Star Trek XI--The Poll

[CRAMBAM]

I have to admit, the reviews have me seriously considering seeing the movie. Not the first week, but eventually.

I'm extremely bitter and pissed about the Shatner debacle. Abrams mishandled that situation and only digs himself deeper when he talks about it.

But I admit being curious about the film and am having a change of heart. Time to take this to the people.

I didn't see Nemesis in the theater and wish I could have the money back on Insurrection.

But this could be the best Trek movie since ST6. I've heard that's about where it ranks in terms of quality.

I'm curious to see if the changes in history made in this film leave an opening for Generations to be obliterated from canon. And I'd be very curious to see if Abrams would be open to Shatner in Trek 12. Of course, even if he said that, I wouldn't believe him since he has no credibility on this issue.

[Gary Seven]

Apr 28, 2009 12:47:23 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I have to admit, the reviews have me seriously considering seeing the movie. Not the first week, but eventually.

I'm extremely bitter and pissed about the Shatner debacle. Abrams mishandled that situation and only digs himself deeper when he talks about it.

But I admit being curious about the film and am having a change of heart. Time to take this to the people.

I didn't see Nemesis in the theater and wish I could have the money back on Insurrection.

But this could be the best Trek movie since ST6. I've heard that's about where it ranks in terms of quality.

I'm curious to see if the changes in history made in this film leave an opening for Generations to be obliterated from canon. And I'd be very curious to see if Abrams would be open to Shatner in Trek 12. Of course, even if he said that, I wouldn't believe him since he has no credibility on this issue.

Of course you should see the movie -- by staying away you're not going to be hurting anyone but yourself. You should put your Shatner bias aside, see the film, and then judge it on its merit or lack thereof. It's ridiculous to think that you would afford a fan film more leeway than you would this movie just because Shatner's not in it.

And I must admit, I was a bit psyched last night when I watched the clip shown on The Tonight Show. I've been avoiding Spoilers however, and don't like some of what I've heard up to now, but I will pay to see the movie and then decide how I feel about it one way or another. I also don't have the gripe that you have about the picture, since to me, Kirk was killed off in "Generations," and that's not somehow Abrams' fault since he had absolutely nothing to do with it, and to hold it against him simply because he and his other two writers didn't feel from a creative standpoint that they could have put Shatner in the movie without it seeming strained and perhaps hurting the picture overall as a result is simply ridiculous. What bothers me far more than that is this notion that it might well wipe out all of the established timeline that we're all familiar with and thereby not only wiping the slate clean, but rendering all of those prior stories utterly moot. That to me seems unacceptable, and the commercials touting "Forget all that you know" as their byline appears to support this supposed yet officially unestablished aspect of the script and story. If that turns out to be the case, I find it hard to see how I can find myself walking out of the theater feeling pleased about it.

But Abrams and his team at least deserve a fair chance here, and so does the studio, since they made an investment in more Trek based around the original characters. If it turns out to be a disaster, then so be it --it'll be a disaster. But this is not more Rick Berman and Brannon Braga crapola, and for that at the very least, we should all be thankful.

[Travis2261]

i remember a few people on r&s board slamming bsg ,while i was the lone voice supporting it .watch the damn movie and maybe you mikeys will like it.

[CRAMBAM]

Of course I'm going to afford a fan film more leeway. Different situation. It's not like James Cawley had William Shatner wanting to be in his show, and he said no. It's not even so much that Shatner's not in it but rather the way he was treated.

It was a major missed opportunity, especially since the movie is certainly poised to wipe out all of canon.

I agree with you that Generations was not Abrams' fault. But from a story standpoint, if you know exactly how Kirk dies, who cares what happens? It kind of taints things.

It's ironic that wiping out the timeline can get me what I've wanted for so many years, without Shatner. It definitely requires a lot of thinking to decided whether that's right.

