Slashdot Mirror
Shatner Leaks Trek XI Details
An anonymous reader writes "The rumors that the next Star Trek movie would revolve around the earliest missions of Kirk and Spock have been confirmed by William Shatner in a Sci Fi Wire interview. J.J. Abrahms (creator of 'Lost') will direct, and has confirmed that a draft script is completed. So, the question is, will Shatner appear as a reminiscing older Kirk in the beginning, setting up the rest of the movie as a flash-back, or will geriatric-Kirk and young-Kirk meet?"
I read here that Matt Damon was supposedly cast as the younger Kirk...
I hope it's old footage, everyone deserves to play opposite their favorite romantic lead at least once.
No, no. Of course not. They could computer-generate a perfect replica of what William Shatner looked like when he was 25 and have the model play the part in the movie.
Technoli
It wouldn't surprise me if Shatner decides no one is qualified to play a young him, demands a massive girdle, a shorter cut toupee and enough makeup to make Tammy Faye Baker blush and announce "I will play the young me!!"
The Internet is generally stupid
Whos going to play young kirk? Old Kirk?
:)
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
(I love the shattering glass sound effect. Quality stuff
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Don't get me wrong, I MAY see it, but I have yet to even see the Nemesis and they want me to take a chance on 11? REALLY?
Don't get me wrong, I might see it. Like the crap that is Pirates of the Caribbean 2, I have to see the next one. One of these days I will see Nemesis. I am a fan of Trek so I am stuck with that.
The one slim hope is the guy (forgot his name) that has been running the series for the last 10 years is not going to be writing it.
I reckon he'll cameo as the aging groundskeeper at the academy, Boothby. Everyone knows Boothby's been there for centuries, and he'll probably catch the younger Kirk trying to carve his initials into his prized Elm tree.
will Shatner appear as a reminiscing older Kirk in the beginning, setting up the rest of the movie as a flash-back, or will geriatric-Kirk and young-Kirk meet?
I really don't care, as long as it doesn't involve him doing any type of singing.
henry -- the human evolution news relay
I am your father? Maybe? Young Kirk goes and talks to Shatner who plays his father, with green orion slave girl as mother of course?
So how can Kirk be any older than he was in that movie?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
To me, half of the fun with Star Trek was watching technology develop. From Enterprise NCC-1701 to Enterprise D, to the Defiant and on to Enterprise E and Voyager. The fun for me was watching what the writers did with new starships and how new technology was being implemented. It is the progression of the Star Trek universe that I took pleasure in, at least as much as I took pleasure in the interactions between characters. This is why enterprise was uninteresting to me. I knew where the federation was going to be in a few hundred years, so watching Scott Backula fly around in a starship that a 24th century shuttlecraft could tear apart in combat seemed like a waste of time.
If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker commanding the Titan in a time when the federation is being systematically destroyed in a major war (ie, the feds are losing). To see the federation being destroyed and fighting for it's life by spiting out warships would have been interesting to me. Watching a film about how kirk and spock originally fell in love is not. I'll probably see 11, but only at a friends house where it's on and I don't have a choice.
The Enterprise will crash land on an island on a strange planet and only a few of the crew members will survive. The island will have polar bears, and some crazy black smoke and this series of underground hatches with some ancient writing from a long past culture called The Dharma Initiative...
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
Old Kirk (to young Kirk): James T Kirk!
Young Kirk (to old Kirk): James T Kirk!
(snip)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
it involves Kirk and Spock naming their own price on a deep space voyage for two and saving with priceline!
Monstar L
Terrorism. There will be terrorists in the plot and I remember something about the series
about clone and eugenics wars that early in "starfleet history". Of course it is pretty
much left up to them what terrorist foe they will present on the screen, but it will
certainly be in tune of current events.
Those working towards a predictable population are just as predictable themselves.
It went something like this:
...people saw Rocky? What? He's how old?
Let's make another Star Trek!
