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

• RE: Kirk... | Report this post to moderator
  By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:50:33 on Jun 27, 2008

  That was a thoughtful post...right up until the last sentence where you fell into all-caps ranting against Braga and Moore...

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Kirk... | Report this post to moderator
    By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:46:56 on Jun 27, 2008 | (1)

    Quote:
    That was a thoughtful post...right up until the last sentence where you fell into all-caps ranting against Braga and Moore...
    
    At least he didn't call anyone an idiot, chump or ad-hominem lemming.
    
    -- Steve
    
    --------
    
    -- Steve
    "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

    
    

    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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

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.

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

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.

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

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


--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Kirk unit! | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:44:09 on Jun 26, 2008

  Quote:
  I do enjoy having this discussion with you by the way. It is educated and not personal -- which I especially appreciate :)
  
  Thanks. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be civil about it.
  
  At the end of the day, something tells me you're more of a TNG fan whereas I'm a TOS guy and as such I think the character of Kirk just resonates with me more.
  
  I literally grew up on TOS; it was one of the first things I saw when my family came to America and I learned to speak English watching the old show. So I am a little protective of the James T. Kirk character.
  
  I happen to think that you don't really need to work too hard to work an angle into the next Trek movie to undo what happened to Kirk in Generations, with or without Shatner's participation. But if it doesn't happen, it won't ruin the movie for me.

  
  

  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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Is it worth it? | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:17:11 on Jun 26, 2008 | (3)

  You kind of took that quote out of context. For the record, I said...
  
  Quote:
  I really don't care all that much one way or another if Shatner is or isn't in the movie. On the other hand, 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 think it is possible to have the latter without necessarily requiring an appearance by the former.
  
  ... so as you can see, I'm not asking to see Shatner as old Kirk, just idly musing that it would be nice if the movie somehow addressed his weak demise in Generations. It could be as simple as a handful of lines of dialog that casual moviegoers wouldn't even think twice about; I don't understand why you seem to think it would have to be farfetched and distracting.
  
  Quote:
  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.
  
  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 subseqent TNG movie did worse than the one before. Fans did leave the franchise, and while Kirk's death wasn't the only reason (both the movies and TV show took a nosedive in quality) I'm sure there are plenty of people who didn't appreciate how Berman & Co. handled Kirk and voted with their viewership (I know I did).
  
  Quote:
  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.
  
  If its 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 (not to mention the Romulans, the mind-melds, how he goes back in time, etc.).
  
  
  Quote:
  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?
  
  I'm not sure where you're going with this. Whether I like the Nexus or not is irrelevant; the writers of Generations are the ones who introduced that weak bit of pseudoscience and we're stuck with its repercussions 14 years later. 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; Orci and Kurtzman could have come up with any number of ways to bring him forward - cryogenic suspension, time travel, anti-aging drugs, etc. - if the story called for his appearance.

  
  

  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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: [bats around ball of string] | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:26:35 on Jun 26, 2008

  Quote:
  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
  
  You really seem to be fixating on Shatner. I think it's important to remember that for some people around here, the issue at hand is not Shatner per se, but the character of James T. Kirk. Contrary to what you might think, they are not one and the same.
  
  I really don't care all that much one way or another if Shatner is or isn't in the movie. On the other hand, 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 think it is possible to have the latter without necessarily requiring an appearance by the former.

  
  

  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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Dead is dead. His life was still just as heroic. | Report this post to moderator
  By: rico (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:37:50 on Jun 25, 2008

  I posted the same answer on your other thread...so I'll post it here again since you asked the same question twice:
  
  -----------------
  
  First...let me say that I am one of the people that does NOT want Shatner resurrected in a contrived way. I'm ok to remember him and his character how it was.
  
  Having said that, Kirk should have died on a Starship. This a no-brainer for me. The starship was linked to his identity...and he should have died in the captain's chair...not falling off a walk way. It was just strange. Heck...Kirk should of ended up on the battle bridge of the E somehow...and for reasons that I can't imagine, he needed to take command...and he saves the day somehow while losing his life along with the E. I don't think he needed to be w/ Picard during the fight sequence and I certainly don't think he needed to be buried by Picard.
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • Rico... | Report this post to moderator
    By: OkeydokeyObi (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:47:02 on Jun 25, 2008

    I haven't checked the Star Trek Encyclopedia but didn't history record his death as being on the Enterprise E? Remember the Nexus did some stupid thing that made him pull a Spock and go down to some area of the ship that needed something.. haven't seen it in awhile but I think they needed a photon torpedo. And sure enough, that section of the ship went missing. So in a way, they did exactly what you wanted. You don't remember it or choose not to accept it because it was not memorable and was pretty terrible. So in other words, he had a lousy death TWICE.
    