And the bias against Abrams is not due to not wanting to give him a chance. I'm happy as hell he's not Berman and Braga, and he has more talent in his discarded fingernails than they do.

Geez--look what Braga has done to 24 this season.

I admit, I'm leaning toward seeing it. If I could suffer through Voyager and Enterprise, I could watch this. It sounds like at least it will be decent.

The hype also seems to validate years of saying that Kirk sells, and that it's the original series and those characters that made this franchise so popular in the first place. I actually think it will outgross Nemesis in the first weekend. But I also think that if Shatner were in the film, it would have done that much better.

Shatner's a draw. Kirk's a draw. Shatner AS Kirk is a megadraw.

But I have a gut feeling about Pine. The biggest clip to me was the way he slowly sat in the chair. No lines. Just a Shatnerian style to it, and that made me think it was a good casting job.

Pine will be good in the role.

But now that Kirk is the main protagonist again, his life is very important to the franchise, and there can't be a known end.

[Wahrheit]

Apr 28, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

But now that Kirk is the main protagonist again, his life is very important to the franchise, and there can't be a known end.

That is an excellent point, and for that reason I probably will rent it when it comes to dvd.

However, I have no intention of seeing it at the theater, as this isn't the Star Trek that I know, and I have no regrets about having given up my four complimentary passes to see it at the IMAX.
If I hadn't already endured Voyager and Enterprise, things might have been different, but as it stands, my vote is NO.

But as you know, the choice is yours.....

[mxxpwr]

I'll probably see it in the theater. I've kicked myself for not seeing a Trek movie in the theater because of a previous poor movie. So, after missing TUC because of how horrible TFF was, I vowed never to miss a Trek movie again.

Besides, I've never walked out on a movie before. If what I think will happen; happens, then I will probably walk out. It'll be a new experience for me if nothing else.

[mxxpwr]

Apr 28, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

...It's ironic that wiping out the timeline can get me what I've wanted for so many years, without Shatner. It definitely requires a lot of thinking to decided whether that's right...

...But now that Kirk is the main protagonist again, his life is very important to the franchise, and there can't be a known end.

The problem I see with a canon wipe is they can still screw Kirk up.

All it would take is a probable series of events:
1) Kirk lives at the end of this movie.
2) The already slated sequel ends up being a Khan remake.
3) The twist to the Khan remake is that Kirk dies instead of Spock, setting up a 'Search for Kirk' third movie.
4) Because of box office sales, they don't get the third movie.

We're left in the same mess as before, but worse off because the franchise is now really dead...

...or heck, they can kill Kirk off this first movie. I wouldn't put it past them.

[CRAMBAM]

If anything, a Khan remake would be a Space Seed remake.

[Travis2261]

if they do a khan movie i know who would be cast has khan.the rock.

[CRAMBAM]

Wow. I can't think of too many worse choices than that.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 28, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Of course I'm going to afford a fan film more leeway. Different situation. It's not like James Cawley had William Shatner wanting to be in his show, and he said no.

It's still a double standard, and one that can adversely affect the franchise if you stop and think about it. Fan films in and of themselves don't really do much, if anything at all, to help ensure that the franchise survives and thrives, yet you'll watch a fan film without a bias from the outset and will give it a chance. Well, here, the studio is attempting to resurrect the franchise, and because they didn't include Shatner, or a post-Generations Kirk, you're inclined (or have been up until very recently) to sit by and let the film fail, indeed, hoping that it would fail, rather than going to see it and paying for a ticket.

Apr 28, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's not even so much that Shatner's not in it but rather the way he was treated.

Well, perhaps you should take a cue from Shatner here, since clearly he's not all that upset about not being in the film and isn't holding a grudge.

Apr 28, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It was a major missed opportunity, especially since the movie is certainly poised to wipe out all of canon.

If the movie is indeed poised to wipe out all of canon anyway as you say --if that's going to be the bottom line end result, then what would it have really mattered if Shatner appeared in the film as a post-Generations Kirk? According to that logic, it shouldn't matter at all. He's not needed, and even if he was there, in the final analysis, it would be pointless anyway.

