to see more McCoy in the next film, as well.

This is the only thing that disappoints me about the Abrams films. McCoy is underused.

 

[Timby]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

The book came out in 1968. I bought my copy in the book's seventeenth printing(!) in 1975. It was a collaboration between Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry about the creation of "Star Trek", what it took to get it on the air in the first place

Boy, I wonder how much Roddenberry bullshit is in that one.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

McCoy has been demoted in the nuTrek films; Uhura is the third starring character.

I like Urban's McCoy well enough, but it's too much of an impersonation to really shine next to Pine and Quinto.

These are essentially action flicks, and McCoy isn't particularly known in Trek as an "action character." It's hard to picture him being the one going after Khan with a phaser at the end of STID, for example.

McCoy is at his best when he's played off of Kirk and Spock. He keeps them true to themselves, and provides an unvarnished way of thinking about something that wouldn't always occur to the other two. He obviously has their ears (the respect Spock gave him grew over time) in decision making, but he's a reluctant adventurer at best. If anything he's the angel reminding Kirk that sometimes he's rushing in like a fool. I'm sure the last thing McCoy wanted to do was join Kirk on Nibiru, but he probably did it by convincing himself he'd need to be there to keep Kirk out of trouble.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

The book came out in 1968. I bought my copy in the book's seventeenth printing(!) in 1975. It was a collaboration between Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry about the creation of "Star Trek", what it took to get it on the air in the first place

Boy, I wonder how much Roddenberry bullshit is in that one.

Pardon the double post.

Less BS than you'd think. Roddenberry's contributions to the book are in all caps, kind of inserted into the text as comments on the subject at hand. Coon, Justman, and others are quoted in the book. There are also a lot of interoffice memos quoted verbatim over topics like naming Vulcans, the size of Starfleet, story points, series consistency, and things like that. It's very nuts and bolts about getting the series, then the episodes on the air. Indeed, one quote from Roddenberry is actually quite humble (especially for him):

Nothing would please me more than to take credit for the whole thing. There are many aspects of it that I thought out independently, and it pleases me that they worked. But much of the creativity of "Star Trek" is of a subtle nature, including much which the audience never realizes, and for which as executive producer, I cannot take credit. Eighty other people help make the show.... They are the ones who deserve a lion's share of the credit. We've got good people and we let them do their job (p. 301).

Given the book was published in 1968, well before the show was a phenomenon, it's probably why much of it isn't particularly self-aware or self-aggrandizing. It stresses "the optimism thing," but that's about it. The book ends with more or less an afterword that the series was renewed for a third season, but not without a fight. Then, it discusses the ramifications of the new time slot to whether or not the show will survive. The author concludes that in any case, the show would be remembered as trying to be intelligent science fiction and providing a view of the future one would want to live in.

I guess there was plenty of time for credit-claiming later.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I liked Scotty and McCoy together in TVH, and I'd have liked to have seen more of it before and after. I always think of this quote from Scotty's character description in Whitfield and Roddenberry's, The Making of Star Trek: "Scotty is intensely loyal to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. His relationship with Dr. McCoy, on the other hand, is a different one entirely. Scotty and McCoy are extremely close friends. They enjoy drinking together and are more alike as characters as either Kirk or Spock" (p. 245).

Seems like an opportunity wasted. That could have led to a lot of good moments.

I wonder where that description came from. Scotty and McCoy didn't really pal around in TOS.

The book came out in 1968. I bought my copy in the book's seventeenth printing(!) in 1975. It was a collaboration between Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry about the creation of "Star Trek", what it took to get it on the air in the first place, production ideas, finalizing characters and principles for writing for them, getting into the swing of putting a weekly series on the air, and so on.

Maybe this was an idea for the characters that never came to fruition or was abandoned as the Kirk, Spock, McCoy triad grew. Still, I always thought it was kind of a neat idea, which is why I found the McCoy-Scotty team in TVH quite satisfying.

(This is also the only place I've ever read that said Kirk was from Iowa -- finally canonized in TVH.)

I bought my first copy in 1972 and have worn more than a few copies out.

 

[Mojochi]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I just wish they'd give Uhura something more meaningful to play. The relationship thing really dragged down the last picture, imho. They've essentially elevated her to featured status, above McCoy. McCoy is just a ensemble player in these flicks, So that they can feature Uhura more. She's the 3rd lead in these films, which is fine I guess, if that's how you want to go, but don't do that & then just give her a weak relationship subplot, that doesn't even work well into the story

The old movie dynamic was about a group of friends, who took their cues from the main 3 guys. The new movie dynamic is about a bromance, & a 3rd wheel, plus all their bit players that they drag along on their new adventure/crisis. If Uhura is going to be featured prominently, then she needs to be given at least something as or more meaningful or integral to the story as Scotty gets, because he's the most prominent ensemble player, & that hasn't been happening, which creates a drag on the character dynamic.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I like the approach in Star Trek IV: the format of splitting up meant everyone had more to do, though Kirk and Spock's adventure was still clearly the focus and the most plot-relevant.

I liked Scotty and McCoy together in TVH, and I'd have liked to have seen more of it before and after. I always think of this quote from Scotty's character description in Whitfield and Roddenberry's, The Making of Star Trek: "Scotty is intensely loyal to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. His relationship with Dr. McCoy, on the other hand, is a different one entirely. Scotty and McCoy are extremely close friends. They enjoy drinking together and are more alike as characters as either Kirk or Spock" (p. 245).

Seems like an opportunity wasted. That could have led to a lot of good moments.

I loved Scottys and McCoys dynamic in TVH. I would like to see something like that again.

