More From Shat On Coming Back From The Dead |
jump to navigation

More From Shat On Coming Back From The Dead November 15, 2006

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Shatner,ST09 Cast , trackback

Things were a bit quiet from the Shatner camp since his odd ‘gas’ statement a few weeks back, but now he is again talking up JJ Abrams and Star Trek XI. Shat is promoting his new gameshow ‘Show Me The Money’ but interviewers always get around to asking about Trek. The Shat tells UGO

I met with Mr. Abrams, and they’ve got a really good plot going, and they’re trying to find Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk, the elderly ones. How you get a dead Captain to communicate with himself, younger, is going to be a very arduous plotting, and I’m going to be interested to see how they solve it.


MeeVee and Zap2It also appear to have ‘new’ interviews with Shatner, but his answers are so similair it is possible they are based on a conference call with each reporter recording it slightly differently. TV Guide’s full interview (which was previewed last week) seems to be unique to them and Shatner talks a bit more about JJ and being dead… Have you had the opportunity to talk to J.J. Abrams about the new Trek film he’s doing?
Shatner: I had a long talk with him, yeah. He’s going to morph Spock into Kirk — I’m starting that rumor. Who would you cast as the young Captain Kirk?
Shatner: I think it’s essentially uncastable. Unless you could get Jesus Christ.
Shatner: Or Moses. But Moses would have to shave. Might J.J. keep the door open for you to cameo in the film?
Shatner: I don’t know how they’re going to do that. I’m dead…. It’s one of those science-fiction puzzles that needs to be worked out. [Chuckles] But you could be a different character, a "wisdom-filled elder."
Shatner: Well, now, I don’t know that either one of those things, "wisdom-filled" or "elder," is in me. The words do not resonate. You are looking pretty damn good in that new DirecTV/Star Trek commercial.
Shatner: They’ve got me CGI’d. I am doing [the new footage], but they’ve got a computer program trying vainly to make me look younger. What do you say to some fans’ concerns that this is the last we will see of you as Kirk?
It’s possible….

Shatner seems a bit obsessed with this whole death thing. Of course he brought himself back to life in his own series of books so he knows it can happen. It is still more likely that Abrams would just set the scenes between STVI and Generations or cast Shat as the ‘wisdom filled elder’ in the TOS era…but as he says it is scifi so anything is possible. One thing is for sure, Shatner seems back on board the pro Abrams/Trek XI bandwagon…at least for now. Of course we all know what will be the determining factor…will JJ show him the money?  


1. andy - November 15, 2006

Shatner and Nimoy should be in this film as Kirk and Spock.
And Nicholas Meyer should polish up the script.

2. Josh - November 15, 2006

It appears Star Trek may indeed , *may* mind you, just infact be relevant again.

What can be said that hasn’t infact been said before on this subject?
Here’s my take on it.

To the naysayers, it’s a retroactive gimmick to bring life back into a sagging franchise.
To the proponents, it’s getting back to basics and finally rediscovering Trek.

One thing is for certain however, no two characters are more immediately identifiable to the Star Trek brand than James Kirk and Spock. Including the Enterprise.

It’s entirely possible Star Trek is after all dependant upon these core characters given the lukewarm mixed success of departures from the original. If that is the case, Star Trek’s overall run is synonymous with the mortality of Shatner and Nimoy, and as a brand is finally in it’s sunset years.
If not, and the concept can indeed survive beyond any single character or plot device, it would seem no writer has yet discovered that magic angle to transcend Star Trek above and beyond it’s own concept to make it universal.
It seems assembling a generic crew, slapping uniforms on them, giving them a Enterprise X variable ship, and throwing them in space isn’t what makes Star Trek resonate, so that formula is not Star Trek.

If we assume Star Trek has resonated in the pop culture mindset, much like a Sherlock Holmes, Star Wars, Frankenstein, or any other pop culture literary or motion picture classic, it would have to be identifiabilty with archetypical characters so eventually a reboot would be in order- every generation or so. The characters of Kirk, Spock, Bones et. al are stripped down to their core archetypical components and every generations new flavor takes over the reigns and “interprets” these characters for the sensibilities of that viewing generation, including all the nuances, slang, dynamics, and lexicon that defines the viewing generation.

If this Movie fails, it will speak volumes about the state of Star Trek. Literally.

No longer will sequel X continuing the adventures of characters X, Y, and Z be good enough to merit financing, so any continuing adventures with established characters won’t happen.

“Move Star Trek forward” has already been demonstrated to not work either, again, simply assembling a generic crew and putting them aboard whatever version of the Enterprise is high tech enough, thematically, conceptually, and artistically is no different than the failed experiment “Enterprise.” The audience didn’t relate.

So if I were in charge of the Star Trek brand, I would begin some studies into defining Star Trek. What does “Star Trek” mean anyway?
What general consensus can be arrived at to give meaning to the concept of Star Trek.
In many ways, Star Trek is a property and creation with identity crisis.
By trying to be all things to all people, it typically fails utterly. But as Nicholas Myer has rightfully observed, when Star Trek defines it’s genre and what it is aspiring to be, some of the more successful episodes and films are the result.
Star Trek cannot remain the nebulous, vague, ideological concept it may have been originally intended as, while it’s noble and nice with a beer in the woods, a mass audience doesn’t relate to such high brow philosophies unfortunately. That’s a sad reality of culture.