    --------
    
    The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Rico... | Report this post to moderator
      By: rico (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:50:10 on Jun 25, 2008

      actually, it was the enterprise B...and yes...I do remember the scene...because it was meant to setup the nexus crap. Regardless of history, that is not how he-in fact-did die. He died by falling off a walk way. whack

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Rico... | Report this post to moderator
        By: rumandchocolate (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:00:29 on Jun 26, 2008

        For the record... Kirk did not die by falling off a walkway. He died because the walkway collapsed under his own weight.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

• RE: Dead is dead. His life was still just as heroic. | Report this post to moderator
  By: OkeydokeyObi (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:47:24 on Jun 25, 2008

  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 can only choose between crappy and even more crappy? How about a death that has the same emotion, shock, and poignancy that Star Trek 2 gave us? We all remember that because Spock died for something greater than himself. He knew going in what he was doing, and he made a personal sacrifice. It was a death fitting the character we all came to know and love. Even Data's death was poignant. He is my favorite non TOS character, and while the death took place at the end of a terrible movie, I accept it. More or less.
  
  
  --------
  
  The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Dead is dead. His life was still just as heroic. | Report this post to moderator
  By: IamKirok!!! (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:06:37 on Jun 25, 2008

  I think that whole story, such as it was, could've been done with somehow shooting him back to where he came from at the end. Nexus, or maybe Ent-B coming back for him, and him saying before he takes off how he knows the future is in good hands, blah, blah. Just a patch, I know, but at least that provides a little hope.
  
  I cant understand how anyone would want to START a TNG movie franchise around the theme of mortality and death, anyway. What a mess.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Well Ron... | Report this post to moderator
By: OkeydokeyObi (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.

--------

The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain

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

• RE: Gutsy | Report this post to moderator
  By: Ralphis (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:53:53 on Jun 26, 2008

  Quote:
  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.
  
  I thought the same thing. It's good to see he's humble about it.
  
  --------
  
  

  
  

  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?

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: POLL | Report this post to moderator
  By: rico (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:35:53 on Jun 25, 2008

  First...let me say that I am one of the people that does NOT want Shatner resurrected in a contrived way. I'm ok to remember him and his character how it was.
  
  Having said that, Kirk should have died on a Starship. This a no-brainer for me. The starship was linked to his identity...and he should have died in the captain's chair...not falling off a walk way. It was just strange. Heck...Kirk should of ended up on the battle bridge of the E somehow...and for reasons that I can't imagine, he needed to take command...and he saves the day somehow while losing his life along with the E. I don't think he needed to be w/ Picard during the fight sequence and I certainly don't think he needed to be buried by Picard.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: POLL | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:29:58 on Jun 25, 2008 | (2)

  First of all, I don't for a minute think that Paramount told Berman & Co. that Kirk HAD to die. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm pretty sure I read an interview with Moore and Braga in which they took responsibility for that idea and the powers that be approved it. And Shatner could have stopped the idea dead in its tracks by simply refusing to participate as there's no way they would have recast the part or otherwise killed him off without his participation.
  
  As to his death, I don't think it was particularly appropriate because even though Kirk's actions allegedly saved the lives of 250 million people, we never saw them, or their planet; they were mentioned in passing and were so far removed from the action that it really robbed his death (and their salvation) of any meaning. All we saw was a dusty planet and a rickety bridge. And while we're at it, why was the rickety bridge there in the first place? Couldn't Soran find a nice flat plot of land to stage his rocket?
  
  Also, regardless of what happened to Kirk, I just think Generations is a very poor movie (sorry Gustavo) with a substandard story. The Nexus is the kind of pseudo-science plot device that TNG and subsequent shows often relied on to advance their plots; and the whole notion of the film - dealing with mortality - was already explored in other Trek films, notably TWOK, so I didn't really see the need to regurgitate it here. Clearly, Paramount was being tight with the pursestrings on the movie and I'll give Berman & Co. the benefit of the doubt that they were constrained by that; but I just found the whole setup to be instrinsically flawed.
  
  So, in answer to your question, I would have never written myself into that corner in the first place. From where I stand they should have just gone 100% TNG from the start and let them stand (or fall) on their own. As I said elsewhere, the TOS cast pretty much said their goodbyes at the end of TUC, there really wasn't any need to bring them back at all.
  
  And just so we're clear, I'm not one of these Shatnerbaters who's going to boycott the new movie if he's not in it. I'm really looking forward to it and don't mind at all if Shatner is excluded (as I said, in the end he pretty much brought it on himself). James T. Kirk was one of my childhood heroes and I was somewhat saddened with how the character was treated at the end, that's all.
  

  
  

  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

"...I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations..." - Gene Roddenberry

Reply

Quote

• RE: RDM | Report this post to moderator
  By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:26:48 on Jun 25, 2008

  Quote from Captain's Blog:
  It begs the question - does Hollywood hire writers that are too young?
  
