May 24 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Nimoy: Invested In Spock character

2 min read

Leonard Nimoy explained why he said “no” to one project and “yes” to another, and then said something sure to cause some fan conversation.

Movie spoilers are behind the cut.

For those who went into Star Trek into Darkness unspoiled, they got the surprise of seeing Nimoy back as Spock in a brief cameo, and the actor spoke about why he accepted the role and also about his future with Star Trek.

Nimoy had turned down a role in Star Trek: Generations and he explained why he said yes to both Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness and no to Generations. “This cameo in Star Trek into Darkness was about the Spock character,” he said. “The cameo in Generations was not about the Spock character. It was just somebody named Spock saying some lines that had nothing to do with Spock. It wasn’t about the character at all. The character was just being used to say some lines that needed to be said about the exposition of the story. I suggested to them that they could take those lines and give them to other members of the cast and no one would know the difference. And that’s exactly what they did. So that indicates to you how clear it was that it wasn’t about Spock. It was about something else. So I just let it go. There was no need for me to be there. This story lent itself to the idea that Spock would contact me to ask for information.”

The Star Trek into Darkness scene was shot at Bad Robot, and Nimoy was happy that word on his appearance in the film hadn’t leaked out ahead of the movie release. “I was very pleased that it worked out that way,” he said. “I was asked time and time again if I was in the movie, and I managed to avoid answering without lying.”

Is Star Trek into Darkness Nimoy’s last Spock appearance? “That’s impossible to answer,” he said. “I don’t know. I don’t know what J.J. is going to do. I consider him a very good friend. I think he’s done a great thing for Star Trek. I’m very grateful to him. We all owe him a lot. When someone comes along like he has done and picks it up and elevates it, we should be grateful. So when J.J. calls me, I take the call.”

Now that Abrams is headed to the Star Wars franchise, would Nimoy appear in the next Star Wars movie if asked by Abrams? “Oooh. Oooh, wouldn’t that be fun,” said  Nimoy. “I would love to. I think it would work wonderfully. I think it would work just great. I think it would be a great idea, and somebody ought to tell him that.”

About The Author

25 thoughts on “Nimoy: Invested In Spock character

  1. The people would have appreciated the appearance of Mr. Spock in Generations, nevertheless. I guess his ego didn’t allow him to see that. Actually, there was no need for you to be here either, Mr. Leonard Sellout Nimoy, yet you are in it.

  2. ” I think he’s done a great thing for Star Trek.”

    WAY too much LDS in the 60s.

  3. I think Nimoy’s sycophantic adoration of JJ Abrams is a bit over the top. He’s not the only one who does it, of course.

    His on-again off-again statements about his career are his own business…but I’ll probably never take seriously any future statements he makes about hanging up his Spock character, until he’s in the ground. You can only “retire” (for real this time, I tells ya!) so often before it becomes a big farce. I guess he’ll keep working now as long as his bff JJ keeps asking him too.

    One thing I am tired of is Nimoy’s schtick about his Star Trek participation being like some form of high art. His appearance in STID was completely forgettable and completely unnecessary…but he did it because Abrams offered (probably to humor him) and because it was all “about the character.” Pfffffffffttttt pul-LEEASE!

  4. Mr. Nimoy should look at his buddy Shatner and learn to not take himself (and his role ) THAT seriously. Not being in Generations was like ignoring the next generation of Trek (even though he was in TNG). In a time where everybody is supposed to be a team player it’s extremely selfish to insist that the part should have been about Spock. Spock isn’t everything, Spock is part of the show and part of the crew, but it still is Star Trek not The Mr. Spock Show.
    Maybe there is hope that Captain Braxton uses the Relativity to travel back in time and restore the timeline so ST XI and XII will never have happened. Maybe he could even change the timeline and make J.J. Abrams a train operator or something more useful

  5. It’s true, Generations wouldn’t have showcased the character of Spock in the best light… It would’ve been a glorified cameo, at best…

    What’s a lie? That ST2009 or STD showcased the character of Spock any better… in fact, it did it a much greater disservice than some non-descript dialogue from Generations ever could.