To me it sounds like they are trying to keep up the tradition of odd numbered ST-movie = bad, even numbered ST-movie = good...
In the Star Trek universe, everything seems happy and friendly, but there are some sinister things that bother me:
1. The Federation is supposedly an alliance of planets where aliens of many different races live in peace and harmony. Then why the hell are virtually everyone on Federation starships human? And the few token non-humans are clearly the more human looking. There are no six tentacled creatures serving on Federation starships... there are no non-physical energy beings. And everyone knows that Spock is far more intelligent, more physically capable, ages slower, and in general vastly superior to Kirk in all ways. It is only bigotry that an officer as talented as Spock has to play second fiddle to Kirk. Clearly there is some sort of racist conspiracy in the Federation!
2. Earth has become an enlightened place, where all races and cultures live in peace and harmony... yet I am supposed to believe that out of the billions of non-european people on the planet earth (who vastly outnumber europeans), that only one black person, and one asian person, qualified to be on the bridge crew, or an engineer, or something important that would make them a main character? In fact, if all races lived in peace and harmony and equality, and transporters allow instantanious teleportation around a planet, shouldn't all people have inter-married to the point where all humans would be a nice light brown color - a combination of all races and cultures?! Clearly, despite Earth and Federation propoganda and lies, White European Males still dominate not only Earth, but the Federation!
3. They have "abandoned money"? Wait a minute... money is nessicary when there is scarcity and a market economy... and they definitly didn't eliminate scarcity (after all, dilithium crystals are still rare and valuable... there is only one holideck on the Enterprise, not one for every crew memeber, definitly meaning it would require some sort of rationing... the Enterprise is always carrying medicine or supplies, implying that the replicators can only produce certain types of objects). Obviously, the Federation has adopted some sort of anti-free-market command economy - perhaps Soviet style Communism, or Nazi style National Socialism. Either way, despite the pleasant lies of abundance that is spread in Trek propoganda, the Federation is most likely stifling, beurocratic, totalitarian-economic nightmare, with shortages and people lining up Soviet style in order to buy the most basic of goods.
4. We are left to assume that the Federation is some sort of Democracy... then why don't starfleet officers ever talk politics? Why isn't Data a member of one political party, while Wharf is a memeber of another political party, and they have heated (though respectful) political discussions? Why isn't Pickard contiplating his civilian political career after his starfleet career? Why is there never any controversy about Federation policy?
It is because the Federation is a military dictatorship, controlled by Starfleet! The military elite of Starfleet control both the military and civilian governments (and clearly, from the series, there is no seperation of the two).
5. The Enterprise is supposedly on a "peaceful mission of exploration"... yet the Enterprise is the military flagship of Starfleet! How often do countries nowadays send a battleship, or aircraft carriers, or other military war machines on "exploration and science missions"? Scientific vessels are usually unarmed, or carrying a few small firearms... they aren't loaded with ICBMs and torpedos! The Enterprise is clearly on a scout mission for imperialist military expansion!
So here is my concept:
In my series or movie, the Federation is really a vast imperialist military dictatorship... and Empire that has been slowly and surely conquering the galaxy. The other Star Trek films and series are propoganda films put out by the Federation... (that explains why the Klingons look different in different series... because as the Federation continued is agressive war ag
In X-Men 3, they developed a computer effects algorithm that made Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart look very young. In fact, it was so well done that I reckoned them able to go in and make a new original cast Star Trek film. (With the surviving members anyway, may the fallen RIP.) I also reckoned they could make Ian McKellen (Glandolf) and Ian Holm (Bilbo) look younger in The Hobbit with this technique. (Has anyone seen Sam Lowry?)
Here's a site with side-by-side pictures from x3: http://www.fxguide.com/article357.html
-Buddy of DoQ
Shatner ...captain of the enterprise ... again? ... ..Bones ... there must be ... some other way!!...
what was wrong with generations? they killed Kirk twice. The only way they could of made it better was to kill him a third time. and boy was I hoping for that one.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The original Star Trek centered on a ship and a crew on a mission of exploration in uncharted space. James Kirk was an extrapolation of James Cook, on a five-your voyage through space instead of a three-year voyage over the seas. Cook once wrote that he wanted to go "farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go" and Star Trek's mission statement echoed this.
