Beam Us Up, Gojira | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:59:57 on Dec 14, 2007

OK, but will the theater confection counter serve Slusho, or Synthehol? ...


'Star Trek' Trailer Boldly Goes To 'Cloverfield' Audiences

It's been the subject of much speculation, but we can now confirm that the teaser trailer for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" will in fact be shown in front of certain buzzed-about pic this January.

"Cloverfield" director Matt Reeves has told MTV News that Paramount has picked his monster flick as the venue to unveil the "Trek" trailer. There isn't much more to report on that front, but Reeves did say that he's seen the teaser and that it's "awesome."


----------------

Apple Ad Spoof by Novell: Your Linux is Ready! (video)
:: Part 2 :: Part 3 ::


Ubuntu for Non-Geeks: Guidebook ++ Live CD

Reply

Quote

Here's a controversial idea | Report this post to moderator
By: dwd201969 (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:33:57 on Dec 14, 2007

What if the events of the film alter the time line in such a way that when old Spock gets back to his natural time, Kirk never died and Shatner gets his part. To make the role more useful than just a Shatner cameo, perhaps the climax happend in the 24th Century and Kirk plays a crucial role in the resolution. Spock and Kirk ride off into the sunset and their younger counterparts go back to the 23rd century with the ability to tell stories that we've never heard because Old Spock screwed with the timeline. Eliminates continuity altogether, but it would be fun to see elements from established continuity be "re-told" in a new film series. The reboot in effect is done by characters from the existing continuity.

Just a thought.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Here's a controversial idea | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:32:57 on Dec 16, 2007

  What's so controversial about THAT? It makes perfect sense, and you just came up with something in probably a minute or two. By doing that, you illustrate the most important point about this--bringing the character back isn't that hard. The idea that Orci can't think of anything is beyond ridiculous. I find that an insult to my intelligence that he actually has the nerve to make that claim. Either that, or he is a terrible writer with the creativity of a dead monkey.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Here's a controversial idea | Report this post to moderator
  By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:38:05 on Dec 14, 2007

  Posted that plot device idea on the message board about a month ago and was eaten ALIVE my friend. Tough crowd to please these(us) trekkies are.
  
  --------
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

RE: The writers are 'Lost' | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:33:48 on Dec 14, 2007

Quote:
When the players don't treat this project as serious business, should the fans?

This project? Methinks so.

Reply

Quote

They could easily include William Shatner! Heres how! | Report this post to moderator
By: The Quick And The Dead (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:32:12 on Dec 14, 2007

Do the Guardian thingie story, (and stop listening to the lies of Ellison) and shatner's "fibs..about NOT being in the movie!!!!????

Yes... he is in the film.

my precious we swears it!!


we/i swears it! ...my love!,

REGARDS..
Smeagol



--------

Ellen: [female gunslinger walks up behind a preoccupied bartender] How about a room?
Horace: Whores next door.
Ellen: [carefully sets her cigar down] Say that again.
Horace: I said whores next door.
Ellen: [kicks the stool out from under him, catches his liquor bottle as he falls, & pours herself a drink] Now, do you have a room available?
Horace: Uh, room and bath, yes, ma'am, coming up!

Reply

Quote

What will they call the next movie? | Report this post to moderator
By: VZX (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:18:04 on Dec 14, 2007

Since they are calling this eleventh movie simply just "Star Trek," what will they call the next one? They can't call it "Star Trek 2", because that's been done as the Wrath of Khan. They can't call it "Star Trek 12" because they wanted to avoid the coninutation of numbering from the previous ten movies. If they use a subtitle like "Star Trek: Generations", it will be similar to the naming of the Next Gen movies, which I'm sure they would want to avoid. They would still have "Star Trek" in the title, so what should they do?

My guess is some kind of subtitle, but it will be cheesey and be compared to the Next Gen movies.

Reply

Quote

• RE: What will they call the next movie? | Report this post to moderator
  By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:15:33 on Dec 15, 2007

  I don't see what's so bad about the subtitle. But if you really want to avoid the TNG comparison, just get rid of the colon, a la Batman Begins. Star Trek Begins! Star Trek Forever! Etc.
  
  Or you could go the Star Wars route. Empire Strikes Back. Return of the Jedi. People still know it's a Star Trek movie because of the logo or whatever.
  
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: What will they call the next movie? | Report this post to moderator
  By: OV-101 (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:23:40 on Dec 14, 2007

  Quote:
  Since they are calling this eleventh movie simply just "Star Trek," what will they call the next one? They can't call it "Star Trek 2", because that's been done as the Wrath of Khan. They can't call it "Star Trek 12" because they wanted to avoid the coninutation of numbering from the previous ten movies. If they use a subtitle like "Star Trek: Generations", it will be similar to the naming of the Next Gen movies, which I'm sure they would want to avoid. They would still have "Star Trek" in the title, so what should they do?
  