    Spock went back in time, risking the entire timeline, to find some whales to save Earth. But, having been thrown out of his own time, and apparently out of his own universe, he is content to let the billions of Vulcans die at the hand of Nero? Why doesn’t he just go back in time and prevent the incursion of Nero, thus saving his planet and mother? He’d do it for some whales and Earth, we’re expected to believe that a Spock that went through his entire life, even to the extent of fracturing fully from his father, going to Romulus, etc, that called logic the beginning of wisdom, but not the end… that guy is just content to go start a new colony of Vulcans… And we’re supposed to accept THAT as central to the character of Spock somehow?

    And then in this movie, tell me, what moment from Spock’s appearance couldn’t have been handled by ANY other member of TOS? The only reason it fell to him and makes sense as he suggests is that he’s the only one there… But if Spock had been the only one there aboard Enterprise-B, well, what’s the difference? If he was the only one there, he’d be the only one saying those things… If he weren’t, others could have… in both instances… So, bs.

    Nimoy is on record as saying that after The Undiscovered Country and Unification, he fully expected them to contact him and restart the whole thing… Not reboot. He expected, in 1992, for Paramount to approach him and some others about doing a new Star Trek series picking up in TNG, but with TOS people… When that didn’t happen, my guess is that the truth is he was still pissy over that not happening… and now he’s not.

  6. Well, it was all about the characters… it was the only way to actually infuse any sense of emotion, dread, or suspense into STD. It was to give weight to Kirk actually dying… it’s proof they didn’t earn any of the emotional beats they were going for… Not to mention it totally ruins Khan’s reputation… In TOS, when he reveals he’s Khan, they don’t have to go look him up… They know exactly who he is… Khan Noonien Singh. It was a name that struck fear in the hearts of the crew in 2266… not so much in Reboot2259… more evidence that this was never our timeline… never.

  7. All I have to say in follow-up to that is, next time Nimoy starts being a douche like this, pretending his portrayal of Spock is some artful masterpiece (which isn’t to say we don’t all love it… but we don’t love it because we could see it on Masterpiece Theatre… so, not taking anything away, but nothing putting anything pretentious in, either), just remember a single quotation from TOS:


    People like to make fun of Shatner’s Khaaaaaan!… Nimoy’s encounter with the Horta? Yeah, far worse.

  8. Star Trek was on the brink of extinction. Does anybody remember the state of Trek before 2009? No one at Paramount was interested until Abrams took over.Nemesis made 47 mil when it took 60 mil to make. Star Trek hasn’t seen numbers that the new trek movies are doing since Trek IV. Enterprise was cancelled because of Nemesis. Star Trek was essentially dead. Abrams and his team figured out the formula to make Trek for old fans, new fans, and the ever elusive non fan. The New Star Trek is made for mass audience, not just for the fans. It will not go back to the original formula, at least not for a very long time. BTW: Star Trek made almost 280 mil world wide. Into Darkness so far has made so far almost 170 mil. It has time to surpass it’s predecessor. . The point is, Abrams and co figured out a marketable formula for a blockbuster Trek movie. Why does everyone hate Abrams, however praise Nolan for following the same kind of formula? Abrams, took Trek back to basics. Kirk Spock and McCoy(Uhura in this case). Nolan brought back the dark vision of Batman first introduced in the Tim Burton Movies. Is it the fan base? Because both franchises were doomed before each respective director took over and overhauled them.

  9. Using other lackluster Trek as “proof” that Trek couldn’t exist without the good graces of JJ Abrams is ridiculous. Was Stuart Baird the right choice for Nemesis? Absolutely not. He, by his own admission, wasn’t a Star Trek fan and had no intention of bringing anything from TNG’s series into the final TNG movie… and it shows. Instead of following that up with someone who, you know, liked and understood Star Trek, they, once again, decided to go with someone that doesn’t like Trek, JJ Abrams. Now, was Abrams a much higher profile Director than Baird? Certainly. Was he given a massively bigger budget? Indeed. A huge promotional campaign? Yep… And the last Star Trek movie to really get that? Yeah, the hit you missed, First Contact… made by who again? Oh, right, one of the people who actually cared about Star Trek.

    Those of you upset that actual fans of previous Star Trek haven’t fallen in love with this hollow vision, consider, we’re rather upset that you’re so easily amused… Keep up the hard grind on JJ’s jock though…

  10. Star Trek was no more “on the brink of extinction” than it has been many other times before. Such histrionics! A good idea simply does not go extinct. It may lie fallow or awhile, until someone with the right head and heart brings it to life again. For many fans, that someone is not JJ Abrams. So what? It’ll survive him just like its survived countless others before.