I think first and foremost, Star Trek has to stop fearing pissing the fans off. The fans have really brought nothing to the table in terms of Star Trek.
While we all enjoy pretending our devotion in time and dollars over the years has resulted in each of us personally being responsible for the longevity of Star Trek, in many ways, we are solely repsonsible for the current crisis Star Trek is enduring. These message boards have been a SPLENDID example of that I believe.
Infinate diversity in infinate combinations again is fine with a beer in the woods, but it doesnt sell tickets or fill seats.

I believe Star Trek has to first define itself again before it can go forward, and by defining itself risk alienating a certain segment of fandom, in favor of broadening it’s appeal to a mass audience..
To become viable, John and Jane X must have a casual interest in Star Trek.
For all those that attack George Lucas, like it or lump it, he did it his own way, and at the end of the day didn’t bow to a consensus.
While he may have made modifications to appease a very vocal minority, he didn’t really have to, it was arbitrary. His final stamp was “GEORGE LUCAS” approved.
Star Trek has to be the same way. There are too many chefs brewing too many broths, resulting in mediocrity and a mess. This serves NONE of our interests.

3. Still Kirok - November 15, 2006

Why would it be MORE likely to set the film before Generations? That would be from a market standpoint–stupid.

To bring in Shatner, and NOT bring Kirk back post-Generations would be about as dumb as killing Kirk in the first place.

The draw of the movie is not seeing some young guy playing Kirk. It’s Shatner and Nimoy. The excitement and buzz comes from Shatner and Nimoy.

Shatner and Nimoy are older than they were when Generations filmed. It would be simply more entertaining to see Spock return the favor.

Generations stunk. Too many people want to see Kirk return and have that ride off into the sunset ending to ignore.

Bringing in Shatner and NOT addressing Generations is too Rick Bermanish.

Two parallel plots involving older and younger versions of Kirk and Spock. Bring back kirk.

4. Josh - November 15, 2006

Theres an even simpler solution.

“Jim, can you hear me?”

“Sp-Spock, what happened, where am I?”

“Sickbay. It would seem Dr. McCoy’s customary penchance for arriving at a favorable outcome on the positive side of random probability has infact served you particularly well on this occasion.”


“You contracted a rather volatile case of Ghanliogonic-milofibriosis.”

“How long have I been out of it Spock? I had the most disturbing dream.
A bald Frenchmen perpetrating himself off as the Captain of the Enterprise had me killed on an alien planet for some empty cause. It was horrible.”

“Indeed. That most certainly sounds like a disturbing dream Captain.
Thankfully, that is all it was. ”

“Right. Time to return to duty, I’ll say one thing, there is nothing worse than illness induced dementia. Damn, that one was particularly bad.”

“There is only ONE Captain of the Enterprise Jim. It has always been the case, and it shall always be the case.”

5. Greg Stamper - November 15, 2006

Note – William Shatner to appear on “Planet Mancow” this Saturday Night (Nov. 18th), 9:00pm ET on the FOX NEWS Channel.

6. DB - November 15, 2006

There’s no way that Shatner’s appearence or non-appearence in the film makes it any more or less “relevant” as a movie. Frankly, if the appeal of “Star Trek” is based on Shatner’s availability and enthusiasm then it will soon be over for good anyway — and if that’s the case, then it certainly should be.

7. Anonymous - November 15, 2006

To be honest…I really think that it would be lame to shoehorn Shatner and Nimoy into a new movie. There is always this promise of ‘fresh start’, but Hollywood doesn’t seem to have the guts to do it. I really don’t connect Shatner and Nimoy to the characters anymore. They’ve moved on and we really should too. Let some new blood take the stage.

8. John N - November 15, 2006

Here’s a quote from a proposal to “re-imagine’ TOS that I think sums it up nicely:

“There’s a reason Star Trek: Classic worked. Not only did it convey a spirit of adventure, of optimism, of genuine heroism, the characters it utilized could not possibly be more iconic. They are classic, archetypal characters.

The warrior, the priest, the doctor…

– Kirk
– Spock
– McCoy”

If in fact some of you think that “Shatner and Nimoy HAVE to be in this film, or you’re nuts”, then that saddens me, because then I agree with DB:

Star Trek will be linked to the mortality of these two stars, and that means we won’t have any new movies/series for much longer.

9. John N - November 15, 2006

#2 – Josh – Beautifully written!! (except that you know how I feel about certain segments of fans actually having some good ideas that are at times worth listening to)

#4 – Josh – Do you really think that using the infamous “Dallas dream sequence” will be satisfying to the intelligent film goer? Or were you being facetious?

10. New Horizon - November 15, 2006

>>“There’s a reason Star Trek: Classic worked. Not only did it convey a spirit of adventure, of optimism, of genuine heroism, the characters it utilized could not possibly be more iconic. They are classic, archetypal characters.

The warrior, the priest, the doctor…

– Kirk
– Spock
– McCoy”

11. Spock's brain - November 15, 2006

This new movie can still put butts in seats without Shatner and Nimoy if it is done right. The formula is simple really…go back to what made Star Trek great. Keep things consistent, for example, don’t make an enterprise that looks more high tech than the one in TOS but rather use sublte improvements that match today’s movie making technology.

Nobody bought into “enterprise” because it didn’t match well with TOS. The uniforms resembled TNG and Voyager and the enterprise bridge had to many high tech gadgets and screens on it WHY!?
Berman and company didn’t get it.

12. I AM NOMAD - November 15, 2006

Undo Kirk’s death bring in Spock and hey presto, thats the recipe for making love!

13. Billy Bags - November 15, 2006

How did shatnet resurrected Kirk from the dead in his new book?

