Kirk... | Report this post to moderator
By: Kelvin (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:57:42 on Jun 26, 2008 | (1)

Thinking past Ronald D. Moore's comments and onto Abrams's upcoming movie...

I still believe William Shatner was offered a cameo; felt it violated his status as an actor/personality. (And he misunderstood the importance of the story's focus on elder Spock/younger crew.)

With a more humble Shatner going back to the negotiating table, I'm believing that Orci & Kurtzman DO have a plan to get him into the movie. (Although Mr. Abrams and fellow cohorts may feel mixed on that topic.)

There's a brilliant, unintentional smoke screen created by Shatner's statements. He's spoken about the subject to death; he can dismiss more comments from future interviews.

Then, May 2009, maybe we'll see James T. Kirk (the original), in the final moments of the movie.

One can only hope.

I really feel Shatner should return. Not in a huge role, but to uplift the mythos to a new level. I don't need to see/know how Kirk would eventually die again. Just the idea that he and Spock are legendary figures makes you forget their mortality. They are timeless.

And we need to see Kirk alive to be reminded that the future is open-ended, with incredible possibilities for these characters.

Then again, maybe this is the end for elder Spock. And it's his closure that would compound Kirk's return.

(Anyways, DAMN YOU BRAGA AND MOORE for a lousy script on Generations. It had so much more potential than was ever realized.)

Reply

Quote

Turdy Entitlement | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:30:09 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
I am entitled to an opinion on this matter like everyone else is...


And everyone else is entitled to scoff at whatever argument is made, without another ad hominem knifing from you.

Don't expect anyone to walk on eggshells just to appease your instability.


--------

Star Trek: New Frontier #1 (Quad Cover Edition)

Reply

Quote

[sigh] | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:48:25 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
Is it your goal to pad this thread to 80+ posts with another display of your spectacular stupor?

You just did it again! You have no self control.. you HAVE to insult me to make me seem less credible than you. Normal people would just exchange arguments on the subject, but you have to make it a personal attack with me every time. You are essentially an a**hole with a superiority complex.

I am entitled to an opinion on this matter like everyone else is - and I make pretty damn good arguments. All you do is write endless posts full of vocabulary (and promos for DVDs), with little substance. If someone disagrees with you and makes a good point, you belittle and insult them because you clearly have to be right.

If Gustavo isn't going to say anything, then I am just going to be the better guy and not take the bait. You are just a blowhard with a thesaurus, nothing more.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall... | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:36:16 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
Thanks for proving my point for me.


You responded to a "that's ridiculous" scoff like a hostile victim.

Is it your goal to pad this thread to 80+ posts with another display of your spectacular stupor?


--------

The Encyclopedia Shatnerica

Reply

Quote

? | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:47:45 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
More of your wounded chump talk?

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Reply

Quote

Duh! | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:38:55 on Jun 26, 2008 | (1)

Quote from cdydatzigs:
Can you repsond to posts without being insulting and personal?


More of your wounded chump talk?

Read that post carefully. I snub the argument, not the writer.


--------

The Incredible Hulk -- Complete 4th Season

Reply

Quote

Uhh... | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:23:19 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
That argument borders on absurdity.

Can you repsond to posts without being insulting and personal? Just once? It's getting old.

Reply

Quote

Stupid Is As Stupid Does | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:13:51 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
As far as he has concerned, he died in 2293, saving the Enterprise-B -- and surely you wouldn't expect him to warn young Kirk that he will die 30 years later on the 'B', so he best let Herriman go to deflector control or not even show up for the launch period. That would be a severe altering to the timeline...


That argument borders on absurdity.

Yes, an incompetent writer will portray elder Spock as too stupid to offer a warning about the avoidable death of his brother.

Kirk's foreknowledge makes for preparation, which takes into account the ethics.


--------

Mightysoft Windoos TP

For all the times you've wished you could just wipe your butt with your PC operating system.

Reply

Quote

Spock vs. what he knows and ethics | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:24:19 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
Elder Spock's love reportedly braves all risk in time-travel combat to save his soul brother, but then he neglects to offer a simple "Oh, by the way..." heads-up about Kirk's upcoming murder?

Can we even say that Spock knows about Kirk "making it" to the 24th century in the Nexus ribbon at all? Canon in the Star Trek universe is anything that appears on screen, or comes from the people responsible for what is on screen. So that begs two very important questions:

(1) After Picard buried Kirk on the mountain top, can we say for certain he told anyone Kirk had been there once he was picked up by the shuttle?