    IMO, Abrams churns out decent see-it-once popcorn fare about on par with the latest mid-level superhero action dreck. You may feel differently. That’s okay.

    But don’t act like there’s something wrong with those of us not impressed with the work of this young Wunderkind (**cough cough** assuming if this were 2005 and we were talking about some plodding network television drama). That’s like saying to someone “yeah well don’t complain about President _______ because he’s all we’ve got and we’d all be extinct otherwise!!” It’s a silly argument. None of us owes Abrams anything, and unless you like his movies, he’s not entitled to anyone’s unfettered praise.

  11. The new movies are located in a timeline that exists parallel to the original; the new did not “overwrite” the old. All potential realities exist, and any “change” a person could make to a timeline would in fact only change that person’s location from one reality to another. If Spock went back in time to prevent something from happening, he’d simply be traveling to yet another alternate reality. When we’ve seen characters “alter” or “restore” a timeline, we assumed (as did they) that they were overwriting reality; this is an illusion based on perception. A more complete conceptualization would percieve the characters as simply traveling between two out of an infinite number of realities.

    In other words, y’all r whining over nothing. Trekkies have to have EVERYTHING make sense to be cannon, and after 10 films and five series it would have been impossible to do anything fresh with the franchise. And instead of a simple reboot and throwing everything out, JJ respectfully used a classic Star Trek plot device to set the new stories free while leaving all the previous stories intact. No matter what they do with the new version, the original remains safe and sound, all within canon. How thoughtful of him.

  12. Regarding the timeline fixing… it could have been addressed easily with ONE DAMN LINE saying the timeline had diverged too far and had branched off irreversibly, or something to that effect, but NOOOOOOO. The same (admittedly lame, but what’ya gonna do? Treknobabble is a tradition!) explanation could have also been used to explain all the outrageous coincidences away as the timeline attempting to repair itself. This could even have been done in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, maybe getting some people to loosen up and just go with it, but NOOOOOOO.

    I’m not completely anti-K&O, but wouldn’t it be nice for them to not be the final word on the script? Imagine what a good dialogue polisher could have done here, a Joss Whedon or dare I say Nick Meyer? So many of the stupid implausibilities might have been a little less galling.

  13. One, you’re just not right about how time travel works within Star Trek… Is what you’re saying more consistent with actual quantum theory? Sure… but ST isn’t science, it’s science fiction, and the means for certain scientific happenings in ST has an internal mechanism for how it works… and within ST, going back in time, without other factors present (factors, btw, that have NEVER ONCE BEEN PRESENT IN 50 YEARS OF ST), does, in fact CHANGE THE CURRENT TIMELINE.

    You might quibble with that, but we manifestly know it to be true. We’ve seen people from the future impacted by people going into the past. When McCoy rushes into the Guardian, he doesn’t traverse into an alternate past and change an alternate… He goes into their past, alters it, and ends up destroying absolutely every bit of existence they knew. Enterprise wasn’t in orbit. There was no Federation. Etc.

    When the Borg sphere goes back in time, they don’t go to a different past. Obviously. Why obviously? Because we SEE the changes! They changed the past. Enterprise-E only escaped that fate because they were caught in the wake of the effect. They went back in time, following them, fixed the timeline as best they could, and came home.

    When Sisko goes back and becomes Gabriel Bell, it’s not an alternate. We see his people going through the timestream to retrieve him…

    In Time’s Arrow, well, duh, we know they don’t switch to some alternate because, in that instance it’s a predestination paradox… Data’s head precipitates the events that result in Data’s head being blown off… all in the same continuity…

    So… sorry, chum, you’re just simply wrong to suggest that going back in time removes you from your native universe. Your native universe is absolutely unique to your native universe. In Parallels, Worf travels between quantum realities. That’s all fine and good, except for the fact that they could tell he wasn’t from their universe. Spock Prime should have had no reason for travelling both through time and across dimensional realities… nor is there any evidence that he did, except that if he is from our original universe, he’s clearly not there anymore… the differences started prior to Nero’s incursion…

    so… None of your points are actually valid within the framework of Star Trek… which is what we’re talking about. And complaining that I’m a fan of Star Trek won’t change that fact… But, since you’re obviously not, it makes sense why you don’t have any clue what the hell you’re talking about while you’re lecturing me how ST works… try again, genius.

