Comments on: Shatner Says Abrams Wants Him and Nimoy in Trek XI

By: david

david — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:59:45 +0000

OK, kirk is buried under rocks on veridian 3.picard leaves, only the rocks and terrain on veridian 3 contain regenerative properties that revive kirk.
He rigs up a distress call from the remaining wreckage of enterprise d.Job done.10 minutes screen time.

By: litenbug

litenbug — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:28:59 +0000

111 Mark

I’ll bring the Ketchup for you.

#79 Bob
“Nbody cares about anything else in the Star Trek universe.”

…don’t make statements like that. You don’t speak for me or anyone but yourself.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:32:02 +0000

Lit -

You may have misunderstood me. I am a huge fan of Trek, and will be there for a movie with or without Kirk. I have an unbroken record of seeing the Trek movies on opening night (I saw the first episode on TV in 1966 and have been a fan ever since), and this will be no exception. I am not saying I want ST to die – far from it. I’m just saying that because of a combination of things – probably the primary one being box office receipts – that ST will die after this movie. I don’t think the audience – new or old – will accept someone else playing the Kirk and Spock roles for more than one movie, I doubt they will do another TNG movie, and I’m almost completely certain we will never see a DS9, VOY or ENT movie (probably a good idea, frankly.) Best bet is another TV show down the road, but I’m not too optimistic about that, either. It’s not what I want, it’s just all good things, you know? I know this movie is an attempt to restore/resurrect the franchise, and I hope it works, but I’m just not optimistic about it. I seriously I hope I can come back here one day and eat crow.

By: Litenbug

Litenbug — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:56:17 +0000

Mark #105…
If Trek’s dead either way… why waste the money or time?
I’m sorry, I don’t subscribe to that thought at all… especially with a potential major movie nearly written and ready to start filming in the spring. I’ve suggested several times that Shatner bow out, but I’ll still be excited either way.

Stay home, save your money…. we might tell you what you missed.

By: trekmaster

trekmaster — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:00:31 +0000

At the age of 75 or at least 77 in the year 2008 you can’t be an action hero. We need a character based believable story that flies on the wings of fantasy.

By: William

William — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:50:24 +0000

Again, I’d like to see Shatner back in action too but in terms of writing a well written story that is cannon, I can’t see a good way to fit him in. I think that a ghost or a Spock delesion would seem too forced and would cheapen story.

By: trekmaster

trekmaster — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:13:28 +0000

@William
Maybe Shatner could play a ghost or a kind of elder mirror in Spocks mind.

@Mark
Trek is also Picard & Co. Both TOS and TNG are Roddenberry-productions.

By: William

William — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:11:40 +0000

I want to start by saying that I would love to see both Shatner and Nimoy one last time, if they could pull it off at their age. However, from strictly a story line point of view, if I were writing a story that incorporated these characters in their youth and when the are old, I would want their older selves doing something that provoked emotions strong enough to cause them to reflect on the past. Altough I know there are several reasons my idea would never work as a film, here is a description of the story I would write:
While on Romulus (Unification), Spock gets word form Picard that Kirk has died on whatever planet that was in Generations. Spock leaves Romulus on a mission to take Kirk’s body back to Earth. The sheer emotion caused by the death of his friend causes Spock to flashback to the time he first met Kirk. I think it is only natural for someone facing the death of a lifetime friend to think about how their friendship began. This would allow for parallel stories in both the “present” and the past. The older Spock could be plauged with Problems with Romulans as the tries to leave Romulus or some other damn thing and the story in the past could be about pretty much anything. I think that that this story would neatly “bookend” their friendship.
As I said, I know this would never work as a film because I very much doubt that Shatner would willing sit the movie out as Nimoy took a major role. Just my thoughts.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:44:30 +0000

#99 John N:

Mark… an excellent idea… and probably the most satisfying I’ve heard that still adheres to Trek canon.

However, you have left half of the audience (the essential ‘casual fan’ that Trek needs to attract to grow and prosper) scratching their heads and saying “huh?”
———————
John – I understand your point. I’m sure the writers always have the juggling act of creating the right balance in a story that will satisfy the serious fan and still stand alone for the casual or non-fan. However, to a degree you will always have that in any movie that is a sequel (or even a prequel.) Sci-fi movies are going to require that to a greater degree than, say, the Rocky series. Does each new movie have to explain tractor beams, transporters and phasers to the potential fan – let alone the history of the main characters and the interpersonal relationships? You have to draw the line somewhere.

In this case, all we are trying to do is get Kirk back in the picture. imo, the Guardian is a great way for Spock to do that. Since the fans don’t even need to know what Spock did (only that he did something), the non-fans don’t even need to know that Kirk was dead. Akin, as someone else has pointed out, to Worf’s “explanation” about TOS Klingons in DS9.

It seems unlikely that the story line of the new movie is going to be built around Kirk’s resurrection. All we need is something plausible to explain his appearance in the film and go from there. The non-fans are free to pursue the previous stories if they want – hopefully the film will have a story that prompts them to do that. As Trek fans, we want a good Trek movie, and that requires Kirk and Spock, imo, even if they only play a small role.

Kirk and Spock ARE Star Trek. Sure, other characters (TOS) and new characters (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) are fine, but Trek is Kirk and Spock. If Trek is just Roddenberry’s vision of the future and the “can’t we all just get along mentality,” etc., then why are they even considering recasting the roles? Why not just a TV show and/or films that are just Star Trekish, with different characters each episode or movie? iow, a Trek version of Twilight Zone? It’s not *just* the future that Trek envisions, but the characters, primarily Kirk and Spock, *in that future* in their various adventures, etc. I know they’re old, and they won’t live forever, but while they are still around, I am glad they are being reconsidered for another film. And, personally, I don’t care who the actors are (known or unknown), how well they act, or how good the story is, I believe that after this film (assuming it recasts the roles) no future movies with another Kirk and another Spock will be successful. They may be able to have another successful Trek film (I doubt it), but no TV series or film that recasts the roles will work. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a serious fan, but I think Trek is dead after this movie. It would already be dead if Shatner and Nimoy weren’t being considered for this film.

By: Litenbug

Litenbug — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:49:00 +0000

Shatner as Kirk…. again… Please, no.
New Movie, New Story… resume TOS with a young cast, a good story, excellent direction.
Give the old boys things to do… even direct or advise.
Bill… The gold shirt just won’t fit anymore… or the red one.

Enterprise ships out with the same names and fresh faces.