  My guess is some kind of subtitle, but it will be cheesey and be compared to the Next Gen movies.
  
  Let's hope that it will become a problem. Meaning that they will make another movie. Naming conventions should be the least of our worries right now.
  
  --------
  
  "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
  -- John Wayne
  
  "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
  --Dr. Leonard McCoy
  
  "I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
  -- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
  
  "Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
  - General Decker, Mars Attacks
  
  "It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
  - Q from Q Who

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

It amazes me... | Report this post to moderator
By: John Calvin (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 06:09:38 on Dec 14, 2007

How people can read so much between the lines and make so many presumptions and judgments about a script they have not seen and a movie that we really know nothing concrete about. We are criticizing writers and producers of a movie over information about the product that is nothing more than rumor and conjecture. I think I will reserve my estimate of this team's competence until I have seen the finished product.

--------

"It's not who I am inside, but what I do that defines me." -Batman

www.gracelockport.com

Reply

Quote

Ho Ho Homeless A-Go-Go | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:33:19 on Dec 14, 2007

A place for everyone in Roddenberry's future, but not for our guttersnipe tonight...

Homeless Told Move Out Of Park, Make Way For Star Trek!

The city has rented out and fenced off over half of Lincoln Park for Paramount Studios' filming of the latest Star Trek movie -- displacing homeless people who squat there in this happiest time of the year.

I wonder how we can spare cops to guard movie sets when every politician who runs for public office says that he will hire more cops to battle escalating crime. Maybe they just schedule less crime for the days that Hollywood is in town. I wonder if they keep statistics on how much the crime rate falls when Long Beach cops are busy being paid to guard Hollywood's most essential secrets.


When Santa became just another "red shirt"...




----------------

Star Trek: Alien Spotlight - Orions

Reply

Quote

• The Enemy Without | Report this post to moderator
  By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:44:56 on Dec 14, 2007

  When an entity is capable of throwing $160 million at a talkie, displacing homeless citizens to do so is gilding the lily so blindly as to be gluttonous in the extreme--especially if it's about to preach tolerance and unity of purpose.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Ho Ho Homeless A-Go-Go | Report this post to moderator
  By: John Calvin (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 05:47:37 on Dec 14, 2007

  Quote:
  When Santa became just another "red shirt"...
  
  This story sounds very sad on the surface, and at first glance seems cause for ridicule, but how do we know that provision was not made for this man?
  
  --------
  
  "It's not who I am inside, but what I do that defines me." -Batman
  
  www.gracelockport.com

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

The writers are 'Lost' | Report this post to moderator
By: Comicman (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:23:08 on Dec 14, 2007 | (1)

Ok, I'm no newbie to Trekweb, been visiting for years, but never created an account to react to news items. This one made me do it, because of certain irritations I have with the creative forces behind this movie. Don't get me wrong, I expect it to be a fun and adventurous film, but there could be so much more to it, the way I see it. They should be broadening their thinking.
You know, I agree on the fact that this whole 'Shatner in or not' thing has taken up quite alot of time already, endless discussions and quoting by actors/writers/producers/etc..
But if they're still pondering on how to bring Kirk into the story, I'm beginning to worry about the lack of creativity here. There's more that one way to have Kirk in it, and not have to do a resurrection of the character that died in 'Generations'.

Old Spock, when being confronted with the news that Romulans are trying to erase Kirk from history, could have a flashback to a time just before Kirk boarded the Enterprise B, his last conversation with him. A conversation in which Kirk could share with Spock his feelings of being unimportant ever since he stopped being the captain of a starship, similar to what Kirk spoke about to Picard. This would fit into the story, since a big driving force of the movie is to show how much of an impact, an importance, Kirk has made and been for the course of history throughout space.
This flashback scene offers a way for old Kirk to be in the movie without having to bring him back from the dead. Voilá, canon respected.

Another way to involve old Kirk is to say: 'What if Kirk isn't dead at all?'
What if the Kirk we saw dying in 'Generations', the Kirk who disappeared into the Nexus, met Picard and saved the day against Soran, wasn't Kirk?
There could have been a swap made by an unknown party before the time of 'Generations', the real Kirk being abducted and replaced by a genetic replica, undistinguishable from the real thing by medical technology in that era. All this time, the real Kirk being locked away somewhere in cryogenic state, waiting to be rescued. A ploy by enemies of the Federation to gain influence in Starfleet and the Federation by using the popularity and sway Kirk has in that society. Unfortunately for them, their clone was a little too perfect, and really believed he was Kirk and wanted to make a difference one last time, be the hero.