  14. Please. If you think Trek had any merit in the late 90s, early 2000’s you are all in denial. The failure of Nemesis cemented Trek’s demise, and the cast can tell you that. First Contact was a watered down version of The Best of Both Worlds. The last really great Trek movie that did the numbers with both fans, and general audiences drove to in masses was Star Trek IV. Let’s be honest with ourselves here. The Next Generation movies were unneeded, as the show could have continued till season 14. They felt like cheap versions of higher quality shows that were on TNG/DS9/Voy. The first ten minutes of First Contact is great, then it grinds to a halt after that. You are lying to yourself if you feel otherwise. So one out of four movies is a good track record? JJ’s movies have been mostly positively reviewed, and proved that Trek could be brought into the mainstream. All these people are just jealous that their version of trek went stale after Deep Space Nine. It was the same old thing every time. Yes they took an old story and made it new, but that is what’s popular right now. If Spock himself can endorse this new vision, and believe me he is a tough one to please. Let me put this into perspective. They wanted Spock for Generations. He turned it down multiple times. He felt he said goodbye in Undiscovered Country. He had no reason to come out of retirement. He was living his life perfectly happy as a photographer and the occasional convention. So why would he go back on his reservations and help usher in a new era of Star Trek if he didn’t believe it would be successful, both in monetary, and philosophical senses. If Nimoy’s word is not good enough, then people are just plain bitter. I bet if a television series were to be produced as a result of this new trilogy, you all would support it.

    If you don’t like it fine. Just show respect to other fans that have moved on and grew with Trek as it is now. I don’t mean to sound mean about it, but you have to admit to yourself that Trek was on Life support because of one man, Rick Berman. He could have waited till DS9 was finished before Voyager was produced. Waited till both were finished before Enterprise came out. At one time there were three Trek shows and a movie on the way. The box office returns of Nemesis killed Trek as we knew it. As any fan at a convention, and they will tell you that. Remember the return of Battlestar Galactica? They did the same sort of thing, and the original fan base hated it in the begining, yet ended up loving it. The same thing will happen here. As the third movie approaches, the fanbase will be more willing to accept this new vision. Did any of you actually see the movies, or are you going by trailers, and fan say? Are you unwilling to give it a chance, or are you just going to judge a movie by going by a couple of stills and clips? Also, why do you feel it does not constitute as Star Trek?

  15. My question was not answered by anyone. My question was not the basis of Abrams’ knowledge of Trek. Again, I ask the question. Why does Christopher Nolan get so much praise for the Batman films from most Batman fans. and non comic fans, and Abrams gets praise from non fans, and so much flak from core fans? The success of The Dark Knight Trilogy enabled him to produce the new Superman movie. Abrams’ success led him to direct the new Star Wars movies. He’s doing something right. Every one I talk to loved Into Darkness. I don’t want to force it down ya. That’s not my intention. Ive been a fan of Trek since 1980. Seen everyone of the movies on the big screen. Went to many a convention. met most of the cast of the original, and Next Generation cast members. Went to Star Trek The Experience. Went to the Nasa exhibit. Don’t get me wrong, I am a hardcore Trek fan. I can appreciate what they are trying to do with the brand. I am not asking you to settle for ‘what’s there’, that’s ridiculous, and boarders on fanboyism. Just relax, like what you like.

    Also, I challenge you to state reasons why you think these movies don’t belong in your idea of Star Trek.No one has done that. You all just say, it sucks, or some other juvenile thing like that.

    The Rules:
    State 5 reasons you think New Trek does not live up to the idea of Classic Trek.
    The reasons must be full complete sentences with one coherent thought.
    Each reason must be presented in a respectful way.

    Here are my reasons why it does live up to the idea of Star Trek
    1: Utopian vision of the universe. Everyone is together, and there is no racism
    2: Sense of brotherhood between Kirk/Spock/McCoy (McCoy is in it less, but it is still there)
    3: Scotty, the miracle worker. Scotty pulling through in a clinch, giving Kirk the power he needs to escape a sticky situation.
    4. Spock, and Vulcan in general. They nailed Spock’s mannerisms. Zachary Quinto IS Spock to me now. I still love Nimoy, but I guess It’s also the way Quinto plays him.
    5: This goes back to the brotherhood angle. The feeling of camaraderie among the crew. Everyone works together, There is no one out for themselves here. Each crew member knows they are an important component to the ship.