14. John N - November 15, 2006

#12 – I AM NOMAD – Are you quoting the Harry Connick Jr. song? Great album… :)

15. John N - November 15, 2006

#13 – Billy Bags – Check out wikipedia:

Scroll down to the “Death and resurrection” section.

16. VOODOO - November 15, 2006

It is going to be post nexus.

Spock will save Kirk from the nexus. And the circle will be complete.

Kirk and Spock get to ride off into the sunset. While the younger versions of Kirk and Spock have a series of very hit films.

That is what the majority of the public wants from Star Trek.


17. JON - November 15, 2006

Um boys.Kirk was BURIED then Picard laid a bunch of rocks on top of his gravesite.

18. JON - November 15, 2006

Maybe they can swab the mouthpiece of one of his old communicators then clone him.

19. James Bond - November 15, 2006

There were copies of Guinan in the nexus. There must be copies of Kirk.

Several people have mentioned what a poor plot device the nexus was. There are so many holes in the idea of the nexus. That Kirk could easily be written back in.

20. Spock's brain - November 15, 2006

In case no one noticed…Shatner and Nimoy are OLD!

Don’t get me wrong, I love those guys but it’s time to move on.

Let this new guy cast new actors.

21. Lao3D - November 15, 2006

Swab the mouthpiece, LOL, love it! Or think of all the DNA he must have left in the various quarters of his female companions!

And speaking of being buried by rocks, in the previous Shatner thread, I referenced a “mystery” post that I saw, which then disappeared, (I swear on my sweet grannie’s resting place). I later found as I hit the back button on my browser the bugger was still in there, screen grab of which is here:

Sounds a little far-fetched to me but stranger stuff has happened. I hope its not something like that, as there is so much more to be mined in the pre-five year mission history of these characters.

22. Greg Stamper - November 15, 2006

Picard remained in the Nexus. He desired Kirk to come with him so “his” wish was granted. Everything in the later part of “Generations” is unreal. It all took place in the Nexus — I’ve heard this idea on several occasions.
Yes, the Nexus is a huge, huge plot hole – – –
— Just a thought

23. John N - November 15, 2006

#21 – Lao3D – That’s not a bad idea… I presume that it’s Kirk pre-Generations then?

What are your thoughts?

24. John N - November 15, 2006

And Anthony… why was that post removed? Too close to the truth?

I would be a little surprised if they went with this story. Like Star Trek II, it’s nice to build upon an existing episode, but I thought that they were going to reach out to new fans… this seems like it requires (or at least will have the most impact with) some prior knowledge of the series.

25. FlyingTigress - November 15, 2006


“.. would be a little surprised if they went with this story. Like Star Trek II, it’s nice to build upon an existing episode, ”

So, instead of screaming “K-A-A-A-A-H-H-H-H-N!”, he’ll be screaming “G-A-A-A-A-A-A-R-R-R-R-R-Y!”

Of course, the clever plot device will be that Mitch tried to kill James **R.** Kirk, rather than James **T.** Kirk — or, maybe, he changed his middle name to throw-off the hunt by Mitch? “James R. Kirk?” “Starship Captain of U.S.S. Enterprise?” “You want to destroy him?” “Looks like me?” “Sorry…Got the wrong guy! That’s my evil twin — LOL!”

26. FlyingTigress - November 15, 2006


“Da_ned transporter accidents, you know”

27. trekmaster - November 15, 2006

Maybe JJ is going to film some of Shatners novels…”The Return” was indeed an incredible story and presented us all Generations! Don’t forget the V’ger connection to “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”. After “The Return” Kirks character changed to a kind of logically thinking Spock, while Spock became more human. Too bad that DeForrest Kelley past away a few years ago. Berman and Paramount missed many chances.

28. Lao3D - November 15, 2006

John N. — 24 — exactly my thoughts. You can’t have half the audience scratching their heads going “Wait, when did that happen?” But if they are bound and determined to get Shatner and Nimoy back on screen, its a workable theory at least.

Actually, I’m pretty sure that post disappeared by some odd web glitch, but I love a good conspiracy theory!

29. TomBot2006 - November 15, 2006

Wow, that’s weird, I expected something more controversial? ;)
And come on, they killed Spock and brought him back, and to be frank, although, I was glad they did, it was somewhat initially disatifying… the Death of Spock in TWOK was one the most powerful scenes of the TOS film series, in my humble opinion. Kirk’s death in Generations… blegh! It totally sucked, and having it reversed bothers me none in the least. The fate of Trek XI(i hope there is no number officially) depends upon story and casting… it’s great that everybody loves Kirk/Spock but I hope production keeps in mind Dr.McCoy, etc. The triad should be cast together even if Dr.McCoy only shows up later. There was that other Doc Bryce(?) who I guess can go down like a red shirt… ;) It would be actually be nicer if the oldster versions of Kirk/Spock had a much meatier role than bookends, and perhaps have actually a more climatic punch if they have some sort of stake in the outcome of the past, somehow? Anyway, going with the Gary Mitchell angle… what if that wacky Nexus thing was a shock wave from the original Galactic Barrier(where in the heck did this idea originate? And I was never sure, if it meant as I thought, edge of galaxy, or in fact, Universe? Baffling, like Trek5 ;) ) Perhaps, at some conclusion, the oldsters Kirk/Spock must set out beyond the barrier? Really, I hope with all of the melodramatic possibilities, that we get some science fiction in there. With all the mysteries of our Universe… the expansion rate, dark matter(?), and the that particles are theorized to appear out of seemingly empty space(watching too much PBS,heh,heh) I really hoping we get something new posited, and not a POS nexus plot device… With all my railing against ST:TNG’s blandeness, at least, there was some new sci-fi ideas explored occasionally… at least until they hit the big screen, and don’t nitpick that, I know I might be wrong, the point is, it wasn’t memorable.
That’s what TREK XI needs to be; memorable, and not in a BAD way. ;-P

