Nimoy May Be the Star of the Next Trek Film?

ajs writes "Moriarty, over on Ain't It Cool News is running a column about the upcoming J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. In it, he discusses some theories about where the movie is going, but doesn't reveal his sources. He claims that Nimoy's Spock, not the younger versions of the original Trek trio, will be the primary star of the film; and that the movie will make some very substantial changes to the Trek lore in a way that is internally consistent with what went before, but opens up many more options for future franchise films or series. If he's right, there are some pretty substantial spoilers in the column." Obviously, as unverifiable speculation this should be taken with a grain of salt. Live long and prosper.

Comments

Hmm.

[PetraData]

He's 76 years old. Kind of hard to do action scenes, ain't it? What will he be doing the whole movie? Debating Vulcan philosophy?

Departing from canon -- good thing.

[owlnation]

I'm fine with JJ blowing the canon open. Caveat: I'm not a Trek fan.

I appreciate that die hard fans will be upset by that, however my feeling is that Star Trek has basically had about 12 plot lines that have essentially been recycled in various guises throughout all the seasons. They've finally flogged that deceased horse one too many times.

The fundamental issues I see is the utopian nature of the universe Roddenberry created. Ignoring the probability or possibility of human nature being so utterly warped into an utopia (I personally can't suspend my disbelief that far), as a basis for a TV or movie it's all very nice and all, but it makes for dull writing and little drama.

You're left with creating drama by have characters behave out of character by alien possession or secret starfleet order etc etc etc. Or time travel (which is a clichéd story, almost always in any medium - paradox, protect timeline, yawn blah blah, seen it a thousand times)

No, Star Trek needs its ass kicked. I'm not entirely sure that JJ Abrams is the best guy to do that, but he's probably better than anyone who's been in charge of that franchise for the past 20 years.

Re:Burying Itself In Its Own Plot

[localman]

I was never a huge Star Trek fan, so perhaps my opinion is worthless, but I really liked the proposed reboot of the Star Trek universe that Straczynski and Zabel envisioned, and wrote a treatment for. I think it's worth a read and consideration.

Cheers.

ATTN: Moderators

[Cid Highwind]

PP is not a troll, he's right.

Star Trek has been out of new plot ideas since about season 4 of TNG. It was apparent when they made DS9 into a Babylon-5 ripoff, it was obvious all throughout Voyager and and it should have been apparent to even to a retarded 3-hour-old tribble after the Nazi episode of Enterprise. Departure from canon = good.

Sincerely, a former Trek fan.

Make Spock the last survivor.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they set it "in the future" of the franchise, when Kirk, Bones and Scotty have all died, then it could free them from the usual constraints. We may even see an intelligent story result from that.

Re:fuck it

[Lord Bitman]

Make a caves of steel movie.

Re:You don't need any of them for Star Trek.

[The One and Only]

Let's set aside the characters for a minute. (Dr. Hologram and Boobs-in-a-Catsuit being the only ones who were even remotely interesting.) The concept of Voyager was horrendously mis-executed. As Ron Moore once said:

I've said this to Brannon for years, because he and I would talk about the show when it was first invented. I just don't understand why it doesn't even believe in itself. Examine the fundamental premise of Voyager. A starship chases a bunch of renegades. Both ships are flung to the opposite side of the galaxy. The renegades are forced to come aboard Voyager. They all have to live together on their way home, which is going to take a century or whatever they set up in the beginning. I thought, This is a good premise. That's interesting. Get them away from all the familiar Star Trek aliens, throw them out into a whole new section of space where anything can happen. Lots of situations for conflict among the crew. The premise has a lot of possibilities. Before it aired, I was at a convention in Pasadena, and Sternbach and Okuda were on stage, and they were answering questions from the audience about the new ship. It was all very technical, and they were talking about the fact that in the premise this ship was going to have problems. It wasn't going to have unlimited sources of energy. It wasn't going to have all the doodads of the Enterprise. It was going to be rougher, fending for themselves more, having to trade to get supplies that they want. That didn't happen. It doesn't happen at all, and it's a lie to the audience. I think the audience intuitively knows when something is true and something is not true. Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spic-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll. At some point the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn't act like this.

Source.