 

[Mudd]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

McCoy always came in a distant third in terms of screen time and number of lines, etc. As it is, no one making these things wants a boy's club at the center of the things in the 21st century. And Zoe Saldana's a bigger star at this point than Urban, which clinches it.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

But still, there's a limit to how much the communications officer can be involved in the adventure, which is a problem. Either they change Uhura's job description, have a plot in which communications are central, or just have her there because she is Spock's chick.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

But still, there's a limit to how much the communications officer can be involved in the adventure, which is a problem. Either they change Uhura's job description, have a plot in which communications are central, or just have her there because she is Spock's chick.

The same could be said about a doctor, yet there was McCoy hanging out on the bridge and beaming down with every landing party.

Though as an expert in xeno-linguistics, I can see Uhura at the forefront in a first contact situation. More so than someone who just mans the "phones".

 

[eyeresist]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I'm really talking about NuTrek, not criticising TOS.
Medicine in Trek still requires people to do the work, but translation has largely been automated. If every encounter with a new alien included a subplot of someone translating their language, I think audiences would dislike having this extra layer imposed between them and the story.
I think most of us wouldn't have a problem with it (if it could be aligned with the continuity), but then, we're nerds.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

Requiring Uhura does not preclude also requiring McCoy on the landing party.

I'd like to see much more Urban/McCoy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

I'm really talking about NuTrek, not criticising TOS.
Medicine in Trek still requires people to do the work, but translation has largely been automated. If every encounter with a new alien included a subplot of someone translating their language, I think audiences would dislike having this extra layer imposed between them and the story.
I think most of us wouldn't have a problem with it (if it could be aligned with the continuity), but then, we're nerds.

Well my point wasn't to criticize TOS, but point out that having a particular job wasn't always central to a character's inclusion in a plot.

Medicine in Star Trek can be very automated or "hands on" according to the needs of the plot. Communication can go either way as well. Nuhura's skill set seems beyond that of the TOS version, so the plot potential using that skill set is greater.

 

[Malaika]

Re: Will Star Trek 3 be a Kirk & Spock centric film or An Ensemble fil

but seriously, can you imagine McCoy in the mission to Kronos (bad spelling)? I might argue Uhura's presence there was the one that made the most sense because I can't see what Kirk or Spock could really do there that any of the other security officers couldn't do.
McCoy actually needs to be 'forced' in action scenes more than Uhura who totally makes sense as being part of away teams, not to mention her presence on the bridge makes it so she can interact with the main guys while she's doing her job while McCoy and Scotty have to constantly leave sickbay and engineering (their work places) to join in important scenes with Kirk and Spock.

and if you think a communications officer who is an expert linguist is an useless role because everything can be automatically translated, well that's naive IMO
I think no matter how advanced the ships are, a linguist is always needed because:
1) you need someone who programs the universal translators, to begin with (Uhura did that in a deleted scene from the first movie where she programmed a portable translator device for Spock so he could translate romulan words. Since they cut the scenes where he interacts with the romulans in a way that would make him need that, they also deleted the part where she gives him that device - which really was the reason no 1 she was on that transport pad when HE kissed her)
2) there can be tons of new planets with new languages no one knows. A linguist has the expertize needed to try to decodify those new languages and still find ways to communicate
3) languages are more than just 'words'. You can know the words but if you don't know how to correctly use them then you can't correctly communicate with the aliens.
There might also be alien species whose communication is also non verbal and if you only have an universal translator that's like reading sentences from google translate to hearing impaired people.
What about the culture, also? I think Uhura studied about that aspect too.

I'm sorry but in stid Uhura lasted so long with that klingon precisely because she's a linguist and mastered their language. If Kirk or Spock went out to talk with the klingons in stid using an universal translator, the baddie wouldn't even let them make more than a word before killing them.
Look closely at Uhura's scene, she's mimicking the correct body language too that would convey respect and bravery. The klingon is intrigued and lets her talk (actually, in the alternate take of the scene he didn't want to kill her and, actually, it's Kirk's impulsivity that makes him wrongly think that and ruin the whole thing putting his crew in danger. That's why in the movie when Khan shows up and 'saves the day', Uhura looks back a bit angry. In the original scene she was looking at Kirk)
In stid, Spock also would never be able to speak with Spock Prime if Uhura hadn't worked on the relay links that made the communication possible when comms were down due to the damage Marcus did on the ship.reboot Uhura is a much more well rounded character who not only is finally given a first name in canon but is also getting back one of the skills (her being a talented linguist) that was supposed to be developed in tos too (read her biography) but they never did.
Uhura also is, frankly, the 'third' character that makes the most sense in the context of this reboot provided that she also gives to the writers the chance to have a romantic relationship with two characters that wouldn't get any in tos, but also have a little male/female bond with Kirk. She has a connection with both Kirk and Spock and can be a bit the voice of reason for both of them (not a coincidence, I think, she's the one who stops both Kirk and then later Spock when they are beating the s*it out of Khan)
even that infamous argument scene between her and Spock on the way to kronos is, actually, pretty relevant to the plot as a whole and not just their relationship and you know why? Because not only it gave to KIRK too a chance to understand Spock more, it also was a much needed pretext for Spock to mention what happened in the other movie and thus a much needed continuity link between the events of the two movies (because, after all, stid is a sequel)
It puzzles me that people would find the S/U relationship and what their connection brings to the plot and their own character development 'useless' when there are many actually useless scenes that get a free pass (e.g., because Kirk with the cat ladies or Gaila etc etc is so useful for the plot)