30. Lao3D - November 15, 2006

Amen to all that TomBot, especially about McCoy. He was always the straw that stirred the drink, so to speak. And some new science in the science fiction would be nice as well. But I’m not holding my breath…

How ’bout this for a Gary Mitchell scenario — He emerges, like the Vampire LeStat, from his rocky grave, vowing vengeance on the one who imprisoned him, only to find Kirk had already been killed during a cheesy fight scene in the California desert. Enraged, he resurrects Kirk with his god-like powers so he can kill him again. And again if there’s a sequel.

31. Daren Doc - November 15, 2006

One thing I realized when I went to the “Wrath of Khan” screening in Hollywood last night… is that they NEVER should have brought Spock back. The death of Spock would have been a wonderful capper to the series… and would have spared everyone the embarassment of Trek III and the stereotyped characterizations of Trek IV… Here I am sounding like an old Fogey. :) Maybe I am. lol

32. Gp - November 15, 2006

Daren Doc, if there was not Spock past “The Wrath of Khan” then we would have never gotten “Reunifications: Part I and II” which were some of the most well-written trek ever. In that episode, Spock took on the characterizations of Kirk (cowboy diplomacy) and Picard was bestowed Sariks logic, making him more like Spock. Brilliant.

33. Captain Pike - November 15, 2006

I’d love to see the return of Gary Mitchell. And I’m sure the “R” from James “R” Kirk in WNMHGB is on the “to do list” to be fixed in TOS:Remastered.

Seriously. Nimoy does not act anymore and Kirk is dead at the age Shatner is now. I would be happy to see them in a framing sequence or flash forward but they are not going to star in the movie.

34. Lao3D - November 15, 2006

Aren’t all TOS fans old fogeys, Daren?:)

It did cheapen his death and I never bought the whole quasi-religious katra hooey either. But I have to admit I was glad to have him back — god I’m such a hypocrite!

35. John N - November 15, 2006

Wow… Daren… From your Tribble review I realized you were picky, but this is taking it to a new level.

I don’t think that I could ever get on board with the idea of leaving Spock dead. And while Trek III is not the best of the films, how can you call Kirk and his command crew throwing away their careers to rescue their friend ‘an embarrasment’?

36. Daren Doc - November 15, 2006

Some argue that never getting “Reunifications: Parts I and II” would be a vote for letting Spock stay dead… I remember watching those shows and getting all enthusiastic at Spock’s return at the cliffhanger ending of part I, then to be extremely disappointed at the, to my mind, dreary plodding plot developments and near sleepwalking acting by Mr. Nimoy in Part II. It looked to me at the time as just a cheap publicity gag by the studio to get the TNG fan base to go out and see Star Trek VI through a cursory connection between the two projects. I still hold that opinion.

And as to all TOS fans being old fogeys? Not if I have anything to say about it. lol I’m slowly endoctrinating today’s youth through the magic of the TOS Animated Series… :) It’s a gateway drug, to be sure… that’s how I got hooked. lol

37. JON - November 15, 2006

The public won’t buy a convoluted storyline to accomodate an elderly Kirk’s return.This is all Trekkie hooey.

38. JON - November 15, 2006

Face it guys .Kirk’s dead .That’s how he died.That’s canon.They need to make a movie from one of his adventures drawn from his younger days.

39. Robert Gillis - November 15, 2006

So here is my suggestion – since they’re bringing back Shatner’s Kirk, make it clear that Kirk is back from the dead by setting the framework portion of the story in the late 24th century, after the time of Kirk’s death on Veridian III (2371). Have Kirk in a post-Generations Starfleet uniform — the kind seen in the last three Trek films. Make a passing reference to the Enterprise E, or have a title card on the screen that established that the “older Kirk” part of the film takes place in, say, 2375 or 2379 (the “current” Next Generation time period). Anything to establish the date is AFTER Kirk’s death.

There’s no need to explain HOW Kirk came back from the dead– he’s known for cheating death after all. Leave that to the imagination of future story tellers.

And Shatner and Nimoy both look much older now, so the 24th century timeframe works better than pretending the framing portion of the film takes place, say, in the Classic Trek movie era.

It would be so simple—just a few lines of dialogue anywhere:

Use the lines that Spock used in Star Trek VI:

Officer: reacting to what seemed like a hopeless situation: “Then we’re dead.”
Kirk “I’ve been dead before.”

Or the line from Alien:

Officer: “I thought you were dead.”
Kirk: “I get that a lot.”


Spock: “Admiral… Jim… I am… pleased to see you again.”
Kirk, teasing: “Your quite logical relief that Starfleet had not lost a highly proficient captain, I suppose?”
Spock, almost a smile but not: “No. I have missed my captain, and my friend. It is… good to have you back.”

Just a few lines of dialogue, appropriate to the characters, and the fans are left with the knowledge that Kirk somehow escaped his fate on Veridian III and lives on, a hero, he and Spock reunited. Fans would be a lot more invested in the “Young Kirk,” knowing that he would continue to cheat death and thrive all those years later, rather than seeing the “new” young Kirk and knowing of his final, meaningless death on an unheard of planet. THAT might make sequels a little more likely as well.