This last idea is a stretch since they're never going to use it in this movie, it takes up too much time since it could easily be made into a film on it's own à la 'The Search For Spock'. This film is all about starting over, passing the torch to a new generation of actors to portray the early days of Trek again. No more TOS movie era Trek, but a startover. No more need for old Kirk, except for possible sentimental value this film has in saying goodbye (again) to old beloved characters before they're rebooted/reimagined/reintroduced as younger versions.
And even in bookform it's not needed, since Shatner himself did a Kirk resurrection in one of his novels.

What I'm trying to say here is, if they're still whining over how to involve Kirk in this film, they're on a wrong track. There's so many ways to do it, and still it's not done? Come on, get with the program. Either do it, or don't do it, just quit bringing it up every once in a while. It get's old.

Reply

Quote

• RE: The writers are 'Lost' | Report this post to moderator
  By: Judge (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:04:04 on Dec 17, 2007

  I also almost never post. Have had an account for a long time but I agree with the "flashback" scenario and how cheap and easy such a thing is. My quick suggestion is a videophone (really cheap) or personal meeting between Spock and Kirk just before he's heading off to the Ent B launch. They reminince on the old days, new ships with old names, new crews whatever. Spock hears of Kirks death. Really hurts him. Now he remembers that last conversation with Kirk upon hearing of the new threat to young Kirk and it fuels his desire to stop it...etc, etc, etc....yep it's not too hard to come up with a 2 minute piece of film and finally once and for all send the elderly actors into a respectful retirement without crappy deaths.....but I suspect there is money involved and not story line blocks at work.
  
  Any body got a bootleg to the new ship yet??? If Cawley's seen it someone else has too.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: The writers are 'Lost' | Report this post to moderator
  By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:03:49 on Dec 14, 2007

  Quote:
  What I'm trying to say here is, if they're still whining over how to involve Kirk in this film, they're on a wrong track. There's so many ways to do it, and still it's not done?
  
  As someone once said, "There are two possibilities":
  
  1. He is/will be in the film and, as a "happy few" of us have said before, Orci keeping this ball up in the air, even as his story is being filmed, is a suspicious omen to that effect.
  
  2. His inclusion in the story, which none of us have read I'll remind you, would compromise the integrity of it. You gave two examples, one of which you correctly identified as impossible for this movie, even given our limited knowledge of it. There may simply be no way for him to be credibly included.
  
  I, myself, have a hard time thinking of a way to include him that wouldn't be distracting and wouldn't leave me howling to have him back later in the film--which would eat up too much of the film, seems to me. But my growing Oliver Stone suspicion is that he will be in this film in some symbolic way, and that our chain is being yanked hard to buzzing effect.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: The writers are 'Lost' | Report this post to moderator
  By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:57:24 on Dec 14, 2007 | (1)

  Quote from Comicman:
  What I'm trying to say here is, if they're still whining over how to involve Kirk in this film, they're on a wrong track.
  
  
  Meanwhile, on the other side of town, Shatner appears hellbent on convincing us that he's either too pompous or too daft to just call Abrams for the straight dope. Absent a restraining order from JJ et al, Shatner's "I know nothing" situation is an obstinate choice.
  
  When the players don't treat this project as serious business, should the fans?
  
  The owls are not what they seem.
  
  
  ----------------
  
  Star Trek XI -- Wall Poster
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
By: psp1 (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:13:43 on Dec 13, 2007

Shatner should have never done Generations. He had a great finale in Undiscovered Country. In my view, his own shortsightedness did him in. He got hoodwinked into getting Kirk slaughtered off for a meaningless death so that the TNG crew could do more movies.

I am sure he regrets it- but what is done is done. He took it too casually- I even heard him comment that it was 'just science fiction' , so you could resurrect him.

Well, there is no good way to resurrect Kirk-no katra, no reincarnation. He just has to move along with his great new persona 'Denny Crane'. If he wanted to be really gracious, he would agree to do have film clips of Kirk throughout the years at the end as a respectful gesture (for perhaps 2 minutes at the end of the movie). He should let the clips end with The Undiscovered Country instead of the putrid and meaningless Generations.


--------

psp1

Reply

Quote

• RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
  By: ericphillips (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:56:26 on Dec 14, 2007

  Quote:
  He got hoodwinked into getting Kirk slaughtered off for a meaningless death so that the TNG crew could do more movies.
  
  Really. if Kirk didn't die we would never have had anymore TNG movies??? LOL
  
  I think one of the problems with sci fi (and comic books) in general is that life or death is meaningless. Star Trek main characters never die. They get stuck in transporters, have their bodies regenerated by "Genesis" and their brains stuck in McCoy, etc. At least they have stuck to their guns and kept a franchise character like Kirk dead.
  