  
  Hollywood shows a drastic shift from using archetypes to using stereotypes. Archetypes are encoded in our species DNA. A stereotype digests familiar circumstantial groups, which can be very large, yet aren't pan-cultural. Stereotypes are something of a symptomatic (derived) subset of archetypes.
  
  For narrative, stereotypes may be contrived from superficial observation, whereas archetypes demand a deeper awareness (by intuition or study). RDM's signature style favors the stereotype; GR's signature style favors the archetype.
  
  The archetype styles, ably applied by GR and other masterful storytellers, appear on the list of dying arts.
  
  :(
  
  --------
  
  Exclusive: "Mirror, Mirror" Dr. McCoy
  
  
  

  
  

  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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Dying means your mortal. Mortal = real | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:10:48 on Jun 25, 2008

  I always viewed The Undiscovered Country as the "passing of the torch" movie as they all pretty much said their goodbyes and were due to stand down by the end of the film.
  
  As for Generations, 4/7 of the TOS cast wasn't even in the movie; Scotty and Chekov had maybe 10 minutes of screen time, and even Kirk was relegated to a deus ex machina function of disappearing for most of the film and showing up at the end when it was convenient. Doohan and Koenig were only included after Nimoy and Kelley declined to participate and it was, in my opinion, Berman & Co.'s half-hearted attempt at providing lip service to TOS fans in the hopes that they would come out to watch the movie.
  
  As far as killing popular characters, I'll just have to disagree with you. 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. The thing that made Kirk great was that he always found a way to cheat death and turn a defeat into victory. To see him go out the way he did was just plain out of character and downright painful and wasteful.
  
  To my way of thinking, killing Kirk was just the Next Gen writers way of finally burying that part of the franchise and taking ownership of the Star Trek brand. I will forever view it as a crass, cynical, economically motivated thing to do. And as angry as I was at the creative team that decided to do it, I was even angrier at Shatner for actually agreeing to it.
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Dying means your mortal. Mortal = real | Report this post to moderator
    By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:42:33 on Jun 25, 2008

    Star Trek VI was not a passing of the torch film because it was exclusively TOS. It was last hurrah for that entire cast and time period.
    
    Generations was the baton passer because we saw elements of both time periods and crews within the same film, with the 100% understanding from the onset that it is now Picard and Company's time to carry on the Star Trek film legacy. We all knew this was going to happen, the TOS cast was getting too old to realistically be on the same bridge commanding a ship.
    
    I just have this feeling that some die-hard fans are so attached to Shatner's Kirk, that they are willing to risk lessing his believeabilty and respect for the character by keeping him alive past his prime, inserting him into films that are not about him, because it is too hard to let go. Doesn't the character deserve more dignity than that?
    
    -- Steve
    
    --------
    
    -- Steve
    "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Dying means your mortal. Mortal = real | Report this post to moderator
      By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:45:47 on Jun 25, 2008

      Again, I think we'll just have to disagree. To my way of thinking, TUC may have been exclusively TOS, but given Kirk's final log entry, and the way each actor literally "signed off" at the end of TUC, they were very much giving the ball to someone else to run with. I didn't need to physically see Picard and his crew to make that connection.

      
      

      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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
  By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:22:41 on Jun 25, 2008

  I read somewhere that Paramount saw the script for Generations, and then questioned Kirk's death, but allowed it to be done. Is there a source somewhere which states the death was an edict from the studio? I don't think anybody wants to accept responsibility for that plot point.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
  By: Captain's Blog (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:01:33 on Jun 25, 2008

  I think it was actually RDM's idea to kill Kirk. He said so.
  
  --------
  
  "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
  
  "...I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations..." - Gene Roddenberry

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
  By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:04:36 on Jun 25, 2008

  Based on interviews I read right after the movie premiered, I always thought it was Moore and Braga who came up with the idea of killing Kirk - I clearly remember one quote where they were talking thru the big fight at the end and one of them said "and Kirk dies..."
  
  Regardless, I still killing off such a well known and loved character like James T. Kirk is a boneheaded decision. 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 know I stopped watching Trek regularly after Generations and refused to watch the subsequent movies in the theaters and I think I wasn't alone.
  
  Going forward, it would be nice to have Shatner make a cameo in the next Trek movie if only to undo the disservice heaped on James T. Kirk. It's unlikely it will happen at this point, but for me, its more about restoring and salvaging a great character and giving him a more fitting and ambiguous ending. The fact that Moore doesn't grasp that concept tells me he never really understood the appeal of the character in the first place.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
    By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:44:58 on Jun 25, 2008

    What I don't understand is, rebooting the franchise would accomplish everything you want -- it nullifies Kirk's death in Generations, and gives him new and open ended adventures. But just about all of the Kirk brigade hates the idea. Which is silly.
    