The fans would love it.

What do you think, Mr. Abrams? Mr. Nimoy? Mr. Shatner?

40. Mr. Abrams - November 15, 2006

I’m too busy doing power lunches to answer.

41. Mr. Nimoy - November 15, 2006

I’m too busy photographing busty naked women to answer.

42. Mr. Shatner - November 15, 2006

I’m too busy rolling around in suitcases full of cash from my new gameshow gig. :)

43. Hank C - November 15, 2006

Cool, I want to see Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock again.

44. Dave - November 15, 2006

Kirk and Spock are more identifible then then Enterprise?

That is a serious load of dingo’s kidneys.

45. John N - November 15, 2006

It astounds me how many people on this site think that some unexplained, unrationalized, uncreative, throw away re-introduction of Kirk is a good idea.

It’s this blatant lack of regard for script, story, and innovation that will sink any film.

Yeah… the fans will love it. And the critics will pan it. Why? Because it’s lazy… because film critics HATE Deus Ex Machina.

And the masses will be swayed by the critics. And then it will be a commercial failure. And then… no more movies for who knows how long.

Now… having said that… if you want to devote the proper screen time to develop a resurrection STORY… to get the audience emotionally involved, then that’s another thing.

Ever wonder why people make bad decisions? It’s because they let one factor that they deem desirable to overwhelm all of the ofther factors that tell them its a bad idea.

That’s what’s happening in this forum. I would LOVE to have Shatner back as Kirk. But you guys are letting that cloud you into making a bad decision. The film would suffer from any of these “unexplained” plot holes.

Leaving it to your imagination worked for Hitchcock because he was playing on the element of fear and suspense. You don’t leave major plot holes unexplained. That just makes for a bad movie.

Think of it this way… Star Trek V… oh look… Spock now has a half-brother that was never mentioned before. Oh look… now we can cross an energy barrier that could never be crossed (I know it’s explained in the books… unfortunately, the film doesn’t pause for 10 minutes and prompt everyone to pull out their novelizations, turn o page 278 and please fill in this hole).

Good story telling? I think not…

46. Lao3D - November 15, 2006

What he said :)

47. John N - November 15, 2006

lol… looks like we’re on the same page on this one… :)

48. New Horizon - November 15, 2006

I feel your pain John N. I’m a huge Trek fan, but I don’t need to see Kirk and Spock in a film again. I let that crew go with The Undiscovered Country….and I’ve been waiting for the creative forces behind Star Trek to do something new with the material ever since. The last time Star Trek really tried to do something new was with The Next Generation….Gene presented a more mature, responsible Star Trek, full of wonder. Next Gen used to have episodes that would send chills up my spine with the level of home and imagination put into them. Since then, the creative teams have just been trying to ‘go back’ and rehash everything all over again. They really don’t know how to make Star Trek grow into its next stage of development. Perhaps people should stop trying to resurrect Kirk, and instead try to resurrect Gene.

49. acb - November 15, 2006

Good point New Horizon, the whole issue that happened with Trek after Gene Roddenberry passed on was that the stories moved away from the characters and more on the sci-gimmicks that can be used. Pre-circa 1991 the stories implemented notions and ideas of characters within the environment, where post 1991 the characters began to take the back burner and the concept of “what haven’t they been through before” came into play. Now, new and interesting subjects of plot are fine but when they begin to take more importance in the writing then to say “where are our characters now in their lives” then u lose the whole essence of Trek.

50. RL - November 15, 2006

The fact of the matter is Shatner and Nimoy bring a ton of media attention to the project. They also bring a certain amount of credibility to the project. As well as help at the box office.

Their mere appearance elevates this film to the level of an event film. It also give the franchise a chance to introduce a new/young crew to carry on their legacy.

It makes sense on all levels.

It’s a no lose scenerio for the Star Trek franchise.

51. Paul P - November 15, 2006

I agree.

There is no point to Star Trek w/out Kirk and Spock.

Although, I thought Leonard Nimoy had retired?

52. Anthony Pascale - November 15, 2006

24. John N:

And Anthony… why was that post removed? Too close to the truth?

what? I haven\’t been at a computer all day…if something was removed it was removed by the auto spam killer. Bear in mind if you use certain words like brand names of certain boner pills, or if put lots of links in your post, the site assumes you are some kind of asshole and kills the post. Site comment systems are subject to the same kind of spamming that email gets…and like those we employ spam filters. Many spammers use standard formats for their spams and your post may have just matched one of those.

I dont think I have ever deleted a non spam post except for a couple of folks who went over the top on personal attacks and hate speak, but if I have to delete something I usually ban the person for making me have to actually do that. But that has only happened 3 times since this site has been up

53. jonboc - November 15, 2006

Yep, Shatner and Nimoy signing onto this project would give this film all kinds of buzz both within fandom and within the industry. That kind of free attention alone will probably persuade Paramount to pony up the cash for their involvement. And like it or not, JJ really wants these guys involved and if he can make it happen, they WILL be in this movie as Kirk and Spock. And I doubt very seriously that he will give a moments thought or feel, in any way, obligated to explain it. You don’t have to like it, but you better get used to it.

54. Norm - November 15, 2006

What now they are going to have a ghost Kirk? Just bring him out of the Nexus with quick reference about Spock getting him out x amount of years ago.

55. JON - November 15, 2006

they could do like an Obi Wan Kenobi thing for dead Kirk.Have little twinkle sparkley things around Shatner

56. Norm - November 15, 2006

I agree with Robert, put them in unforms near after TNG or pre TNG but near enough so the uniforms are almost like TNG.