(2) If Picard indeed reported to Starfleet that Kirk had came back with him, then perished on Veridian III -- can we say for sure that Starfleet didn't keep this information classified?

My point is this, we don't know what Spock knows. Unless we see an admission on screen by a character that the real death of Kirk occured on Veridian III in 2371, we have to assume then that the 24th century public still believes that he died saving the Enterprise-B - backed up by Riker's line, "That's the mission where Jim Kirk was killed."

Needless to say, we don't know that Spock has any idea that his friend Jim Kirk died only 14 years earlier on Veridian III. As far as he has concerned, he died in 2293, saving the Enterprise-B -- and surely you wouldn't expect him to warn young Kirk that he will die 30 years later on the 'B', so he best let Herriman go to deflector control or not even show up for the launch period. That would be a severe altering to the timeline...

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Harm and Foul | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:01:56 on Jun 26, 2008 | (1)

Quote from cdydatzigs:
Hmm.. well, I would be content with elder-Spock in his quarters looking longingly at a holophoto of Kirk, followed by a touching voiceover. No harm in that. :)


The "harm" is by attempting to create drama in ways that make a (supposedly) smart character appear uncommonly stupid. That kind of writer incompetence became ENT's signature formula, which rendered Archer and Tucker into Dumb and Dumber.

Elder Spock's love reportedly braves all risk in time-travel combat to save his soul brother, but then he neglects to offer a simple "Oh, by the way..." heads-up about Kirk's upcoming murder? Oops. Idiot.

Also, to reconcile Orci's remarks about a movie that has officially completed its principal film production, there needs to be an onscreen "hook" which informs the audience that the Kirk legend will again cheat death -- otherwise a bookend segue to an appearance by elder Kirk would be a disjoint to the main story.


--------

The Full Body Project: Photographs by Leonard Nimoy

"A book of pictures of beautiful women who just don't happen to be living in the same kinds of bodies as fashion models" ~ Nimoy

Reply

Quote

A picture is worth a pointless cameo. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:56:01 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
Apart from the "seeing is believing" kicker for sceptical Trekkies, there's a universally appealing emotional payoff in having a bookend reunion of elders Kirk and Spock: The scene can be tied in heartstring moments between two old friends whose mutual "love" had really blossomed post-TOS, in a way that isn't hedged by awkward youth.

Hmm.. well, I would be content with elder-Spock in his quarters looking longingly at a holophoto of Kirk, followed by a touching voiceover. No harm in that. :)

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Colorful Metaphor | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:40:11 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote from TonyDP:
Truthfully, the only thing standing in the way of something like this is Shatner's "I don't do cameos" stance. But even if we don't see Shatner, I'd be perfectly happy as long as they film has a scene which gives hope that Kirk will survive on Veridian III.


Apart from the "seeing is believing" kicker for sceptical Trekkies, there's a universally appealing emotional payoff in having a bookend reunion of elders Kirk and Spock: The scene can be tied in heartstring moments between two old friends whose mutual "love" had really blossomed post-TOS, in a way that isn't hedged by awkward youth (per male-male affection).

You don't need madcow to appreciate Crane-Shore balcony moments. ;-)


--------

Star Trek: Conquest (PS2 | Wii)

Reply

Quote

Star Trek died when they killed Kirk. | Report this post to moderator
By: Rayna Kapec (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 13:16:45 on Jun 26, 2008 | (1)

When they foolishly and poorly killed James Kirk in Generations, they lost a whole Star Trek Generation and half of the next one.



Paramount wanted Kirk killed off and couldn't give a tribble what the fans of the overall Trek epic wanted or wants.

The lack of a role for Shatner in the new film bears this out, sure he cant play the ass-kicking stud muffin of the Galaxy anymore but the could have thrown him a bone at least with a return ala Obi-Won-Kinobi from Star Wars and have him with "a glow" around him telling the Spocks both young and old to "Remember the Shwartz!" ...or some such!

The only good next Gen movie was FC, and even that was almost an insult to Star Trek in the way the portrayed the character of Zepherim Cochrane who in no way resembled by his actions or gentleness the man we saw in the TOS episode original.



So it is with a blackened Ben Finney eye, that I cast upon Ronald Moore, and his ham handed analysis of why Star Trek went belly up for the last 15 years.

Lets hope they return to Star Trek with the same vigor with the new cast as the original, and be inspired but not clones of TOS, or TNG or DS9 or VOY and that other show with the Trek moniker I refuse to ever watch again after its 4 years because it is so not Star Trek.