[CRAMBAM]

That should take care of that issue. I'll answer StarFury's post a little later.

[CRAMBAM]

It's still a double standard, and one that can adversely affect the franchise if you stop and think about it. Fan films in and of themselves don't really do much, if anything at all, to help ensure that the franchise survives and thrives, yet you'll watch a fan film without a bias from the outset and will give it a chance. Well, here, the studio is attempting to resurrect the franchise, and because they didn't include Shatner, or a post-Generations Kirk, you're inclined (or have been up until very recently) to sit by and let the film fail, indeed, hoping that it would fail, rather than going to see it and paying for a ticket.

It is technically a double standard. But there's a reason for that--there SHOULD be a different standard in judging something like New Voyages/Phase II v. a Paramount production.

It's kind of like viewing a kid's little league game v. a pro baseball team.

If little Johnny makes an error in the outfield at age 10 against other 10 year olds, the reaction is to be encouraging and note that the kid tried his best.

If Johnny Damon does the same thing, you get pissed off.

I don't even know if I would say that fan films don't help. New Voyages sure showed the interest in anything TOS. The sheer volume of downloads that thing got, even in a time when Paramount Trek was on the air, spoke volumes about the fan demand in the franchise. Of COURSE it wasn't up to Hollywood standards. How could it be with a budget like that. But it made a hell of a point.

New Voyages couldn't get William Shatner under any circumstances, but if he wanted in, they would have jumped through hoops to make it happen--just like they did with Keonig and Takei, which was amazing.

Paramount though COULD get Shatner, and chose not to, and did so in probably the worst possible way, with constant lies and false hopes.

The franchise is in the position it's in BECAUSE Paramount ran it into the ground, and that was LARGELY due to an abandonment of the original series and characters in favor of bland, boring, copies of copies of copies. It's understandable that there would be frustration that Paramount dropped the ball like they did on the Shatner issue, combined with over a decade of garbage.

As for the answer to your final question, it becomes, "I don't know." It would really depend on how the story evolved.

The character is still Kirk. Same guy, different experiences. The core is still there, but the adventures take a different turn here and there. It's a frustrating situation.

[Wahrheit]

Apr 30, 2009 8:29:48 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's still a double standard, and one that can adversely affect the franchise if you stop and think about it. Fan films in and of themselves don't really do much, if anything at all, to help ensure that the franchise survives and thrives, yet you'll watch a fan film without a bias from the outset and will give it a chance. Well, here, the studio is attempting to resurrect the franchise, and because they didn't include Shatner, or a post-Generations Kirk, you're inclined (or have been up until very recently) to sit by and let the film fail, indeed, hoping that it would fail, rather than going to see it and paying for a ticket.

It is technically a double standard. But there's a reason for that--there SHOULD be a different standard in judging something like New Voyages/Phase II v. a Paramount production.

It's kind of like viewing a kid's little league game v. a pro baseball team.

If little Johnny makes an error in the outfield at age 10 against other 10 year olds, the reaction is to be encouraging and note that the kid tried his best.

If Johnny Damon does the same thing, you get pissed off.

I don't even know if I would say that fan films don't help. New Voyages sure showed the interest in anything TOS. The sheer volume of downloads that thing got, even in a time when Paramount Trek was on the air, spoke volumes about the fan demand in the franchise. Of COURSE it wasn't up to Hollywood standards. How could it be with a budget like that. But it made a hell of a point.

New Voyages couldn't get William Shatner under any circumstances, but if he wanted in, they would have jumped through hoops to make it happen--just like they did with Keonig and Takei, which was amazing.

Paramount though COULD get Shatner, and chose not to, and did so in probably the worst possible way, with constant lies and false hopes.