  Second, Sci Fi tends to make crappy stories because they want to keep giving the audience what they want even if it does not fit the plot. If Kirk does not fit the story BUT the story is awesome, then Kirk SHOULD NOT BE IN IT!
  
  This film needs to concentrate on what the Star Trek 3, 5, 9, & 10 did not: a compelling story.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
    By: psp1 (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:34:27 on Dec 14, 2007

    I agree. Kirk should stay dead.
    I worded the comment about TNG movies poorly. But the producers wanted the baton handed off between the classic and TNG series. Patrick Stewart himself said so. That's why the modest role for Kirk and a meaningless death.
    Obviously, the TNG folks would have made movies with or without Kirk's death. That makes it even worse- his death was just totally pointless. Have no clue why Shatner was foolish enough to agree with the script.
    But once having killed him, leave him dead. These bogus gimmicks where folks come back is very tiresome. It's not just Trek using them . 24 and Alias started using them too.
    
    
    --------
    
    psp1

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
      By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:34:44 on Dec 16, 2007

      To hell with leaving him dead. Captain Kirk is a fictional iconic character. The TNG producers did something stupid. Let Abrams fix that.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

• RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
  By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 18:20:57 on Dec 13, 2007

  Legends never die...
  
  
  
  Gustavo
  
  --------
  
  TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
  
  gl2000@uol.com.br

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
    By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:27:49 on Dec 13, 2007

    Too bad its not canon. Even if Shatner wrote (co-wrote) it. Would be nice though.
    
    --------
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Generations mistake | Report this post to moderator
      By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 19:46:16 on Dec 13, 2007

      I dont care if Paramount and Richard Arnold say it is not canon, but in my case, the books are part of my personal canon. Go figure.
      
      Gustavo
      
      --------
      
      TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
      
      gl2000@uol.com.br

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

Battlestar Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:46:40 on Dec 13, 2007

Quote from Roberto Orci:
We are still hoping to find a way [to put Shatner in the movie]


The Shatner issue continues to be as viral as JJ's Cloverfield PR: it surfaces in ST:XI overviews, in talk about Shat's awards, and on signage in the WGA strike. Brilliant.


Writers' Strike: The Directors' Cut?

As Battlestar Galactica creator Ronald D. Moore walked the Paramount picket line Monday, he articulated the view shared by most writers. Moore waged a protracted battle with NBC Universal last year over delivering unpaid, uncredited webisodes of his show. "That taught me the lesson that the studios thought Internet stuff somehow existed in this magical realm where they didn't have to pay anybody and they could do whatever they want," Moore says. "That experience a year ago lead me to believe we were gonna be in this situation today. It's wearying to be in this sort of limbo state. Now all eyes turn to the DGA."




----------------

The Wrath of Khan - Death of Spock Figures

Reply

Quote

Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
By: Scorpius (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:35:41 on Dec 13, 2007

They've had since the meeting with Shatner (pre-script) to come up with a way to get Shatner's Kirk in.

Does anyone believe that after the strike and JJ saying the script is locked, that Orci's statement that they could still work him in is feesable?

Subterfuge because he is appearing in a surprise ending, or bullshit.

Time will tell. Smells like bull manure tho.

--------

"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier

Reply

Quote

• RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:42:37 on Dec 13, 2007

  How can anyone possibly believe him? Besides, is he seriously trying to blame continuity and the fans' insistence on it for Shatner's absence?
  
  How about blaming his own inept lack of creativity?
  
  There are as many ways to bring the character back as there are writers. Are you serious in saying that the only two people who can't think of something got the gig?
  
  They NEVER wanted him and are trying to save face.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
    By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:14:02 on Dec 13, 2007

    OMG! Ok, As I said below. It would not have been feasable to include Shatner without explaining his appearance. You know, since he's suppose to be dead. If they did do such a thing, it would take to much away from the new crew that is suppose to be relaunching the franchise. It has nothing to do with lack of creativity. You don't just snap your fingers and raise a character from the dead.
    
    As someone pointed out months ago, It took 2 movies to tell the story of Spock's return from the dead. Bringing Kirk back to life simply will not fit in this film.
    
    --------
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
      By: Scorpius (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:37:38 on Dec 13, 2007

      New crew? It's the SAME characters. Pine's Kirk is the same Kirk as Shatner's Kirk.
      
      I have no interest in seeing Kirk's life in jeapordy when younger, when i know what happens to him when he's older.
      
      It did not take 2 films to ressurect Spock.
      
      Did you see the title for Trek 3? "The Search for Spock". 3 quarters of the film they were looking for him. Last 10 mins they got him back. That film wasn't about them resurrecting him, he was already alive again at the end of Trek 2 when the coffin soft landed.
      
      Kirk saved the universe again and again, I'm sorry but the universe, including JJ Abrams, owes Kirk one now.
      