    Your turn

  16. Well, to answer your question personally, Nolan doesn’t get that credit from me…

    In fact, I think you raised the perfect observation, but came away with the wrong conclusion.

    JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan both lied to us fundamentally about their approaches to Star Trek and Batman respectively. JJ Abrams lied when he suggested they needed the reboot in order to tell fresh stories… only to then tell a story about Khan that was wholly reliant on previous Trek.

    Christopher Nolan claimed he was giving us some gritty and realistic version of Batman, only to violate the spirit of the character wholly with his ending. Bruce Wayne gives up being Batman, after losing his fortune, mind you, and runs off with Catwoman into what must be a life of petty crime in order to survive… meanwhile, leaving a guy with no training or anything else to literally become Batman… and that which separates that guy from the random guys in TDK that were dressing up as Batman? This guy doesn’t have a Batmobile, a Batpod, he doesn’t have the flying machine… in fact, it would seem all he has a few thousand batarangs, a nifty platform that raises out of the water, and probably 30,000 surplus cowl’s… Hardly the Batman.

    So… yeah… you’re absolutely right… but again, you draw the wrong conclusion. People shouldn’t look at JJ Abrams and Christopher Nolan and slam Abrams while praising Nolan… They should slam them both and demand truthfulness and fidelity from the filmmakers that claim to be handling material with respect.

    There was nothing respectful of Batman in TDKR and there was nothing respectful of Star Trek in JJ Abram’s reboot.

  17. Oh, and you can say I haven’t given reasons for disliking Abrams’ vision of Trek, but I certainly have… However, if you want a list, I suppose I can oblige.

    1.) There was no need. JJ Abrams claims they needed to reboot in order to free them from the shackles of the mythos… Then why pick Kirk and co? Why not really start fresh? But then, not only are the same characters chosen, but when presented with the opportunity to make Star Trek 2, they remake Star Trek II. Hardly a departure, and hardly the truth as far as freeing themselves from previous Trek… and now, Lindlehof is suggesting the Borg and Q show up… So… my first complaint is that their entire justification for them getting their hands on Star Trek was a lie. Plain and simple.

    2.) Bad science… even for Trek. So, where to even begin with this one… I think I’ll have to subcategorize…
    A.) They bring Spock Prime back in time and don’t have any reason for him to have exited his native universe… but, apparently, he does. They claim the events prior to Nero are the same as the prime timeline, but obviously not. From the design of the ships, uniforms, etc to the actual design of NX-01 a hundred years earlier, things were different. So, this was never our timeline, nor is it even clear that Spock is our Spock.
    B.) So, beaming between star systems isn’t enough now… no, now we also get warp travel that takes 20 minutes between Earth and Kronos…
    C.) Chekov joined TOS in 2267 as an Ensign at 22. Somehow, in 2259 he’s already in his second film… at like, 15.

    3.) Violating Characters. If you are going to reboot, you shouldn’t fundamentally alter a character just because it suits the film franchise you would’ve rather made.
    A.) James T. Kirk isn’t an anti-hero, a reluctant hero, or anything like that. But, because JJ Abrams has a hard-on for Star Wars and Han Solo, he decided to fundamentally alter his character.
    B.) Spock is so stupid he rats Kirk out, but somehow, isn’t smart enough to realize that he, Spock himself, was already in violation of the Prime Directive, whether those flakey white aliens saw them or not… So, is Spock stupid or still pissed that Kirk is Captain over him? Either way, not Spock.

    4.) They expect us to be stupid. I’ve been answering your questions, now, for this entry, I’m going to require that you answer mine…
    A.) If Khan wanted to punish Adm. Marcus, why did he escape to the one place that gave Marcus cover to execute his original plan in the first place? If Khan was trying to screw Marcus over, making his plan manifest wasn’t the way to do it… Explain.
    B.) Khan believes his people were discovered by Adm. Marcus and murdered. Why, then, do those torpedoes pointed at Kronos matter to Khan at all? He thinks his people are dead. He doesn’t know they’re still in stasis therein… Yet… he does. Why?
    C.) Why doesn’t anyone know who Khan is? Spock has to call Spock Prime to even find out who he is… in TOS, Khan was instantly recognized. Why does the name not ring a bell for anyone?
    D.) If Khan’s blood can cure death, why was there a movie called The Wrath of Khan? The “wrath” was about being stranded on a dying planet where the conditions eventually killed his wife… Except, you know… he could’ve just injected her with his blood… problem solved…
    E.) Once the Tribble was resurrected, why wasn’t there a Tribble infestation? Unless, of course, we’re expected to believe that McCoy is now the Doctor Mingele of space and killed it?