The franchise is in the position it's in BECAUSE Paramount ran it into the ground, and that was LARGELY due to an abandonment of the original series and characters in favor of bland, boring, copies of copies of copies. It's understandable that there would be frustration that Paramount dropped the ball like they did on the Shatner issue, combined with over a decade of garbage.

As for the answer to your final question, it becomes, "I don't know." It would really depend on how the story evolved.

The character is still Kirk. Same guy, different experiences. The core is still there, but the adventures take a different turn here and there. It's a frustrating situation.

Excellent analogy, Cram.

And if an HONEST attempt had been made to talk with Shatner, I could have forgiven a lot in regard to the new movie, not everything, but I wouldn't have as much ambivalence towards it.

Nonetheless, I still feel good about giving up my complimentary IMAX movie passes to a couple of guys who just returned from serving in Iraq....

[CRAMBAM]

That's the thing--there wasn't an honest attempt to talk with Shatner, which is why I feel the way I do. If I felt this was actually SHATNER's fault, then I'd have no issue at all. But it isn't. Not in the slightest.

I also notice that despite going all out to get Nimoy, and despite saying it's a significant role, Nimoy isn't in any of the commercials. Why is that? It's almost like they're going out of their way NOT to use him.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 30, 2009 9:25:37 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

That's the thing--there wasn't an honest attempt to talk with Shatner, which is why I feel the way I do. If I felt this was actually SHATNER's fault, then I'd have no issue at all. But it isn't. Not in the slightest.

I didn't like the shenanigans that were played either on the part of Abrams and his people with respect to looking to get Shatner into the film supposedly, and said so numerous times on the R&S board. However, the story wasn't designed to be a vehicle to resurrect Kirk from the ashes of Generations --it was never intended to be that and we see now why in large part that may also have been the case if it's true that this movie wipes the slate clean of all past TOS stories, which again, if true--I'll have a serious problem with.

But you made a legitimate point when you said that if you could sit through "Voyager" and "Enterprise" you should be able to sit through this. The same goes for anyone who sat through those crappy shows. To say it's not the Trek I remember therefore I won't see it couldn't be more closed-minded, especially if it's coming from someone who endured those two crappy aforementioned shows.

And you should be willing to at least give Abrams the opportunity to change your mind rather than pre-judging the production based on one thing that you don't like and holding a grudge over it, especially given that Shatner, who you claim was treated poorly, holds no animosity over not being included in the film. In fact, James Cawley also makes an appearance in the movie as you know, and he couldn't be more of a TOS fan, having made as many fan films as he has, produced out of his own pocket based on the original series. Yes, he got to be a part of the process in a small way, and to see it taking shape from the inside, and one can't blame him for not wanting to turn such an opportunity down, and he even claimed to have a bit of a disagreement about set designs, saying that the original sets created by Matt Jefferies were--in his opinion--eternal, but he was willing to give these guys a shot and see what they come up with. It will be interesting to see what his opinion of the movie is once it's released. But he's not being closed-minded to such an extent that he's prejudging the movie and ruling out seeing it altogether.

Apr 30, 2009 9:25:37 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I also notice that despite going all out to get Nimoy, and despite saying it's a significant role, Nimoy isn't in any of the commercials. Why is that? It's almost like they're going out of their way NOT to use him.

He was in one commercial, shown at the very end if you recall, and I saw his image in the clip that was shown the other night on The Tonight Show when Eric Bana appeared as a guest.

[CRAMBAM]

I get that it wasn't meant to be a vehicle to bring Shatner's Kirk back into the fray, but for them to not take advantage of this chance was just dumb. That said, they made it so much worse by teasing using him when they had no intention ever to do anything. And to use Generations as an excuse when they are likely wiping out all of canon is even more lame.

They botched it completely, and that got the bitterness. If they said simply that they weren't going to use Shatner at all, instead of making comments like, "we are desperately trying to get Shatner in the movie," while never actually talking plot with him, it would have gone smoother.