--------

.."Tis a thirst....a flower... dying in the desert....



"Stop, No!, Do not order me!"



"I choose where I want to go, what I want to do... I CHOOSE!"

Reply

Quote

Kirk unit! | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:14:28 on Jun 26, 2008

First, I apologize for taking your earlier quote out of context

Quote:
I tend to disagree. After Generations, the TV ratings consistently dropped for each new show. And after a modest spike in box office for First Contact, each subsequent TNG movie did worse than the one before. Fans did leave the franchise, and while Kirk's death wasn't the only reason.

Ratings dropping for the subsequent shows were caused by two main reasons. (a) Shows like Voyager and Enterprise were essentially repackaged versions of what had already been done endless times before on TNG and DS9. (b) The audience for space-based Sci-Fi was waning anyway. People were getting into the reality show craze, police/court room dramas, etc. Star Trek on television was becoming a dinosaur and only the loyal fan base was watching -- and that wasn't enough for good ratings. How Kirk's death was handled didn't cause people to stop watching their franchise. That's a silly notion IMHO.

Quote:
If [Spock being alive in the 24th century] is already accepted, then why did they feel the need to write their story to include Nimoy? I'm sure they're going to have to "waste" screen time to explain to those casual moviegoers why he's there.

Abrams and Co. included Nimoy in the story because it was plausible. He is the only character from the early-TOS time frame who is still alive in the 24th century. Whether they had him travel back in time or reflect back on the past in his den, he was a natural choice. I can say with confidence that conveying the fact Vulcans live longer than humans is far easier and believable then any subtexting regarding Kirk's death, resurrection or the like -- neither of which have anything to do with the plot of this film anyway.

Quote:
The writers of Generations are the ones who introduced that weak bit of pseudo science and we're stuck with its repercussions 14 years later.

Actually, it was the suits at Paramount who wanted all of these incredible events to take place in the film; Kirk meeting Picard and Kirk dying being the two biggest fish. The writers some of you have faulted, were then challenged to come up with something that would be remotely believable, so that all these things could be done in one film. They even admitted at the time it was a little contrived, but how else were these two captains to meet? The Nexus was their solution, don't know what else to tell ya.

Quote:
If the Nexus had never been used as a plot device and Shatner had declined to participate in Generations, it would have been a wide open playing field for how you'd introduce him into a new movie.

Was that ever going to happen though? The whole point of Generations was to launch the Next Generation cast on their cinematic way. Everyone knew that the TOS era was coming to an end in 1994. Because of that, there was no need to keep Kirk alive anymore seeing as there was no real need for the franchise to show him again - as he said "I've done my bit for king and country." The franchise was in the hands of Picard and his crew now. It would not have been fair to keep bringing back Kirk just for the "neat factor" of it. The TNG cast and time period was more than capable of carrying a film on their own. [see: First Contact]

I do enjoy having this discussion with you by the way. It is educated and not personal -- which I especially appreciate :)

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Is it worth it? | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:13:22 on Jun 26, 2008

Quote:
...if Kirk's final fate from Generations can be undone, that would be a nice little bonus and would probably win back some fans as well.

I disagree for these reasons:

(1) The amount of fans (if any) who skip seeing Star Trek in the theater because of how Kirk died in Generations is miniscule. That was 14 years ago, it was a different regime then and very much unrelated to the current story. Fans will want to see Star Trek.

(2) The character of Kirk is already in the new film, played by Chris Pine as a younger man. The only elder character we will see is Spock because he is alive and well in 2385 and J.J. doesn't have to waste screen time and story to explain why he is alive. It is already accepted.

(3) Here is another bit of irony. You hate the Nexus because it was used to bring Kirk forward in time to help stop Soran -- and he died as a result. Yet, without it? Kirk (who is human) would have to live a natural life and hope he makes it to 152 years old in 2385 when Spocks scenes begin. What would he look like then? Is THAT the Kirk you want portrayed so badly?

My point is this... it takes far too much work and subtexting and farfetched distractions from a great film, to warrant "undoing" a death that most people are fine with.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

[bats around ball of string] | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:16:13 on Jun 25, 2008

It's funny how much bandwith is being used on the arguments over Shatner. I can't wait until May 2009, when neither he or his voice ends up in the film. All this debate over nothing, watch. :)

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:02:46 on Jun 25, 2008 | (2)

Quote from TonyDP:
The final fate of archetypical, mythic characters should never be so cut and dry and all they did was alienate and fragment the fanbase and lay the groundwork for its gradual erosion. ... I think it's pointless to bring in the real world analogy because Kirk is not a real person; he's a fictional character that occupies a sci-fi universe centuries removed from us.