    If you're going to insist on "hard" continuity, where all the facts and details are ever consistent and never deviated from, you ought to accept that Kirk is mortal and therefore would die, at a specific place, at a specific time. But if you want that "fairy tale" quality of letting Kirk fade into the mists of immortality, then being a continuity niggler is ridiculous, because it's all just a pure flight of fancy anyway.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
      By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:49:55 on Jun 25, 2008

      I've never been particularly concerned with continuity in the Trek universe and havent been bothered by any inconsistencies or retcons that may have been introduced. So if this is a reboot, I for one have no problem with that. I never really cared for anything that passed for Trek after TOS and if it were all to be wiped away, I wouldn't so much as bat an eyelash.
      
      However, the filmmakers have often called this next movie a "prequel", not a reboot and as such, that would suggest to me that, in their minds at least, we'll always end up back at the same spot with regard to the characters.
      
      Personally, I just want a good story and a well made film. 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.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
        By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:28:15 on Jun 25, 2008

        It doesn't sound like Shatner's Kirk will get a more satisfying conclusion in this movie, and I personally won't have that as a prerequisite to enjoying the film. But based on some of the rumors, it may be that what occurs in Trek XI changes the timeline and allows Kirk's future to turn out differently.
        
        I agree Generations was not a good end to Kirk. In addition to his death scene not being a very dramatic one, I think a mistake was to have Kirk die at all in a movie he wasn't very much a part of. He and Picard should have had much more interaction, and Kirk should have been much more invested in the stakes. That would have given his sacrifice greater significance as well.
        
        But Generations was a long time ago, and the time, effort, and expense necessary to change the outcome there is asking for a bit too much, I think.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
          By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 22:05:55 on Jun 25, 2008

          Quote from The Magrathean:
          But Generations was a long time ago, and the time, effort, and expense necessary to change the outcome there is asking for a bit too much, I think.
          
          
          In the Star Trek timeline, the events seen in GEN occur sometime after the prequel story in ST:XI. Add to this the rumored interaction between elder Spock (Nimoy) and young Kirk (Pine), and you've got a quick and painless restoration of Kirk's death-cheating legend. As a bonus, it's transparent to the main story...
          
          Assuming that any major eleventh-hour film (re)shoot would be problematic, Orci's remarks are credible only if the story "hook" that could include elder Kirk is already in the can.
          
          Imagine that elder Spock can give young Kirk a warning about future peril, i.e. the events seen in GEN. Those few lines of dialog (just moments of onscreen time) could stand alone in the story, as something Spock would mention to his beloved "You would have done the same for me -- because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" brother Kirk. This heartstrings scene could already be done, and lead to nothing more.
          
          However, that same scene can also serve as the tie-in to a bookend with elder Kirk, without any disjoint to the main story: The warning from elder Spock to young Kirk will have simultaneously informed the audience, so their immediate sense will be that the Kirk legend would again cheat death. Of course it does, because he's James Tiberius Kirk! No surprise, then, when elder Spock returns to the 24th century where we see that he continues a life of retirement with his dear old friend -- who had never died, and looks more weathered than Shatner's real age.
          
          This is just one possible scenario. Five-brain Team Abrams likely have something much better, for a last-minute segue add-on.
          
          
          
          Deforest Kelley (then just 67) as weathered McCoy in the 24th century
          
          
          --------
          
          The Free & Open Productivity Software Suite
          
          
          

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
            By: TonyDP (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:55:21 on Jun 26, 2008 | (4)

            Quote:
            Quote from TRexx:
            
            Imagine that elder Spock can give young Kirk a warning about future peril, i.e. the events seen in GEN. Those few lines of dialog (just moments of onscreen time) could stand alone in the story, as something Spock would mention to his beloved "You would have done the same for me -- because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" brother Kirk. This heartstrings scene could already be done, and lead to nothing more.
            
            However, that same scene can also serve as the tie-in to a bookend with elder Kirk, without any disjoint to the main story: The warning from elder Spock to young Kirk will have simultaneously informed the audience, so their immediate sense will be that the Kirk legend would again cheat death. Of course it does, because he's James Tiberius Kirk! No surprise, then, when elder Spock returns to the 24th century where we see that he continues a life of retirement with his dear old friend -- who had never died, and looks more weathered than Shatner's real age.
            
            I'd suggested something like this a while ago in another thread. You could even write it so that Spock mind-melds with young Kirk and implants this knowledge in Kirk's subconscious, where it lies dormant until the critical moment, thereby skirting the issue of "polluting the timeline" for the continuity purists. Or, even more simply, he could just tell his younger self that he needs to be on Veridian III at the appointed date to help Kirk. It's a very easy and elegant solution that doesn't require a lot of setup, explanation or exposition.
            
            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. That would make his final fate more ambiguous and that probably make a lot of fans happy.

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
              By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:34:32 on Jun 26, 2008

              Quote:
              Or, even more simply, he could just tell his younger self that he needs to be on Veridian III at the appointed date to help Kirk. It's a very easy and elegant solution that doesn't require a lot of setup, explanation or exposition.
              