    5.) They haven’t earned anything.
    A.) In 2009’s Star Trek, Kirk becomes Captain of the Federation’s flagship… a promotion he gets after being first officer and a commander, right? Wrong… He gets to be Captain of the Federation’s flagship after being graduated… So… an Ensign is promoted past everyone else and becomes Captain… nice. Didn’t earn it.
    B.) In STD Kirk dies and comes back to life. Not only did they not earn the resurrection (n.b. the bit above about Khan’s panacea blood being stupid.), but they didn’t earn the emotion of the death, as evidenced by the fact that they had to bring in Spock Prime to give Khan any weight, and then, cribbed the dialogue from TWOK because nothing had ever happened between those two characters at this point for them to have any comradery whatsoever. Every bit of emotion, and in some cases plot itself, is reliant on the Star Trek that these jokers have openly admitted they’d just as soon we forget… But, here’s the catch, if we forgot every bit of Star Trek before JJ Abrams got his grubby mits on it, we wouldn’t feel anything for his movies… because every emotion therein is reliant on that which he wants us to forget… Not very bright.

    That’s just 5… I could do another 5 standing on my head… But, since I’ve raised each of these points before, and you never saw anyone raise any valid points, I’m guessing you’ll just ignore these too.

  18. Don’t forget the gritty realism of a punch in the vertebrae while hanging from a rope, seeing a jedi and then doing some push-ups.

  19. In reality it actually works far more like you’ve described here. I laughed when I read what “One” wrote about overwriting history being an illusion based on perception. It’s actually the other way round; the idea of multiple universes splitting after every decision is the illusion based on perception. Quantum Physics ment it figuratively, a means by which to perceive certain things. It’s not ment to be taken literally. It’s only certain fictional stories like “Sliders” that have taken the idea literally and so caused it to enter the public’s imagination.

  20. So he instead chose to be part of a backstabbing movie franchise that is star trek in NAME ONLY! Gene Roddenberry would have never allowed his creation mutilated this way! Yes, he said in an interview he wanted a reboot! I have that interview! HE THEN goes on to CALL Star Trek The Next Generation A REBOOT! So he didn’t really mean reboot he MEANT SPIN-OFF! He wanted MORE spin-offs of his ORIGINAL CREATION!

    These movies are a joke! Shows some people are easily amused and impressed by flashing lights and a big budget!

    Shame on Nimoy! I’ve been a huge admirer of his for a long time but I feel these two appearances really were a disappointment!

    I hope when Paramount pulls their collective heads out of their rear-ends and are READY to do A REAL STAR TREK MOVIE based on the Gene Roddenberry universe to give me a call!

    I understand CBS refuses to do any spin-offs based on those two abominations! Good For them! About time SOMEONE in show business demonstrated that there REALLY IS HONOR AND INTEGRITY amongst all the backstabbing low-lifes and greedy pigs!

  21. I don’t love the Abrams movies — I think they’re entertaining movies but NOT good Star Trek — but I can’t help but notice that they’ve brought a lot of new fans into the fold. They’ve got young people watching the TV episodes of TOS who would never have otherwise considered it. So I think Nimoy made the right call. FIRST we revive TOS from near-death, THEN we tweak it to be more like itself and less like a bunch of explosions and chases.

    I think Nimoy has handled the whole Spock phenomenon with far more dignity and grace than one might expect from someone who’s merely an actor, after all, and I’m surprised to see him trashed on this website.

  22. I’ve read Nimoy’s interviews back in the 60’s and 70’s and yes he is all over the place. The only reason I can see all this ass kissing directed at Abrams is because he is close with Spielberg. They all wanted to be in a Spielberg flick.

  23. Hear hear! I totally agree with you. I think they have done a wonderful thing for this beloved iconic series. As for the Kirk death scene in STID, I thought it was beautiful because although the timeline is different, they are the same characters. Their roles were reversed, but the end result was the same, cementing the strength and depth of their friendship.I could go on about this for a week. It was clever and wonderful.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.