NIMOY DROPS AN ENTERPRISING HINT : FROM LEONARD NIMOY, AN ENTERPRISING HINT

The question closest to “Star Trek” fans’ hearts this year is: Will the voyages of “Star Trek” continue without the Enterprise?

As you may recall. . . .

When last we left the intrepid crew of the starship Enterprise in “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock,” stricken comrade Mr. Spock had been rescued from the exploding planet Genesis. But alas, the Enterprise was lost. At the end of the film, the crew faced possible court-martial (for not acting on orders), and Mr. Spock was a mere shell of his former self back on his home planet of Vulcan.

Where will things go from here?

Actor/director Leonard (Mr. Spock) Nimoy alluded to “the Enterprise question” in a recent interview in his Paramount Studios office. Looking relaxed (if unshaven), his hair still cut in the helmet style of his Vulcan alter ego, the director of “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” discussed the film during a break from post-production work.

With a Christmas release scheduled for “Star Trek IV,” the destruction of the Enterprise has raised protests from fans who feel that the ship is, and always was, the heart of “Star Trek.” Will the Excelsior, the spanking-new starship, shown briefly in “Star Trek III,” reappear in “IV” as the new home for the Enterprise crew?

“I get that question a lot when I go out and talk to the fans. They say, ‘What about the Enterprise?’ But I do believe there was a stronger outcry about the fact that Spock was killed (in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”) than we had about the Enterprise being blown up. But we’re dealing with that question--if we can revive Spock, we can do something for the Enterprise!

“The film is a drama, an adventure film, (so) there’s peril involved--but in a kind of fun and rompy way.” As for Mr. Spock’s vague, uncertain condition at the end of “Star Trek III,” Nimoy commented, “It’s a re-establishment of identity. This happens to be a funny picture.” Contrary to his characterization of the phlegmatic Vulcan Science Officer, Nimoy is a lively, rapid talker, his conversation punctuated with laughter. His large office, decorated in subtle grays, is crowded with bits and symbols of his filmic life: a toy ray gun on the coffee table, a poster on the wall signed by everyone who worked on “Star Trek III” (his first feature as director), stacks of scripts and a comfy couch from which to watch the VCR.

Nimoy said he was quite pleased with the progress of the film. The budget was “$23 or $24 million” he said, and was brought in “comfortably on or slightly under budget.” He also kept ahead of the 57-day shooting schedule, finishing in 53.

Both Nimoy and producer Harve Bennett worked on the script, agreeing with the studio that they should do a time-travel story, the bulk of which takes place in 1986 in Northern California.

Inspiration for what appears to be the crux of the script came from a book by Harvard science professor Edward O. Wilson, titled “Biophilia.” The book concerns the accelerating loss of plant and animal species that scientists may never have even seen or catalogued--and what the ramifications of the loss of that one little (or big) animal or plant could have on the future (in this case, the 23rd Century).

Catherine Hicks plays a 1986 biologist, Dr. Gillian Taylor. “A very delicate and lovely relationship develops between her and William Shatner (as Admiral Kirk) that’s really quite touching.”

Other than San Francisco (home of Starfleet operations in the 23rd Century), shooting locations included the Monterey Bay Aquarium and North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado. And oh yes, a back parking lot at Paramount doubled for the planet Vulcan.

With “Star Trek” celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, the future of the series is a big concern of Trekkies. (If previous box-office receipts are a factor in future “Treks,” it’s appropriate to note that the series to date has brought in $257 million, according to Paramount. “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” released in 1979, took in $90 million; “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (1982), $80 million, and “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock” (1984), $77 million.)

“I think the studio takes one step at a time, one film at a time,” Nimoy said. “I think they’re definitely interested in the future of the ‘Star Trek’ franchise in general. Now whether or not they want (to make) these films with the same cast and whatever, or how long . . . I don’t know yet.

“I doubt I’ll direct ‘Star Trek V’--not because I don’t want to, but my understanding is that Bill Shatner wants to. I’ve done two; I think he should (do one). We understand he’d probably be interested in (‘Star Trek’) V and that he would direct it. And I’m very happy for him.

“How many more of these will there be? I have no idea. But I sincerely hope--and I think there’s a chance other people will agree--that this (film) is the best of the four.”