I've ALWAYS been in favor of recasting the TOS crew. I just don't like what they did to Shatner, and it does taint the movie a bit. It also cost them dollars, since there is NO WAY Shatner wouldn't have pulled people in that wouldn't otherwise see the movie.

Not being the Trek I remember really has no bearing on any decision making. Though I'm guessing that destroying all of canon will not have been necessary for this movie to be made.

Shatner, publicly has said he held no animosity, because let's face it, if you're him, would you publicly say that? Though on MANY occasions, he talks about how disappointed he was for not being invited to the party.

Abrams sure used Shatner whenever he could to get buzz for this movie. It was wrong on so many levels.

It's hard to use Cawley as an example. It's also possible he sold out for a once in a lifetime chance. I wonder what his opinion would be if he WEREN'T invited to be in the movie? I'm glad he got that done, but the opinion of anyone involved in the movie is open to suspicion.

There is no way Cawley will not give a positive review given what Abrams did for him, and let's face it, there may be a contractual clause for him NOT to badmouth it.

I agree though that it's worth seeing with an open mind. If the movie is good, I'm confident I will say so. This isn't a Berman/Braga production where I just can't imagine them doing something good. Abrams at least has some talent.

I'm expecting the movie to be somewhat good. But I'm also not expecting it to be the best Trek movie ever.

[Wahrheit]

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Not being the Trek I remember really has no bearing on any decision making.

Amen to that.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Though I'm guessing that destroying all of canon will not have been necessary for this movie to be made.

Couldn't agree more, especially if it involves erasing all the original stories.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Shatner, publicly has said he held no animosity, because let's face it, if you're him, would you publicly say that? Though on MANY occasions, he talks about how disappointed he was for not being invited to the party.

Exactly. Shatner is way too classy of a guy to do that kind of thing.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

sure used Shatner whenever he could to get buzz for this movie. It was wrong on so many levels.

Again, spot on.

[Travis2261]

talking about commercials for movie.there was one on nick last night that actually was telling who,kirk,scotty,and spock were.i cant beleive kids wouldnt know the characters of tos.my nephews and nieces know, but then again that might be because of me.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I get that it wasn't meant to be a vehicle to bring Shatner's Kirk back into the fray, but for them to not take advantage of this chance was just dumb.

Then apparently you don't get that it wasn't meant as a vehicle to bring Shatner's Kirk back into the fray, because you're basically saying that is what they had to do, and anything else was a foolish choice on their parts, which is very arguable. "Generations" was fifteen years ago, and nowhere was it written that a follow-up to that story was somehow a necessity, especially given that they already resurrected a major character in ST III following what had happened in ST II. To do it again would have been just cheesy, and I'd wager wouldn't have been taken at all seriously, and would have hurt the film's performance at the Box Office as a result. The last thing the franchise needs right now is a cheap, cheesy stunt when it's trying to get its feet planted firmly back on the ground.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

That said, they made it so much worse by teasing using him when they had no intention ever to do anything.

You don't know that for certain --that is your own bitterness talking. Abrams has said that they wrote a scene that they were thinking about incorporating into the movie, but that it didn't seem to fit and didn't feel authentic while writing it, so they didn't use it. He's also said that once the movie comes out he's going to reveal exactly what that scene would have entailed, so it's quite possible that they wanted to find a way to get him into the movie in a way that didn't seem forced or contrived, and failing that, they decided it was better to leave him out rather than hurt the story they were trying to tell here because it would only have amounted to a distraction that wouldn't have added anything to the picture. Did they carry on more than they should have about wanting to include him in the movie? Yeah, I'd say it seemed that way to me also, and that--if true--was something they should have backed away from as it would only disappoint and anger people more in the final analysis. But they may have genuinely wanted to find a way that seemed reasonable to include him in the movie for all you know. The fact is, you're determined not to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding that apparently, although I would say that you've taken a positive step forward in that you're at least now open to going to see the movie, which is more than can be said about other stubborn, closed-minded individuals who are determined not to give the movie a fair chance.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

And to use Generations as an excuse when they are likely wiping out all of canon is even more lame.