              Actually, given this new movie's mission is to bring in new fans, I think it's pretty confusing. Imagine you're watching the movie, with its own plot...and then all of a sudden old Spock tells young Spock, "And be sure to be on Veridian III in the 24th Century, to keep Kirk off that rickety metal bridge!" New and casual fans would go, "huh?"
              
              Also, assuming the franchise will focus on the adventures of young Kirk and Spock now, even having old Spock go back to the 24th Century to meet a post-Generations Kirk would be problematic -- simply from the standpoint that it tells everyone no matter what happens in Treks XII and on, Kirk survives. It kills the suspense.
              
              I could see something happen at the end of the movie where young Kirk and Spock realize that because of all the mucking around with the timeline, their fates will be completely different from the timeline Old Spock came from...thus negating Generations, but also leaving open the possibility Kirk could die at any time during his new adventures.

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

              • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:44:40 on Jun 26, 2008 | (1)

                Quote from The Magrathean:
                ...it tells everyone no matter what happens in Treks XII and on, Kirk survives. It kills the suspense.
                
                
                Drama is not a function of mortality. With sci-fi and fantasy, magical power or technology can make corporeal death a temporary inconvenience. For the metaphysical observer, there is no complete death at all, just a change in dimension of our existence.
                
                In TOS, Kirk and company are alive and kicking at the end of every adventure, so does this mean you don't look forward to drama in the next episode?
                
                
                --------
                
                Mightysoft Windoos TP
                
                For all the times you've wished you could just wipe your butt with your PC operating system.
                
                
                

                
                

                Reply

                Quote

                • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                  By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 02:00:58 on Jun 27, 2008

                  Quote:
                  Drama is not a function of mortality.
                  
                  Drama is an outgrowth of uncertainty as to the outcome. If you remind the audience that everything always turns out alright in the end, it kills the drama. No talk of "metaphysical observers" gets around that. From Abrams's and the writers' perspective, bookending with old Kirk and Spock has that downside.
                  
                  In TOS, we're not reminded at the end of every episode that they'll never, ever, die--there's never ever a flashforward to them in their old age, the Guardian never tells them they'll live to be 150. In fact, I recall many episodes where the drama revolved around the fact that one or another crewmember just might die.
                  
                  At any rate, the argument that post-Generations Kirk can easily just be inserted into the movie without any detriment to the overall film is a false one. I actually don't know what the storyline for the new movie will be, so perhaps the story allows for the kind of scene Shatner's fans want. But there's no way it's an easy thing to do for any kind of story. In fact, the "Generations fix" would detract from most stories any of us could think of.

                  
                  

                  Reply

                  Quote

                  • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:07:54 on Jun 27, 2008

                    Quote from The Magrathean:
                    Drama is an outgrowth of uncertainty as to the outcome. If you remind the audience that everything always turns out alright in the end, it kills the drama.
                    
                    
                    Then there should be no drama in biographical stories for which we know the outcome, yet history has been a popular source of dramatic entertainment.
                    
                    Nor should reruns have dramatic value, yet series/movie DVDs are purchased for multiple viewing.
                    
                    Drama is a vicarious involvement -- like a situation we wish to experience, or "memories" we want to relive. Explorations by and of our feeling and cognition.
                    
                    This is why some drama is taken as being "personal" with a passion.
                    
                    
                    --------
                    
                    Wonder Woman Turns Japanese
                    
                    
                    

                    
                    

                    Reply

                    Quote

                    • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                      By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:40:09 on Jun 27, 2008

                      Re-runs do less well in the ratings than first run, precisely because the outcome is known. Sure, re-runs appeal to people who really liked the show the first time they saw it, but I hardly think anybody involved with making a movie wants their film to have all the appeal of a re-run.
                      
                      You're on firmer ground with biographies, but they have the added value of being taken from true events. Much of their appeal is due to the fact we marvel at what happened in real life.
                      
                      Fictional stories set in the future and in outer space don't have that appeal, of course. And while of course one can create interesting stories without the threat of death, I doubt Abrams, his writers, or anybody else associated with the franchise would be very happy with the idea of eliminating that source of drama from their toolbox.
                      
                      Certainly not just to bring back Shatner for a cameo of only a few minutes. Especially when said cameo could very well detract from the story they're trying to tell. Finally, taking into account such a cameo would only thrill the very hardest of hardcore Shatner fans, the cost to benefit ratio fully justifies nixing bringing Shatner's Kirk back to life.
                      
                      That is, in the end, the bottom line argument, and while I appreciate how hard Shatner fanatics are trying to argue their case, the truth of the matter is straightforward and obvious. This new movie is designed to restore Star Trek's popularity, by creating a new fanbase. Abrams and his team are new to Trek and will be eager to prove they are bringing a fresh and original take to the franchise, so they'll want to limit the references to what came before. Bringing in Kirk's Shatner is irrelevant to whatever story they want to tell, and in all likelihood a distraction or worse, because it gets into the kind of continuity nit-picking that only the old hardcore fanbase even knows about.
                      