      --------
      
      "Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
        By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:50:02 on Dec 13, 2007

        Quote:
        I have no interest in seeing Kirk's life in jeapordy when younger, when i know what happens to him when he's older.
        
        To each his or her own. I would have preferred that they did a post Nemesis film but, hey,you get what you get. Besides, I believe strongly that this is a reboot anyway. Not exactly a prequel. And even f it was a prequel, I point again to the Star Wars film WHy did do many people swarm the theaters to see the story of young Anakin Skywalker when they already know what happens to him?
        
        Quote:
        Did you see the title for Trek 3? "The Search for Spock". 3 quarters of the film they were looking for him. Last 10 mins they got him back. That film wasn't about them resurrecting him, he was already alive again at the end of Trek 2 when the coffin soft landed.
        
        Normally, I wouldn't reply to statements such as this, but since I know you to be an intelligent person,I will elaborate on the statement that you commented on. It took two movies to thel the COMPLETE story of Spock's return. That means throughout the course of "The Search for Spock" and "The Voyage Home" we are given the story of Spocks return, as well of the story of the return of his Katra(sp?). The crew also face the consequences of their actions from "The search for Spock" in the "The Voyage Home".
        
        
        --------
        
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
          By: Scorpius (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:46:49 on Dec 13, 2007

          Well either way i disagree. It did not take 2 movies to tell the story of Spock's return. Trek IV just continued on, it was not about Spock's resurrection/return in any way. The movie was set months after his "rebirth". A few references were thrown in, ditto Trek V "i like him better before he died". The plot of the movie had no reliance on Trek III or Spock's prior death whatsoever.
          
          Are you saying that they can't bring Kirk back in Trek XI because they will need Trek XII to deal with what happens after he is back?
          
          --------
          
          "Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
            By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:38:16 on Dec 13, 2007

            I am saying that if you are going to do a story about bringing back Kirk, it'll take more than a cameo scene. It will definatley take more than a 30 minute fist act too. With a legend as big as Kirk they should devote at least a movie to it.
            
            Like I said, if this is indeed a time travel movie, then the only way to bring back Kirk in a short time with a wuick explanation is for old Spock to warn young Spock about how Kirk is killed.
            
            --------
            
            

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
              By: Scorpius (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:13:31 on Dec 13, 2007

              "Like I said, if this is indeed a time travel movie, then the only way to bring back Kirk in a short time with a wuick explanation is for old Spock to warn young Spock about how Kirk is killed."
              
              I have no problem with that whatsoever. It would be a fitting book end for the older Kirk and Spock.
              
              --------
              
              "Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

      • RE: Subterfuge or sh*t | Report this post to moderator
        By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:50:00 on Dec 13, 2007 | (1)

        Double post...Please delete:)
        
        --------
        
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

Orci talks Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 14:52:07 on Dec 13, 2007

Well, people wanted to hear Orci (or someone from Abrams team) talk about the Shatner casting controversy. So, there you are.

Gustavo

PS - Boy, it was difficult to write this article.

--------

TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor

gl2000@uol.com.br

Reply

Quote

Holy Crap | Report this post to moderator
By: Dukat (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 14:15:05 on Dec 13, 2007

Ok, from page 30. last paragraph, 2nd sentance:
Quote:
Star Trek is their love letter to the fans and franchise and they hope it is expected in that spirit.

First time now, I have felt a little sick about this movie. The last time we got a "valentine" it was like getting crapped on.

And for those of you with short memories, the "valentine" was from Berman and Braga and came in the form of the TNG wraparound to the Enterprise finale.

--------

Reply

Quote

OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:13:51 on Dec 13, 2007 | (1)

So, the reason that Shatner is not in the movie is because there is no way that they can explain his coming back from the dead AND focus on REBOOTING the franchise with a new crew. See, Spock is still alive, as far as the Trek franchise go. Kirk is dead. Given that, it would be easy to bring Nimoy (Spock) back for a cameo. Bringing in Shatner (Kirk) for a cameo would be a big problem, considering they'd have to explain how, all of the sudden, he is alive. Doing that, will take too much focus off of the new crew and their storyline.

Over on the message board, I posted an idea that had Kirk showing up at the end of the movie, revealing that he is still alive, ending the movie on that cliffhanger, and then explaining it in a possible sequel. But, my Idea was shot down. A good point was made that even if they did go that route, They would still have to take a lot of time to explain his return in the second movie.

Let us all just finally ACCEPT that Kirk was killed in "Generations" and move on with our lives. Heroes fall, Heroes die, that's the nature of the Universe.