57. mikeg - November 15, 2006

I agree about the “Reunification” Pt II let-down. This was a common experience with most of TNG’s 2-parters…

58. New Horizon - November 15, 2006

-I agree.

There is no point to Star Trek w/out Kirk and Spock.-

Good lord. If this is truly the attitude of the Trek Fanbase, then Trek is doomed. Come on people, let go of the past and push forward. Isn’t that what Trek is about? Trek doesn’t need Kirk or doesn’t need Picard or needs an open mind, a spirit of adventure…hope, and solid characters to carry it all forward. People are so caught up in clutching the past…and nostalgia…jeez…it’s impossible for Trek to even be bloody Trek these days. All it is now is a caricature of what it once was.

59. John N - November 15, 2006

I have no problem with people saying that Trek just isn’t Trek without Kirk and Spock.

What I DO have a problem with is people saying that Trek isn’t Trek without Shatner and Nimoy… which is what this conversation is really about.

I think we’re all in agreement that the new film will feature the CHARACTERS of Kirk and Spock, so please stop using that as your defense. Stick to the point… it’s Shatner and Nimoy that you’re rooting for.

And if you feel that it’s the undoing of Kirk’s death that you’re fighting for, then let’s just reboot the series. Shatner’s not going to be around much longer… it’s not like we’ll EVER have a proper sequel to Star Trek Vi with DeForest Kelly and James Doohan gone.

So what are you fighting for really?

60. John N - November 15, 2006

#52 – Anthoney…

Not sure if you already took a look, but follow the link on post 21 to see the mysteriously disappearing post from the “Shatner Says Abrams Wants Him and Nimoy in Trek XI” article.

61. Anthony Pascale - November 15, 2006

sorry……the \’s. lansing\’ person is a spoofer. He comes on pretending to be Sherry Lansing and then comes back on under different names and says \’oh how interesting\’ I have tried to ban him.

any post from a \’S. Lansing\’ is bullshit it is some nerd in Virginia…not Sherry Lansing of Paramount. And if anyone believes one of the heads of Paramount would use this site to \’leak\’ fanboyish fanwankery under her own name….well that is really sad

 Not that I mind fanboy fanwankery, but don\’t try and pretend you work for Paramount, and especially that you are some high up mucky muck….by the way, that doesnt mean there arent visits from people inside Paramount and CBS…there are. But \’S. Lansing\’ is not one of them

He is one of of the three I have banned…not sure why it showed up but my filter spotted it and asked me if I wanted to delete it and I did

and thats that

62. John N - November 15, 2006

Cool… thanks for the explanation… another fascinating look at behind the scenes action… ;)

63. Josh - November 16, 2006

#9 John N-

Hmmmmmm, when you consider the warp core breaches that were Generations thru Nemesis, and Voyager, Enterprise, and the majority of Deep Space Nine and TNG, a deux ex machina dream like sequence retroactively undoing the damage of the past 15 years of Trek actually seems to me to feel alot like mercy and salvation.
I certainly wouldn’t vomit any more profusely over Kirk having dreamnt his demise than I would the flotsam adventures of the Bermanprise I endured these lo many years.

I have read many posts of you shooting down the notion of reviving Kirk and Spock in the series. That’s fine.
What do you propose exactly as an alternative?
Let’s bring the cards to the table.

Is it Star Trek : Halo – the starfleet military wastes two hours blowing things up?

Is it Star Trek: Section 31- Lt. Mully Sculder seeks out internal threats to the Federation?

Is it Star Trek: The 25th century – new crew, new ship, new uniforms, new record for cancellation?

Is it Star Trek : The next voyage of Captain Charles Xavier? Continuing the pain induced labor like trauma of the starship mediocrity?

Is it Star Trek : Deep Sleep by Nine? Trek V promised seatbelts installed in the chairs. This film would promise pillows.

Is it Star Trek: Voyager- The wrath of quantum subspace anomolies?
The highlight includes Janeway shouting SEEEEESSSKA!

I mean really. To all the naysayers out there downing on Kirk and Spock, where is YOUR idea to jump start Star Trek?

I haven’t seen one proposal that would earn the cost of catering back.
It’s easy to down and attack something when you dont have any alternatives or solutions.

Im thrilled Kirk and Spock are back, if the producers want Star Trek to DIE HORRIBLY, by all means, make another Next Gen movie, or DS9 movie, or Voyager, or …I can barely bring myself to say it, Enterprise movie.
Please, kill the franchise permanently. ANy one of the above would MORE than do the job.

64. Josh - November 16, 2006


And for those that say ” Suppose this TOS era movie fails…”

That’s naturally a distinct possibility, but consider this-
The presupposition is that the WORST TOS era film did better than the alleged swan song TNG film that featured all the icing and fireworks.
Oh and $$$$.

I’m not going to get into B.O. comparisions and analysis I will only say adjusted for inflation TOS films sold almost twice the tickets TNG films did.
Way back when Wrath of Khan came out, if memory serves my uncle and I caught the matinee opening day for 3 bucks. Both of us.

Back then for a film to approach 100 million domestically, that was a damn big deal! And many many tickets were sold.

My point is, Abrams and company can do alot WORSE than a TOS film.

65. JON - November 16, 2006

First they came out of retirement.NOW their coming back from the dead.That tells you where Trek is going.Just do the reboot

66. JON - November 16, 2006

First they came out of retirement.NOW their coming back from the dead.That tells you where Trek is going.Just do the reboot

67. Josh - November 16, 2006

So you objected to Spock’s resurrection which was arguably the most poignant and powerful dramatic thread in the entire Star Trek film saga?