                      Therefore, no Shatner. Those unable to see this are unable to see the situation from the perspective of Abrams, the studio, or a newcomer to Star Trek.
                      
                      See you at the movies!

                      
                      

                      Reply

                      Quote

                      • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                        By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:28:19 on Jun 27, 2008 | (1)

                        Quote from The Magrathean:
                        Re-runs do less well in the ratings than first run
                        
                        
                        Anything that isn't "new" does less for our interest. Even sex, eventually!
                        
                        Booming DVD sales are mostly to folk who've already seen the material and want to own it (first time viewers tend to rent before they buy a disc).
                        
                        Clearly, the real-time dramatic effect isn't killed by knowing that our hero doesn't die in the adventure.
                        
                        
                        Quote: Those unable to see this are unable to see the situation from the perspective of Abrams,
                        
                        
                        Do you realize that your assertions are at odds with what Team Abrams have said?
                        
                        JJ Abrams got up onstage at Comic-Con to announce his want to include elder Kirk.
                        
                        Writer and producer Roberto Orci informs us (repeatedly) that elder Kirk could still be included.
                        
                        Their and other studio fingers have wagged at "I don't do cameos" Shatner.
                        
                        
                        --------
                        
                        The Wrath of Khan - Death of Spock Figures
                        
                        
                        

                        
                        

                        Reply

                        Quote

                        • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                          By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:54:44 on Jun 27, 2008

                          Quote:
                          
                          Do you realize that your assertions are at odds with what Team Abrams have said?
                          
                          JJ Abrams got up onstage at Comic-Con to announce his want to include elder Kirk.
                          
                          Writer and producer Roberto Orci informs us (repeatedly) that elder Kirk could still be included.
                          
                          Dude, I was there at Comic-Con when Abrams spoke. You've misrepresented what he said, and I believe you've misrepresented what Orci has stated as well.
                          
                          Abrams said they were still trying to find a way to include Shatner. He didn't say he wanted to include Shatner as "elder Kirk." Who knows what role they had in mind for him? And he specifically said they didn't want to just "shove him in," which is pretty much what you've been promoting.
                          
                          Bringing Shatner's Kirk back to life is still very problematic, for all the reasons I've mentioned above. Refusing to acknowledge those reasons may be helpful in carrying on arguments on fan sites, but will not change reality.

                          
                          

                          Reply

                          Quote

                          • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                            By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:34:45 on Jun 27, 2008 | (3)

                            Quote from The Magrathean:
                            Abrams said they were still trying to find a way to include Shatner. He didn't say he wanted to include Shatner as "elder Kirk." Who knows what role they had in mind for him?
                            
                            
                            ST:XI production manager Stratton Leopold said, "Studio executives still hope to convince William Shatner to suit up as Captain Kirk one more time". They want Shatner as Kirk.
                            
                            Abrams' Comic-Con 2007 session is on video. Why would there be a challenge if Shatner would appear as someone other than elder Kirk? Shat himself said (to Craig Ferguson, in November 2006) that he spoke to JJ about a return from "old, dead Captain Kirk."
                            
                            In a recent interview, Orci is asked, specifically, if Shatner can be worked into the movie: "With another year to go, who knows?"
                            
                            Desire and intent to include Shatner as elder Kirk is from Team Abrams.
                            
                            
                            --------
                            
                            Cloverfield (2008) "Scary... Delivers the Thrills."
                            
                            
                            

                            
                            

                            Reply

                            Quote

              • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:01:34 on Jun 26, 2008

                Quote:
                Actually, given this new movie's mission is to bring in new fans, I think it's pretty confusing.
                
                Bingo. This is getting farther and farther away, and more contrived - JUST to have Shatner in the film again? I think we all know it is not going to happen, whether it is debated as "doable" or not.
                
                -- Steve
                
                --------
                
                -- Steve
                "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

                
                

                Reply

                Quote

                • RE: It's the studio's fault... | Report this post to moderator
                  By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 02:02:30 on Jun 27, 2008

                  I'd bet against it, that's for sure.

                  
                  

                  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

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
  By: The Real DrTheopolis (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:39:39 on Jun 24, 2008

  Indeed! And I stand ready to lecture and belittle anyone who dares invoke the name Shatner!
  
  --------
  
  BeDaBeDaBeDa!

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
    By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:55:56 on Jun 24, 2008

    That's not what The Real Dr. McCoy does, troll.
    
    --------
    
    
    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: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:20:54 on Jun 24, 2008

  It just shows that even now, Moore just doesn't get it. But it also shows the arrogance Berman, Moore and Braga had in Generations.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: | Report this post to moderator
    By: rassmguy (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:21:59 on Jun 25, 2008

    Thanks, StillKirk--right on cue.
    