You're absolutely right about that, Tony.

It's understood that Gene Roddenberry aimed to create morality plays. For TOS, GR adapted an ancient style of storytelling, from a time when elemental components of the human psyche (human nature) were dissected into gods or wraiths. A god for love. A god for bloodshed. They number in the dozens. These immortal beings were storytelling devices -- a reusable toolset that isn't an end in and of itself.

With a limited cast of characters, GR focused on the ancient trinity of Body, Mind, and Spirit as a storytelling model. GR forged the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Since most humans are "of two minds" about many things -- morality in particular -- GR made Spock a half-breed who'd suffer the Mind's inner conflict between reason and emotion.

As timeless and universal archetypes, the triumvirate are as Jungian entities that never "grow old and die". Our healthy body, mind, and spirit will be in harmony unless diseased by external factors. As sickness is an anomaly, so is "disease" between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- until they're challenged by circumstance ("time and tide").

Just as you can't destroy any of Body, Mind, or Spirit and still have a whole human being, NONE of Kirk, Spock, or McCoy should ever be seen to die once and for all. The trio are a collective, a symbiotic unit, representing our singular Humanity. Even in contrast to other styles of fiction, these characters are not "real" people -- they are immortal tools for narrative about the pan-cultural human condition. Such tools aren't an end in and of themselves, and neither are they permanently disposable to the work of a literary architect.

Kill off ANY of the triumvirate and you destroy GR's original choice of storytelling model for Star Trek. It's unnecessary, and should never have happened -- reason enough to undo such a blunder toward a pop-cult phenomenon.

If Roberto Orci is truthful, Team Abrams did accommodate elder Kirk in a cameo role. So, what the heck is up with "I don't do cameos" William Shatner?

With (clueless) moviemakers Berman, Braga, and Moore collaborating for Kirk's death in GEN, Shatner's cooperation was a sensible career choice in 1994, considering how much his livelihood depended on having a good relationship with the franchise (e.g. for authorized Star Trek novels and video game voiceover). Those were his hungrier days. More recently, Shatner has been central to a popular ABC series (Boston Legal), and he has A&E talkshow Raw Nerve in his pocket. With these steady paychecks, he can afford to name (and be foolish about) his price in other projects.

Amid countless "I know nothing" media feedings, Shatner did choose to make a public issue of salary from ST:XI. Studio fingers point toward Shat. Production manager Stratton Leopold said, "Studio executives still hope to convince William Shatner to suit up as Captain Kirk one more time". Damon Lindelof also put the ball into Shatner's court. In a radio interview with Howard Stern, JJ Abrams says Shatner "said to me he didn't want to do a cameo". Roberto Orci likewise informs us that the exclusion of elder Kirk is because Shat snubs cameos, yet his inclusion could still happen between now and May 2009.

Shatner was being highly vocal about Abrams' "bad business decision" in October 2007, which is when his Star Trek: Academy - Collision Course was published. According to Shatner, the novel got no support from TPTB. Was that a case of Paramount putting the thumbscrews on The Shat, in the midst of a cameo/salary cold-war?

As The World Turns...


--------

Linux on a Stick will Wow All the Ladies this Summer

Can I show you my dongle? It's French... Please ignore the pasty legs.


A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux ++ Live CD

Reply

Quote

Dead is dead. His life was still just as heroic. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:49:39 on Jun 25, 2008

Quote:
It's not that he died and we want him to live forever, it's that his death was so terrible, we want it rectified in some way. It was shallow and meaningless, in my opinion, and I would very much like to see a fitting end to one of the greatest characters in television (and movie) history.

So it's not that he died, but how he died, correct? Well, they reshot the ending of the film because he was originally shot in the back by Soran.

So I ask again.. if how Kirk met his end 14 years ago was not good enough for ya, how would you have killed him off? What is acceptable?

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Well Ron... | Report this post to moderator
By: rowboat (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:30:58 on Jun 25, 2008

I have nothing against Bill, but I don't know that there is a need to get beyond Generations in terms of Bill and bring him back in some thing. I don't know. I don't quite get it on some level why there is such a hew and cry to do that or not do that.