Like Cook's, Kirk's was a combined military and scientific expedition. Of course what was "out there" turned out to be very much our own problems in another disguise, but that was the core of the genre. The concept, of course, was also an echo of the era in which the series was made, when science and exploration were sources of optimism and space seemed to be a final frontier that was going to be taken on the hop.
Later series diverted from the concept, reflecting changing priorities of societies and growing pessimism about the future. The Next Generation was on a mission to spread political correctness through space, to baldly go where no bald one has gone before, at least not without a toupee. Attempts to satisfy everyone on everything, another unfortunate characteristic of the 90s, included such silliness as a battleship on a mission of peace, a flagship without an admiral, an expedition vessel with children on board, and a shrink on the bridge to make statements of the obvious.
The best hope is for Star Trek to go back to its roots. To send young captain (lieutenant commander?) Kirk on a mission of exploration on a small vessel with a dedicated crew, perhaps on a surveying mission to map space. (Cook's career also started as a surveyor of the coast of Newfoundland.) And then let him deal with some problem of reasonable dimensions -- there is no reason to save the planet again. If he can save his ship and crew that is enough.
1) Gene deserves more respect than he's gotten lately from the people who carry on his work.
2) TNG, DS9 & Voyager may've had their flaws, but they all had long runs and significant numbers of loyal fans, and should not be ignored.
3) Battlestar Galactica & Firefly should indeed be required watching for anyone involved in the production of any serious sci-fi from here on out.
4) The canon should be shored up (and better treated)-- as one example, I think it's imperative to be in harmony with the design style of TOS when capturing any 'new footage' of that era (or before). It should be possible to do this while still having freedom to add new embellishments, and a few subtle alterations could soften the cheesiness considerably while maintaining the core elements which visually define that time period.
5) Finally, any reasonably intelligent writing/designing/directing team with half a heart between them ought to be able to produce something decent with just a quick-yet-comprehensive review of the past work, providing they simply listen to fan feedback along the way. Based on that belief, I won't judge any film that hasn't even been filmed yet - including the above one - based on a blurb.
So, here's to hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, as usual...
Star Trek was one of the last refuges of classical theater on television (as well as with the movies). The actors were brilliant (even many of the guest actors). The scripts were very classical in nature (well, most of them). Star Trek did not insult your intelligence (with the exception of Voyager and Enterprise perhaps). I like how a Star Trek episode can openly start with discussions on shakespeare and have an episode just about that theme (ex: DS9: "Improbable Cause" / "The Die is Cast"). Star Trek also had a nice orchestra accompanying it.
People did not watch "Best of Both Worlds" to find insight on the "human condition". They did so because it was fantastic TV; it was awesome theater. While Star Trek I could be considered 'very sci-fi', Star Trek II and III were tragic operas (I am using 'Tragedy' in its classical sense. It is over-used today to refer 'something bad' which is not what tragedy means). ST IV was more comedic. (Let's pretend ST V didn't exist.)
Star Trek began to fail when it lost track of that sense of classic theater. No one would call Voyager or Enterprise great operas. The comedy parts of DS9 fell flat (ugh at the Ferengi episodes). What I'm saying is this:
The Original Series did not become great television because of 'philosophy', 'definition of life', or all that. It became great because of "City on the Edge of Forever" and "The Trouble with Tribbles". While the first movie was all sci-fi, full of philosophy and the 'definition of life', this was quickly dropped for what really made ST great: classical theater that we saw in Wrath of Khan (and following movies).
The Next Generation did not become great because of sermons on euthanasia or trouble between races. TNG became great because it became great theater with "Best of Both Worlds" and episodes like "Redemption".