I just read a little while ago on Rotten Tomatoes that this all takes place in an alternate timeline, so apparently they won't be wiping out all of canon after all if that's indeed the case. However, it does leave one wonding why Spock would be content to follow through on his plans when going back from the future in what amounts to a completely different timeline than the one he knows and actually had lived in. We'll just have to see, however. Perhaps circumstances are such that he basically had no choice. You may know more about the story than me here, though, as I've done my best to avoid Spoiler info.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Not being the Trek I remember really has no bearing on any decision making.

I wasn't referring to you specifically there, but rather to individuals who have that outlook, although I will say that based on the things you've said up until recently, I think this has been something of a factor for you, since you expected a post-Generations Kirk, and anything less ruled out any possibility of your approval. We all have our disappointments, however. For me, personally, I still think Abrams blew it by not getting Keri Russell in the picture, settling instead for Winona Ryder. I think that was a lousy choice and that he didn't do enough to get the right actress to play that role, but that's my own preconceived notion on the matter, and even though it annoys me, and probably still will after I see the movie, I don't think it will be enough to totally ruin the film. Your disappointment is far greater in comparison, and I realize that, nor am I trying to make light of it. I just think you should try and put it aside and judge the picture fairly while recognizing that it was never intended to be a sequel to Generations in the first place, that that was never the goal.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Shatner, publicly has said he held no animosity, because let's face it, if you're him, would you publicly say that? Though on MANY occasions, he talks about how disappointed he was for not being invited to the party.

He wasn't invited to the party because apparently he didn't fit, just as Nimoy wasn't invited to take part in Generations because he didn't fit there. I realize we're talking about two out of three incompetents who were responsible for the writing of that prior script, but Nimoy really didn't have any place in that movie, and it's just as well that he didn't take part in it ultimately. It wouldn't have done anything to improve that film anyway when you get right down to it.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Abrams sure used Shatner whenever he could to get buzz for this movie. It was wrong on so many levels.

That's his job though. Apart from it being a creative endeavor, it's also a business when you get right down to it.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's hard to use Cawley as an example. It's also possible he sold out for a once in a lifetime chance. I wonder what his opinion would be if he WEREN'T invited to be in the movie? I'm glad he got that done, but the opinion of anyone involved in the movie is open to suspicion.

True, but I'm also going to judge what he says about the movie in conjunction with how I feel about it after seeing it so as to determine if he's just being a Pied Piper or is actually being honest.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

There is no way Cawley will not give a positive review given what Abrams did for him, and let's face it, there may be a contractual clause for him NOT to badmouth it.

There's a difference between giving honest criticism and just badmouthing something, especially since badmouthing something may be done just for the sake of doing it rather than giving an honest assessment.

As I said though, I'll take what he says also in the context about how I feel about the movie.

Apr 30, 2009 12:59:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I agree though that it's worth seeing with an open mind. If the movie is good, I'm confident I will say so. This isn't a Berman/Braga production where I just can't imagine them doing something good. Abrams at least has some talent.

I'm expecting the movie to be somewhat good. But I'm also not expecting it to be the best Trek movie ever.

Okay, fair enough, but as things stand he'll have to do better than TWoK or TUC, which--while decent--were by no means the highest bar to have to supersede.

We'll just have to wait and see. There's not much longer to wait at this point.

[StarFuryG7]

Where the hell did my Avatar go?

[CRAMBAM]

Your avatar's clear as a bell from what I'm seeing.

[CRAMBAM]

I do get that they didn't have to follow up on Generations. However, once you refocus the franchise on the character of Kirk, Generations absolutely has to be addressed, because as the main protagonist, knowing exactly how he dies just takes away from all the stories. Kirk's death needs to be uncertain.