It's not that he died and we want him to live forever, it's that his death was so terrible, we want it rectified in some way. It was shallow and meaningless, in my opinion, and I would very much like to see a fitting end to one of the greatest characters in television (and movie) history. Every new Star Trek movie, especially one with that is starting over, brings us the opportunity to correct a huge mistake. Bill is not getting younger.

--------

It's time to separate the weak from the chafed, the men from the boys, the awkwardly feminine from the possibly Canadian.

Reply

Quote

Gutsy | Report this post to moderator
By: IamKirok!!! (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:17:30 on Jun 25, 2008

I think its pretty gutsy of him to come out and say that stuff. I mean, he's got nothing to lose now, but still for him to say he wasn't mature enough? I think that's a refreshing break from the H'wood bluster and ego.

Reply

Quote

POLL | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:56:58 on Jun 25, 2008

POLL QUESTION

Quote:
And if in doing that they can also give the character of Kirk a more satisfying conclusion than what we got in Generations, that will simply be a welcome bonus for me.

So that begs the question.. if Paramount told you Kirk must die in this film and you had to write it? Kirk activating the cloaking device before tumbling to his death on that causeway, therefore saving 250 million people is apparently NOT an appropritate death for Kirk -- so how would YOU have killed him off in that movie?

Reply

Quote

RDM | Report this post to moderator
By: Captain's Blog (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:58:59 on Jun 25, 2008 | (1)

In hindsight, it might've been a good idea to get Nick Meyer (or someone more experienced) in to rewrite Generations, but I don't think he was available.

It begs the question - does Hollywood hire writers that are too young?

I still don't think it's a big deal to have Shatner at the end of the new movie - the timeline can be slighlty different. Not essential, but not difficult.

--------

"I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I'd love someone to say, 'Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry's was nothing!'" - Gene Roddenberry, Starburst magazine

Reply

Quote

Dying means your mortal. Mortal = real | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:50:41 on Jun 25, 2008 | (1)

Quote:
Regardless, I still think killing off such a well known and loved character like James T. Kirk is a boneheaded decision.

Here is why I think it was a logical thing to do:

(1) Generations was a "passing of the torch" film that launched the TNG movie era. We all knew this was going to be the last hurrah for the TOS cast. The film was about the TNG cast, and they weren't going to look back.

(2) I think killing major or popular characters is very bold, and very good once in a while. It proves that the characters are mortal and human. Real people die, they don't live on in transporter beams, they aren't aliens who live 200 years and they aren't stuck in Nexus ribbons then revived. Heroes die all the time. Kirk is no different.

Constantly dragging out aging actors to portray their iconic characters eventually becomes and injustice to the character. Shatner's Kirk belongs in the 23rd century. He couldnt be in the 24th century with Spock because he would have died of old age, and reviving him now would be too contrived. Why can't we remember Shatner as Kirk when he was still believeable, looked great in the role and still looked strong? Sometimes, letting a death remain final can be the best thing for a great character such as Kirk. Real-life heroes don't get to be revived by their fans, should Kirk?

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

He Doesn't "Get It" | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:32:13 on Jun 25, 2008

Quote:
I don't know that there is a need to get beyond Generations in terms of Bill and bring him back in some thing. I don't know. I don't quite get it on some level why there is such a hew and cry to do that or not do that.

The hew and cry is from fans who, when they rose out of their seats in '94, immediately understood what you say you can only appreciate in retrospect: Kirk met his end lamely.

Logical or not, practical or not, the cry from disillusioned fans now to use this unforeseen opportunity to rewind his mortal coil is actually pretty easy to "get". I don't happen to agree with many of them that it's priority one. But I get it.

Reply

Quote

It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:48:39 on Jun 24, 2008

Actually? The real problem with Generations was that it was a studio driven film. Paramount approached Berman, Braga and Moore with a challenge. They said they wanted the following to happen:

- Picard to meet Kirk
- Enterprise-B launched, with TOS crew members present
- Enterprise-D destroyed
- Kirk being killed

"Now go write us a movie," they said.

It was because of this tall order that the producers/writers we love so much came up with the "Nexus ribbon" plot device. Now our intrepid heroes had a means to accomplish all of these things in the same picture. Someone had it right when they said that Generations should have been the last three episodes of the series, and All Good Things... should have been their first film.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:37:45 on Jun 24, 2008

Heh, anyone want to place bets as to how long THIS thread is going to be? I predict it will crack 75 posts easily. Any takers? ;)

-- Steve

Reply

Quote