    --------
    
    Rich Handley
    Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
    Available now from Hasslein Books
    www.hassleinbooks.com
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

  • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:13:42 on Jun 25, 2008

    Quote from StillKirok:
    It just shows that even now, Moore just doesn't get it.
    
    
    Where Moore himself says "I don't get it" is when he's asked about the aim to resurrect Shatner's Kirk for ST:XI. This debate questions Abrams' own motive, because he got up onstage at Comic-Con 2007 to announce his intention to include elder Kirk.
    
    From everything Team Abrams have said about the matter, the quandary was never "Should we try?", it has been "Can we make it happen?"
    
    As time passed, fingers were pointed at Shatner (and the shoe appears to fit).
    
    
    --------
    
    Mission: Impossible - S4 starring Leonard Nimoy
    
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

  • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
    By: cnathanw (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 21:53:08 on Jun 24, 2008

    What does he not get? He admitted quite well they pursued a storyline they weren't capable of fulfilling, but thought at the time, that they were. What is he not getting? That's an admission of failure if I ever heard one?

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

  • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
    By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 19:53:35 on Jun 24, 2008 | (1)

    You're right, he doesn't "get it". And thank gawd he doesn't. See, he's sane. Sane people dont understand this batshit-crazy obsession with Bill Shatner, and most of the rest of us dont either.
    
    Here Ron Moore is taking full responsibility for the problems with GEN--which was very big of him--and some little twerp, acting out his tough guy fantasies on the internet, cant help but personally attack him (something you wouldn't dare do if you actually met this man face-to-face).
    
    Also, I love watching some uber-opinionated Star Trek fan (which most of us are here) throwing around the word 'arrogance'. The difference, however, between me and you--besides the fact that I'm not hypocritical enough to throw stones about being 'arrogant'--is that you never have anything positive to contribute. All you've got is your endless stream of vindictiveness and complaints. And nobody likes being around someone that does nothing but bitch.
    
    --------
    
    
    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: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
      By: Terry212 (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 13:32:44 on Jun 25, 2008

      Quote:
      All you've got is your endless stream of vindictiveness and complaints. And nobody likes being around someone that does nothing but bitch.
      
      Hear, hear.
      
      I, too, was impressed by Ron Moore's mea culpa and humility. You don't attack a guy for admitting he's wrong. Jeez. And I really did appreciate the THEME of Generations---dealing with loss. I think it might've been a great movie and great way to use Kirk's death artistically if it'd been done a bit better. I totally picked up on the death theme and if you've had a lot of family members die, etc, you can see the room in the world for a statement on dealing with death. After all, the only time Kirk dealt with death, Spock got resurrected. Real life is not like that. It was a great theme executed in an okay but not thrilling way. I had more problems with the scifi (mostly Nexus) plot holes and the fact that I had no emotional attachment to the Veridian system than I did the concept of Kirk dying.
      
      --------
      
      Click here to check out my band, ego tree , and the Ego Tree site at myspace. Listen to/buy the CD for $9.99! ALSO AVAILABLE ON iTUNES!!

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

    • RE: | Report this post to moderator
      By: rassmguy (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:24:03 on Jun 25, 2008

      "You're right, he doesn't "get it". And thank gawd he doesn't. See, he's sane. Sane people dont understand this batshit-crazy obsession with Bill Shatner, and most of the rest of us dont either.
      
      Here Ron Moore is taking full responsibility for the problems with GEN--which was very big of him--and some little twerp, acting out his tough guy fantasies on the internet, cant help but personally attack him (something you wouldn't dare do if you actually met this man face-to-face).
      
      Also, I love watching some uber-opinionated Star Trek fan (which most of us are here) throwing around the word 'arrogance'. The difference, however, between me and you--besides the fact that I'm not hypocritical enough to throw stones about being 'arrogant'--is that you never have anything positive to contribute. All you've got is your endless stream of vindictiveness and complaints. And nobody likes being around someone that does nothing but bitch."
      
      
      
      BRAVO. You are 100% accurate.
      
      
      --------
      
      Rich Handley
      Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
      Available now from Hasslein Books
      www.hassleinbooks.com
      

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

  • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
    By: MartinCahn (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:21:59 on Jun 24, 2008

    I completely disagree regarding Moore, although I'd continue to say that about at least Berman; Braga I just don't know much about his stance on stuff.
    
    But, here, Moore's admitting they didn't get it right; that Nimoy was right to pass on Generations. I happen to have liked the film for various reasons, but strongly believe a) they shouldn't have killed Kirk and b) certainly not that way. It wasn't anywhere near as "heroic" as I've heard some of the powers that be claim.
    