They didn't require Shatner to change Kirk's fate, but it still needs to be changed.

It's highly possible this was accomplished in Trek XI. Can't tell without seeing the movie.

But they may have accomplished changing Kirk's fate a little too well.

And they did make it worse by teasing Shatner's use for a year. That's what caused the bitterness towards Abrams. It's justifiable, and it does put a taint on this film. They never intended to use Shatner, yet clearly made it out like they did.

As for any scene, given how many lies Abrams told, all we know for certain is they never presented a scene to Shatner. They never got serious in discussing anything. For all we know, they may have purposefully written a bad scene just so they could say something later. I wouldn't put it past them, especially if their scene was some sort of flashback.

As for the invitation to the party, I still think based on the nature of this movie, there is no way that Shatner wouldn't have fit in the movie. As for Generations, Nimoy WAS invited to the party. He turned down a horrible script with a writer that had no interest in doing something good.

Yes, it was Abrams' job to get publicity for the movie, but the way he used Shatner and faked buzz about him when he had no intention of using him in the movie was appalling. I'll add that from a business standpoint, Shatner sells.

On to Cawley--I don't think there would be any chance he would give any kind of criticism at this point. And by badmouthing, I was including honest criticism in the definition. I don't care if it's legitimate and right on the money, I can't see anyone involved in the movie NOT being contractually barred from saying anything other than gushing reports.

TWOK is a hard movie to beat. It's the standard bearer, and honestly, I don't think any Trek movie can ever top it. Shatner, Nimoy, and Montalban were at their best there.

TUC though, it easily toppable. I consider it the 4th best Trek movie, behind TWOK, TVH and TFF. This movie can certainly equal that.

[StarFuryG7]

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I do get that they didn't have to follow up on Generations. However, once you refocus the franchise on the character of Kirk, Generations absolutely has to be addressed, because as the main protagonist, knowing exactly how he dies just takes away from all the stories. Kirk's death needs to be uncertain.

That’s a reasonable enough argument, but the studio gets to call the shots, and it gets very hairy to try and bring a character back after he’s been killed without it looking ridiculous and cheap, especially when taking into account that it had already been done once before to boot.

And your contention that once they decided to refocus on Kirk they absolutely had to go back and address the character’s fate in “Generations” is completely flawed if it’s indeed true that this movie takes place in an alternate universe and timeline as was reported, in which case it’s obviously not necessary and would be utterly pointless given that these are not the same characters.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

They didn't require Shatner to change Kirk's fate, but it still needs to be changed.

To do something of that magnitude WITHOUT Shatner would have only made matters much worse, and would have been taken even less seriously by an audience than if they were to do it WITH Shatner.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

And they did make it worse by teasing Shatner's use for a year. That's what caused the bitterness towards Abrams.

Cram, I think you would have had bitterness towards Abrams regardless, because you felt this movie needed to be a referendum of a sort on “Generations,” and once you got that into your head from very early on once it became clear that this movie was going to be centered around the early adventures of the original cast of characters, it was, quite simply, over in your mind. That had to be the objective, and anything else just wouldn’t—couldn’t-measure up as far as you were concerned. Abrams was just doing his job teasing the film and trying to spark interest in the existing fan base, but I’m sure he also knew that there was a contingent out there of the original fan base still bitter over Kirk’s demise—and if he didn’t know of it at the outset, he learned about it shortly after he signed on to do this movie.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

As for the invitation to the party, I still think based on the nature of this movie, there is no way that Shatner wouldn't have fit in the movie.

That can’t be said stated with any degree of reliable certainty as yet. We need to see the movie in order to definitively reach that conclusion one way or the other, although based upon what I do know I’m inclined to say that it doesn’t sound as though it would fit or make sense.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

As for Generations, Nimoy WAS invited to the party.