--------

Reply

Quote

• RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
  By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:02:26 on Dec 13, 2007

  Quote:
  So,the reason that Shatner is notin the movie is because there is no way that they can explain his coming back from the dead AND focus on REBOOTING the frnchise with a new crew.See, Spockis still alive, as far as the Trek franchise go. Kirk is dead. Given that, it would be easy to bring Nimoy (Spock) back for a cameo. Bringing in Shatner (Kirk) for a cameo would be a big problem, considering they'd have to explain how, all of the sudden, he is alive. Doing that, will take too much focus off of the new crew and their storyline.
  
  And I've been saying that for months, but people seem hellbent on trying to get Generations decanonized (perhaps as an end-run to getting Enterprise, Voyager or "insert name of episode, series or film you don't like here" decanonized as well.) or they are insisting that some anti-Shatner bias exists (look on this very thread for an example of that). The fact Shatner is in the midst of a late-life career renaisssance many other actors would kill for - check out that Golden Globe nomination today - would actually make him more attractive to appear in Trek today than he was back when his career was in the toilet and he was making Canadian B-movies at the time of TMP.
  
  At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- but the tune is one even the writers are singing -- this film is supposed to reboot the franchise. It is not supposed to be a sequel to Generations. And obviously it's an in-canon film, not a reimagining or Casino Royale-style reboot -- the writers make this clear. So in order for them to bring Shatner in they will need to make it a sequel to Generations instead of it being a reboot film. And, worse, they'd need to come up with some bullshit reason for Kirk to still be alive.
  
  Can't be done. Shouldn't be done. And god, I wish they'd never cast Nimoy. I love the guy and I'm happy to see him in ears and eyebrows again, but it's opened up a whole mess of problems with a fanbase that has spent the last 20 years fracturing and refracturing.
  
  I swear, if Star Trek 11 ends up being a great movie, but fan bitching ends up sinking it, not only will I burn my Trekkie membership card I will actively campaign for Star Trek -- in all media -- to be completely retired for at least 25 years because the current fanbase would no longer deserve it.
  
  Al

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:18:23 on Dec 13, 2007

    Quote from sb2004:
    And I've been saying that for months, but people seem hellbent on trying to get Generations decanonized...
    
    
    By your definition, The Wrath of Khan is "decanonized" by The Search for Spock -- because Spock's death is undone.
    
    The sci-fi/fantasy genre -- including the Star Trek universe -- has established that corporeal death can be a temporary inconvenience.
    
    Kirk's body wasn't vaporized, it was left on an alien planet. Any passerby could've dug up Kirk's remains, bringing his DNA under the scope of futuristic and otherworldly science that we don't need to understand to accept.
    
    This can work for a cameo/bookend role because plausibility isn't a function of screen time.
    
    
    ----------------
    
    The Wrath of Khan - Death of Spock Figures
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
      By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:36:20 on Dec 13, 2007

      Come on Trexx. Do you really want Kirks grand return to the Trek franchise (on screen) to be reduced to a cheap 5 minute gimmick? He deserves better than that. I'd rather he not come back at all than to see some Deus ex Machina that whips Kirk back to life in about 5 minutes and that's it.
      
      Are you really that desperate to the point that you will take it any way you can get it?
      
      --------
      
      

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
        By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:53:21 on Dec 13, 2007

        Quote from StarFleet Captain:
        Come on Trexx.
        
        
        You presume that "a cheap 5 minute gimmick" is the only possibility, and you presume that I'm "desperate" to see Shatner in this film.
        
        Make an argument that isn't tainted by poor expectations and presumption.
        
        
        ----------------
        
        TOS Communicator Replica
        
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
          By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:01:15 on Dec 14, 2007

          Quote:
          Kirk's body wasn't vaporized, it was left on an alien planet. Any passerby could've dug up Kirk's remains, bringing his DNA under the scope of futuristic and otherworldly science that we don't need to understand to accept.
          
          This can work for a cameo/bookend role because plausibility isn't a function of screen time.
          
          Just going by what you said.
          
          
          --------
          
          

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
            By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:26:00 on Dec 14, 2007

            Quote from StarFleet Captain:
            Just going by what you said.
            
            
            No, your "cheap 5-minute gimmick" conclusion presumes that quality is a function of screen time. If this were true, any 120-minute movie will have less "cheap gimmick" than any 90-minute movie.
            
            
            ----------------
            
            TOS Minimates Series 2 - Kirk and Gorn
            
            

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • A Tick In the Fur | Report this post to moderator
              By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:05:56 on Dec 14, 2007

              You lost me on this one. Plausibility is both a wave and a particle. No, it's not absolutely dependent upon quantity of screen time, but it has to have enough to exist. After all, if it had none, it wouldn't be plausible at all. Bringing back Kirk is plausible, yes, but I'm sure you'd agree that plausibility entirely depends on the method used. We don't know the details, but we know enough about this movie's plot to know that bringing Kirk back from the dead, in a literal sense, would have to achieve something rare if not impossible: the creation of something momentous, emotional, and plausible, but inconspicuous as well, so as to let the rest of the animal live--a welcome tick in the fur, as it were.
              