I could argue that ANYONE having ANY even remotely negative comment about Captain James Tiberius Kirk and a potential appearance in a new film tells you where Trek FANDOM is going.

That’s tantamount to me to people getting fussy about Superman making an appearance in a Superman film.

68. Doug - November 16, 2006

Right on, Mr. Gillis, (post no. 39)

I posted a very similar comment on a previous thread, regarding leaving the resurrection to the imagination, but at least acknowledging it.

quoting John N…
“It astounds me how many people on this site think that some unexplained, unrationalized, uncreative, throw away re-introduction of Kirk is a good idea.”

John N, you continue to “astound” me, along with other fans who are so wrapped up in the mechanics of Trek that you can’t let this go. This is NOT a movie about how Kirk came back to life. It’s NOT supposed to be a movie about how Kirk came back to life. They’re not going to DO a movie about how Kirk came back to life.

This has nothing to do with bad or uncreative storytelling, they are giving us an opportunity to relive these characters and this era with new stories. Shatner & Nimoy owned those roles, so granted they are big shoes to fill. In the end it might be good, it might suck. I liked MI3, let’s give Abrams a chance to tell his story, and stop writing the story of Kirk’s resurrection for him.


69. John N - November 16, 2006

Josh and Doug:

It’s a long thread, so I’ll forgive you for not reading all of my posts in an effort to get an accurate understanding of my position.


I APPLAUD the idea of a TOS movie. I’m VERY excited about it, and would not prefer a movie with any of the other casts.

I TOO am thrilled that Kirk and Spock are back. I’m NOT thrilled about bringing Kirk back with little to no explanation of an intelligent / emotionally satisfying effort to do so (i.e. no dream sequences, etc.)

But Josh, I would think that your declaration for the love of Star Trek III in post #67 (which I also stated in posted #35) would only make you agree with my posts on this thread.

Can you imagine that if INSTEAD of “The Search for Spock”, we had gone straight to another adventure of the crew… and my goodness! Spock is alive? But… but… how!?

Oh, don’t worry… during some witty banter, McCoy will throw out a line like “God… I liked him better before he died!”

Now you tell me… as a fan of TOS… which was the better choice to serve the art of story telling?


If we can all step back from fandom for a moment, you will realize that I’m not “wrapped up in the machanics of Trek”, but rather in the mechanics of quality story telling and film making.

Not once will you hear me say “the space-time fluctuations of the inverse neutrino gradient of the Nexus would NEVER allow for that!”

I cannot state this any more clearly than this: for those who want Shatner back, propose a proper story that will make sense to an intelligent audience. See my point above to Josh comparing what fans are proposing for Kirk as opposed to how the story was better served by how they approached the resurrection of Spock.

I invite any and all to challenge these points based on the merits of story-telling and the art of film making. Please… no more Shat is the best, or bring back Kirk… if you say those things to me, then you obviously haven’t taken the time to read any of my posts.

70. John N - November 16, 2006

And one last thing…. I AM NOT proposing or advocating the creation of a “Resurrect Kirk” movie.

I’m merely stating that if the fans want to see Shatner as Kirk, in a post “Generations” settings, then do it properly.

I would be perfectly fine with a Shatner/Kirk appearance pre-Generations, or simply leave the new Kirk up to a new actor.

71. John N - November 16, 2006

Josh – one correction to the above so as not to confuse my point… whenever I’m talking about “bringing Kirk back”, if I don’t explicitly say it, I’m referring to Shatner as Kirk, in a post “Generations” settings.

72. Doug - November 16, 2006

Well, ok John,

I’ll grant I haven’t read all the threads, but to your point in post 71… They are not bringing back Shatner Kirk for more movies… they are only bringing him back as a nice way of launching the new actors and tieing the actors together into one thread.

I would love to see a well thought out and plausible story on how Kirk is brought back to life. I suppose we disagree on this being the appropriate vehicle for it… and frankly I’m not sure there is a vehicle for it. I think Shatner and Nimoy, as great as they are in those roles, have gotten too old (personal opinion) to really tell that story in the way it deserves to be told.

I would be completely satisfied if we, at this point, acknowledge it as being an “event” that did occur at some point after Generations.
I not only think it’s the right way to handle the story telling mechanics (really that’s what I meant by mechanics in my earlier post), but I also think that is the intention of the producers.

Best to ya, -d

73. John N - November 16, 2006

Hi Doug…

Fair enough, and I think that we at least understand one another’s views, and even find some common ground on most points.

To be completely honest with you, I agree with your point that there may not be a vehicle to bring Shatner back as post-Generations Kirk, and if that’s the case, I will always look at “The Undiscovered Country” as the greater swan song for Kirk than given to him in Generations.

Really, the only part that I think we part ways is that you would be okay with the “wink and a smile” approach, whereas I take the “if you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all” approach… and we’re both equally entitled to our opinions.

To the general audience: See? People in this forum can disagree and still get along… :)

74. Halperin - November 16, 2006

If they had just left well enough alone with ST 6 nobody would be demanding to bring Kirk back from death.

His death in Generations was the worst death of any major fictional character in the history of film.

The character deserves a better ending.

75. Lao3D - November 16, 2006

Re: post 61 Removed the photolink to that spoof post. I don’t think anyone here ever thought it was a Paramount “leak”. I had just been baffled after replying to a post which then disappeared. Didn’t mean to make a mountain out of a mole-brain.