While DS9 initially tried the TNG route at first, it abandoned it and found its best episodes in things that were totally possible outide regular sci-fi. "Duet", "The Visitor", "In the Pale Moonlight" etc.
The poster is correct when he says that 'new technology' was fun to watch in Star Trek. He is right because entertainment is dependent on surprise. If TNG or DS9 were 'retro' episodes (referring to the past like Enterprise), there would be no edge of our seat that "Best of Both Worlds" or the Dominion War had. We'd know the ending so the surprise would be ruined. Voyager at least could be surprising (Voyager had no ramifications, damn that reset button), but we knew how Enterprise would end. We want to see new technology because we want to be SURPRISED at new events, not re-living old events. We know how the Kirk and Spock saga ends, there is no surprise. Hence, any movie about it will not be entertaining.
My fear is that some ex-agent or swaggering ive league will get in control at Paramount and totally miss how Star Trek had classical theater at its core. Instead, they will think, "Ahh! Let's reduce Star Trek to only its icons: Kirk and Spock. Let's just talk about their 'relationships' as well as the early crew of the Enterprise. To spice this up, let us borrow from horror movies, action movies, and all since that is what the public likes to see. And, yes, TONS of special effects!"
This would assume that your observations about humanity in TNG were accurate, which I tend to believe are not. The intent behind the series is the important thing, and jaded cynicism was not part of Roddenberry's mandate. Despite the logical flaws you point out, (all of which can easily be argued in the other direction), TNG was meant to be a depiction of a positive future where people had conquered the forces of greed, selfishness, fear and ignorance.
I have found in my own life that the quality of existence in a given society depends largely on the particular people involved, and that beside this, the system of their governance is almost irrelevant. If everybody carries with them the intent to play nice and serve others, then even a prison block can become a paradise.
I liked TNG better than any of the other Trek series because this style of thinking shone through; I love the idea that the bridge crew didn't bicker and back-stab. I liked how if somebody experienced something which would have been typically ignored by others in another series, "I just had a weird flash where I saw and felt the ship explode. I have zero proof, but it felt incredibly real!", rather than ridiculed is instead openly discussed and explored. Wow! What a mode of human inter-relations to strive for! --Where people are mature enough to handle that, (on both sides). --TNG showed what people could aspire to be, and this was always Roddenberry's stated intent.
The intrigue and drama and cynicism of the later shows, and the gritty shittiness of shows like Battlestar Galactica, don't fit with my head-space. Some might say that they attempt to show humanity as it currently exists and as such offer a useful tool in understanding our present state, but I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment. I think instead people simply resonate more closely with such shows because they depict what they WANT to experience and explore in their own lives, and moreover, I think that such shows try on a certain level to derail human progress and offer a baseline negative behavioral template that the powers that be want people to emulate. (This is more so recently than back when DS9 aired).
All that given, I do like shows like Firefly wherein human growth and family and love were explored and given strength; I liked seeing good people strive to overcome their own dark natures and fight against against an evil empire. (Though, I thought the film dropped the ball.) --But that show's intent was very different from that of TNG.
Perverting Trek so that it fit a cynical viewpoint always bothered me, and its later incarnations never really appealed to me. If people want dark and gritty, then watch Battlestar Galactica, but don't mess with Trek. I think it's a good idea to keep some guiding lights rather than obsess on the darkness.
-FL
Everyone says his/her own thing about Star Trek, but you all seem to forget that Star Trek is about exploration of space. Wars, politics, spying, genetic and biomechanical disasters can easily bring drama to the screen, but it has been done to death. On the other hand, charting the uncharted parts of the galaxy leaves plenty of room for new ideas...the most interesting mind-bending stuff on Star Trek happens when there is a mystery to solve.
What I would like to see for Star Trek is a new series that combines exploration with story arcs, something that it has not been done previously. We had episodic series like TOS, TNG and VOY which centered on exploration, story arcs in DS9 and ENT which centered on conflict, but we never had a series with story arcs based on exploration.