              Including Shatner is a mere tick in the fur of details we're not privy to. But bringing back Kirk from the dead, in a literal sense, would require replacing the head and tail of an animal that's already been weaned.
              
              I'm off to the zoo!

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

              • It's Incidental, My Dear Spock | Report this post to moderator
                By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:42:46 on Dec 14, 2007 | (3)

                Quote from c.p.:
                Plausibility is both a wave and a particle. No, it's not absolutely dependent upon quantity of screen time, but it has to have enough to exist.
                
                
                ST:TAS packed a complete dramatic adventure into just 20 minutes or so, every week, and won an Emmy Award with the result.
                
                Animal, fur, head, and tail? Way Frankensteinian! Plausibility is incorporeal, yet systemic. Dynamic, yet incidental.
                
                On the coming of original Kirk...
                
                How long does an orgasm last, and does reaching it require a singular approach? Must it be obvious, cheap, desperate, or sacrifice a sincere relationship? As a story that courts Kirk and Spock, ST:XI has its entire run-time to "inconspicuously" build up to those few final moments of something "momentous, emotional, and plausible" in a climax.
                
                From rumors we've heard, the entire plot is about elder Spock tickling the time-space continuum to save young Kirk from a deadly fate. What if there's the unexpected side-effect of also undoing elder Kirk's deadly fate? Same agenda, wider scope, as far as the magic potion of sci-fi is concerned. Broad-spectrum antibiotic analogy.
                
                All the better if it's an ending which leaves us twitching for more.
                
                
                ----------------
                
                Linux is About to Take Over the Low End of PCs
                
                "In 2008, Linux -- yes, Linux -- will start taking over the low-end PC market, and Microsoft will be almost helpless to stop it."
                
                
                Ubuntu for Non-Geeks: Guidebook ++ Live CD

                
                

                Reply

                Quote

                • RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock | Report this post to moderator
                  By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:34:29 on Dec 14, 2007

                  Quote:
                  Plausibility is incorporeal, yet systemic. Dynamic, yet incidental.
                  
                  Quote:
                  What if there's the unexpected side-effect of also undoing elder Kirk's deadly fate?
                  
                  Touche. I think. Spock's brain hurts.

                  
                  

                  Reply

                  Quote

                  • RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock | Report this post to moderator
                    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 02:37:20 on Dec 15, 2007

                    Quote from c.p.:
                    Spock's brain hurts.
                    
                    
                    Perhaps what you feel is a tremor in The Force. The entire staff at StarTrek.com just got fired...
                    
                    Goodbye from the STARTREK.COM Team
                    
                    12.14.2007
                    
                    Sadly, we must report that CBS Interactive organization is being restructured, and the production team that brings you the STARTREK.COM site has been eliminated. Effective immediately.
                    
                    We don't know the ultimate fate of this site, which has served millions of Star Trek fans for the last thirteen years.
                    
                    If you have comments, please send them to editor @ startrek.com -- we hope someone at CBS will read them.
                    
                    Thank you for your loyal fandom over the years. It has been a pleasure to serve you.
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    ----------------
                    
                    Doctor Who -- The Complete 3rd Series
                    
                    

                    
                    

                    Reply

                    Quote

                    • RE: It's Incidental, My Dear Spock | Report this post to moderator
                      By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:29:27 on Dec 15, 2007

                      Assuming they're not so stupid as to close down a website right before it's about to see the most traffic in its life, this might represent a sea change in how the king-makers of this industry are going to treat Trek from now on: as an A-list property with all the trimmings, including a first-rate website and perhaps a viral campaign, a la Cloverfield.
                      
                      However, their daftly cruel handling of it only exasperates the ill will most fans feel towards the suits anyway, who have done Trek disservice since it's inception.
                      
                      I wrote a letter to the editor asking him to pass my comments to the giant who just stepped on him.

                      
                      

                      Reply

                      Quote

  • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
    By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:00:50 on Dec 13, 2007

    Well said.
    
    But I disagree with you on Nimoy. First, we shouldn't oppose a good idea just because a few radicals will take that and conclude something else is a good idea too. Secondly, it's Nimoy...as Spock...in a 160mil. Star Trek movie, giving his blessing to the new crew.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

  • RE: OK, I get it | Report this post to moderator
    By: StarFleet Captain (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:20:39 on Dec 13, 2007

    Quote:
    I swear, if Star Trek 11 ends up being a great movie, but fan bitching ends up sinking it, not only will I burn my Trekkie membership card I will actively campaign for Star Trek -- in all media -- to be completely retired for at least 25 years because the current fanbase would no longer deserve it.
    