True, but it was a half-hearted invitation at best, and Nimoy, feeling snubbed, declined to participate. He knew what kind of writers and producers he was dealing with: two of three of which who viewed his work and contributions to the franchise with utter contempt, which was why they wanted him and Shatner out of the way altogether once and for all when they did “Generations.”

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Yes, it was Abrams' job to get publicity for the movie, but the way he used Shatner and faked buzz about him when he had no intention of using him in the movie was appalling. I'll add that from a business standpoint, Shatner sells.

I don’t think Shatner would have sold this movie any more than Nimoy is going to sell this movie to the public.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

On to Cawley--I don't think there would be any chance he would give any kind of criticism at this point. And by badmouthing, I was including honest criticism in the definition. I don't care if it's legitimate and right on the money, I can't see anyone involved in the movie NOT being contractually barred from saying anything other than gushing reports.

I don’t even know if they can actually mandate something like that. Perhaps when the film is being initially released, but a year or two down the road, I’m not even sure they can hold an actor back from giving his opinion about the production they were involved in.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

TWOK is a hard movie to beat.

TWoK had problems that usually aren’t focused on, such as the fact that not much attention was apparently paid to the age of the actors hired to play Khan’s crew, which wasn’t at all consistent with “Space Seed.” One can try and make the argument that only the younger members would have survived on that barren planet, but no such children were mentioned as having been a part of his crew in that original series episode, which, if anything, gave the distinct impression that his crew was comprised strictly of adults, and if Khan had managed to survive on Ceti Alpha V, then why not any of his older crewmates? Comparing it as a film to its original series predecessor, I’ll grant you, is a bit of an aside, however, it goes to what kind of care went into the writing of that script, which also included Chekov by the way, even though as we know, he didn’t appear in “Space Seed” and probably wasn’t even intended to be a member of the Enterprise crew at that point in time. Again, however, another aside. But it was by no means a perfect film, even for a Trek film. It had other flaws too IMO. Scotty’s nephew, for instance, was not made clear at all in the original theatrical release and made little to no sense to the audience in the context of how it was shown. Terrible Editing.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's the standard bearer, and honestly, I don't think any Trek movie can ever top it. Shatner, Nimoy, and Montalban were at their best there.

Shatner yelling out Khan’s name was a bit over-the-top, and it probably would have paid for there to have been an actual physical confrontation between Kirk and Khan much like there was in the television episode during its climax, or at the very least, an actual physical meeting of the two.

May 1, 2009 8:52:19 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

TUC though, it easily toppable. I consider it the 4th best Trek movie, behind TWOK, TVH and TFF. This movie can certainly equal that.

I can understand TVH as a second choice, even though it was a bit too light-hearted for my tastes, and even though it gave the movie franchise its biggest audience of all the films, I still feel TUC edges it out because it offers more of what we would expect of Trek as fans generally speaking by comparison, and I say that despite some of the criticism it got from some corners of the fandom over the apparent bigotry of the Enterprise crew after nearly three decades of dealing with the Klingons and their treachery. However, how in God’s name does TFF not rate near the very bottom for you on your list of favorites? Could it be because Shatner was the director on that one, with him even receiving a writing credit? I mean, good God—a Vulcan half-brother of Spock that we had never even heard of before? I think it could have been edited to a shorter, more tolerable movie, but still—that would be just to make it more tolerable. Otherwise, it rates down near TMP, Insurrection, and to a bit of a lesser extent, “Nemesis,” which was another deeply flawed Trek film. Give me some insight into your thinking here –what the heck was so great about TFF in your mind?

Good Lord--it was a blight on the franchise.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 30, 2009 19:36:09 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Your avatar's clear as a bell from what I'm seeing.

No, it was down and I had to make an adjustment. By the time you saw it and posted I had already done that, but when I first uploaded it I didn't Upload it as a 100 pixels Avatar, so it crapped out.

[Mel]

Gary, is that you? Did you go back to your StarfuryG7 name?