    But to say that Moore doesn't get it, misses the point of his admission. I think he does. At least now.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
      By: captainkoloth (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:04:00 on Jun 24, 2008 | (4)

      I think it was a mistake to kill off Kirk. Big surprise. They had an opportunity to continue the film franchise and connect two Treks together. It would have been fantastic to have Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and whoever else they chose to bring back, having space adventures with the TNG and DS9 crews. Basically, they should have looked at the TNG movie franchise as a trilogy or more. There should have been a continuing storyline. Both the fans and the general public favour the movies from the ST: II-III-IV trilogy.
      
      Anyway, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the TNG movies should have taken Trek to a new level, and maybe that wasn't possible. As Moore said, him and Braga may not have been prepared for that challenge; nor, from the DVD commentaries I've listened to, were Berman and the studio execs. There was a lot of Trek going on at the time with DS9 and Voyager, and people didn't want to step on each other's toes. I guess they really shouldn't have rushed into making a TNG movie so quickly after the TNG TV series ended. Hell, they were writing Generations, which is my favourite TNG movie despite all its faults, at the very same time as they were writing "All Good Things...". That was just absurd and bad management.
      
      As for William Shatner not being in the film, I just can't believe there are people still so worked up about it. I think it's great that Nimoy is in this new movie, but I'm really looking forward to seeing a fresh new start to Star Trek. This has to happen if Star Trek is going to continue. I may not end up even liking the new movie - though I have a strong feeling I will very much love this movie (I just have a gut feeling) - but at least there's a new team behind this film ready and willing to take a shot at it. They're willing to take risks and change things up some, which is totally necessary. All this complaining and bashing of a movie that isn't coming out for another year is beyond comprehension. These people are not setting out to destroy Star Trek.
      
      --------
      
      There once was a man named Scorned,
      whose posts were more offensive than porn.
      He posted one too many,
      got kicked out on his fanny,
      and all the while he had been warned.
      

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
        By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:45:39 on Jun 24, 2008 | (1)

        I've actually always thought TUC was a more than sufficient ending for the original cast. We didn't need another "passing of the torch" event. Unification and Relics already did that. TNG should have stood alone on the movie screen from day one.
        
        --------
        
        
        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: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
      By: EJK7575 (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:41:58 on Jun 24, 2008

      RDM IS A CLASS ACT, AND LETS BE HONEST, HE AND BRAGA WERE DEFINITLY ''HOG TIED'' ABOUT WHAT THEY COULD OR COULD NOT WRITE BY BERMAN AND/OR PARAMOUNT. IF ANYONE HAS SEEN THE MAKING OF DOCUMENTARY ON ''FIRST CONTACT'' RDM SAYS THAT FC WAS AN EASIER FILM TO WRITE BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE A 'LAUNDRY LIST' TO DEAL WITH. REALISTICLY, THE STUDIO RUSHED GENERATIONS, IT SHOULDVE BEEN NOV 95, 18 MONTHS AFTER TNG, THEY COULDVE TAKEN THEIR TIME, DONE A FEW REWRITES, IRONED OUT THE KINKS, KIRK DIDNT HAVE TO DIE, HE COULD HAVE LEFT WITH PICARD AND CREW AND RECIEVED A HEROS WELCOME BACK ON EARTH AFTER 80 YEARS, TELL ME THAT WOULDNT HAVE MADE A BETTER FINAL SEQUENCE

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
        By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 19:50:26 on Jun 24, 2008

        Again, I feel I am the only person here who actually likes Star Trek Generations. Sigh.
        
        Gustavo
        
        --------
        
        TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
        
        gl2000@uol.com.br

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
          By: gorgon (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:06:36 on Jun 24, 2008

          Make that two of us .
          I have always liked generations.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

        • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
          By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 19:54:17 on Jun 24, 2008

          Well, Gus, when not even it's writers like it...
          
          --------
          
          
          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: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
            By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:00:00 on Jun 24, 2008 | (1)

            Yeah, kinda sad, isnt it ? But, even so, I still like that movie - a lot.
            
            Sigh
            
            Gustavo
            
            --------
            
            TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
            
            gl2000@uol.com.br

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
              By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 20:36:19 on Jun 24, 2008 | (1)

              "Yeah, kinda sad, isnt it ?"
              
              Well, I agree with Ron. So...no, not really. ;)
              
              --------
              
              
              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: Let's get down on this. | Report this post to moderator
                By: captainkoloth (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 05:47:48 on Jun 27, 2008

                Well Gustavo, Generations is at least my favourite of the TNG movies. Though I don't think much of the TNG movies. Generations is by far the most true to the TV series.
                
                On another note, there was a great interview with William Shatner on CBC radio yesterday, live from his hometown Montréal. I'll post a link to the podcast from the CBC archives when they put it up. : )
                
                --------
                
                There once was a man named Scorned,
                whose posts were more offensive than porn.
                He posted one too many,
                got kicked out on his fanny,
                and all the while he had been warned.
                

                
                

                Reply

                Quote