    Fan bitching will not kill this movie. There was a great amount of fan bitcing for the recent Star Wars prequels and all of those movies were successful. I suppose that you could argue that The Star Trek fan base has been reduced to internet bloggers, but let's just hope that Paramount's promotional department changes that.
    
    --------
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

  • Quinto says reimagining | Report this post to moderator
    By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 15:12:13 on Dec 13, 2007

    In the Sci Fi Maagazine article (see the link at the TrekWeb article), Zachary Quinto calls the movie a "re-imagining". And I agree with him.
    
    Gustavo
    
    --------
    
    TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
    
    gl2000@uol.com.br

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

They NEVER wanted Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:56:48 on Dec 13, 2007

Simple as that.

Reply

Quote

• RE: They NEVER wanted Shatner | Report this post to moderator
  By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 15:47:24 on Dec 13, 2007

  *sigh*
  
  It's amazing how people can read something and then claim it says exactly the opposite of what is says.
  
  --------
  
  
  The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
  my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
  breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
  only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: They NEVER wanted Shatner | Report this post to moderator
  By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:18:07 on Dec 13, 2007

  So what happened to that 'Trust me, Shatner WILL be in the movie" mantra you used to post here all the time?

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

blame the anal trekkies | Report this post to moderator
By: Dingo's Kidneys (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:49:32 on Dec 13, 2007 | (1)

That's so funny -- the continuity sticklers are stickled by their own sticklerness!

It's funny that the Bring Back Shat crowd are the same bunch that is so anal rententive about canon, and their anality has married them to the "Generations" debacle.

Shat can drone on about he's the "money" star, and "there at the beginning" and all that, but he already closed his own door on future appearances as Kirk, now we're all stuck with it. But even if they did offer him only a cameo, would his Great Big Head settle for that?

--------



GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!.... You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! -- William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (1986)

Reply

Quote

• RE: blame the anal trekkies | Report this post to moderator
  By: steveleenow (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 16:28:06 on Dec 13, 2007

  Even if they do find a way to get him into the movie - can they with the writers strike going on? I guess they could do re-shoots later on - depending on how things were structured.
  
  --------
  
  - Steve Lee
  http://www.steveleenow.net/

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: blame the anal trekkies | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:18:32 on Dec 13, 2007

  What a load of crap. If they can't come up with an explanation for Kirk being alive, and yes, that is exactly what they would have to do, then they are not competent enough to write this movie.
  
  Canon is no excuse.
  
  I've seen plenty of good ways to bring the character back. That's a cop out.
  
  Still trying to get him in the movie? TRY CALLING THE GUY.
  
  They're trying to save face.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Star Trek Zero? | Report this post to moderator
By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:24:26 on Dec 13, 2007

I thought that was The Cage. On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't. Enough already.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Star Trek Zero? | Report this post to moderator
  By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 15:48:31 on Dec 13, 2007 | (1)

  "On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't."
  
  I see you, like NEXUS, are having reading comprehension problems too.
  
  --------
  
  
  The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
  my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
  breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
  only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Star Trek Zero? | Report this post to moderator
  By: MartinCahn (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:44:52 on Dec 13, 2007

  "On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't. Enough already."
  
  I disagree.
  
  It sounded more to me like they'd love to have him in the movie, but not just for the sake of having him in it. That tells me the storyline is such that it makes sense to have Nimoy playing "old" Spock while casting Quinto as the younger version.
  
  It would seem, then, that they haven't figured out yet a -ahem- logical way to put Shatner in as a version of Kirk without wrecking the continuity established with the character's death in Generations.
  
  The key word there is "yet." I got the sense they were still trying to find a way. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't, but don't dismiss them with "enough already." I don't think they've given up, so let's not do the same.
  
  As much as I would love to see Shatner in the film, I don't want it to be for appearance's sake. It would have to be meaningful to the storyline, rather than just to pander to Shatner fans, of which I count myself.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Star Trek Zero? | Report this post to moderator
    By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:56:23 on Dec 13, 2007

    I agree with on not having him in it just to have him there, and I would enjoy that. I also think they'll be playing fast and loose with canon anyway-- Starfleet fatigue caps as an example-- so putting him in, especially in a time travel plot, seems fairly easy to do. They do have Kirk's parents in it, and presumably they'll be targets of the Romulans. Seems strange to have such a Kirk-centric film without Shatner. But I think they should have left Kirk, and time travel out of it. Anyway, they're making it.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

Star Trek Zero? | Report this post to moderator
By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:20:20 on Dec 13, 2007

I thought that was The Cage. On Shatner, if they wanted him in, he'd be in. They don't. Enough already.

Reply

Quote