76. John N - November 16, 2006

Actually… I’m curious to ask…

What DO people think is a fitting end to Kirk, regardless of whether you would ever see it on screen or not?

– Dying in hand to hand combat?
– Sacrificing himself for his ship and crew?
– Retiring, growing old peacefully, and dying of old age?

I think it’s an interesting question… what do we expect from our heroes in terms of mortality? It’s been said here often… Kirk deserves a better death or ending… so what would satisfy you?

Maybe I’ll raise this again in a future thread if this one is dying out…

77. Flake - November 16, 2006

Kirk should die on the bridge of his ship sacrificing himself for his crew and/or his mission.

78. scott - November 16, 2006

Kirk disappears, at the end of a mission that saves countless jillions, and its left to the audience to decide what happened to him: did he die? did he survive? did he move into some higher dimension? A larger-than-life character derves a larger-than-life exit. No body recovered, no hand-to-hand combat knife in the back, no phaser blast in the back, and no falling-off-a-rusty-fucking-bridge. We know he’s not coming back, but we’re free to decide what happened to him in our own minds, in the way we choose as most fitting. Everybody wins that way, except writers like Moore and Braga, who think they’re making a “statement” about the mortality of heroes by having the franchise’s greatest hero die a fairly common and ignominious death.

79. JON - November 16, 2006

You know,most people die non-eventful ,anti-climactic deaths in a bed hopefully with a loved one at hand.So in that respect,Kirk’s death was ,well,a death.everyone has to die sometime.Besides in Trek 5 they forshadowed his death because Kirk said after falling off the mountain,that he knew he would be safe because Spock & McCoy were there.Doesn’t it make sense that he died as a heroe without them present in Generations?Theres pre-death material for Kirk(but not Shatner ) to play.

80. scott - November 16, 2006

Most people DO die non-eventful, anti-climactic deaths. I, however, do not want to pay 10 dollars to see a childhood hero bite it by falling off a rusty bridge. That’s boring. Real life is boring. Movies do not have to be, nor should they be. Its not entertaining.

81. Doug - November 16, 2006

how bout he mergers with vger and some bald chick giving birth to a new life form!!! -d

82. Josh - November 16, 2006

Kirk’s fate should have been left forever unknown- open to speculation, imagination, and above all else, hope.

That is the hallmark of a fictional character that stands the test of time.

We didn’t see Frodo Baggins’ ultimate fate.
We didn’t see Luke Skywalkers’ ultimate fate.

Nor should we have seen Kirks.

83. Spock's brain - November 16, 2006


Good idea! Maybe a little cheesy, but I like it.

All of a sudden he disappears…sort of like the effect when Bilbo Baggins puts on the ring.

84. Dave - November 16, 2006

Well so far, considering the only source of information that says, JJA wants Shatner and Nimoy in Trek XI is Shatner who has a spotty record in terms of what he says to the press being accurate, until JJA says in an interview that he wants them it is really a moot point.

Show a lik to an interview with JJA that actually says he wants Shatner and Nimoy in the film and then you have something to really talk about.

85. StephenMartin - November 16, 2006

Spock decides to bring back his friend and captain. So he locates the Nexus, goes there and voila…rescues Kirk before the bridge collapses. This scene doesn’t even have to be in the new movie. Kirk and Spock could just be talking about it.

86. TomBot2006 - November 16, 2006

Well, this certaintly is a devisive issue! At least far as the resurrection of the Shat’s Kirk… Can’t we forgo the what if’s of if they made a ST:TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, or whatnot scenario? I mean we are getting a Kirk/Spock centric movie, whether or not the Shat is on board or not. ;) As for the possibility of an enigmatic reture of senior Kirk, that would work for me, but I don’t think it would have worked for Spock in ST:3, though, I do agree three was somewhat clunky. Kirk’s Generations Death, no matter the impetus, always seemed like a slap in the face to me. I respect that some people actually prefer ST:TNG to TOS, especially those that came into Trek via that show… your first impression is usually strongest. The hardest thing to pin right now, is what impression, Star Trek XI will make on all of us, despite our affinities. Will it break new ground? Will it adhere too closely to TOS? That’s the disadvantage of this being a movie, it will have to set a tone that is sustainable or it will be a one off wonder, almost like TMP could have become and luckily didn’t. I don’t know about everyone here, but when I went to see TMP, despite seeing posters, I had no idea what to expect, and truly, it was big shocker. All of it, the differnt uniforms, sets, Klingons, and of course, the refitted Enterprise. I’m almost wondering if I should try and forgo spoilers, and try to see it with unspoiled eyes… I doubt I could contain myself. ;)

87. JON - November 16, 2006

They’ll need a newly re-imagined enterprise.Not a tuned-up TV version the movies had.I’m thinking along the lines of the LOST IN SPACE reboot.Just do the same thing to Trek.

88. Bring Shat Back - November 16, 2006

The world needs the Shat as Kirk one more time.

89. Kevin - November 16, 2006

It’s not either/or; there’s room for Shatner and Nimoy without having them star in the next few movies, or this movie. Why not? Kirk and Spock are the heart and soul of the show; whether they make a new one with Captain Brent North and his science officer Mr. Sovak, it’ll be like Kirk and Spock anyway. Star Trek basically means exploration and whatever superficial trappings are changed, it’ll always be that. Just get a good story and people will see it. The odyssey is about exploration and it’s still a good story after 3000 years. As for redesigning the ship, that’s possible, but very hard; for one thing, the E used up some of the best shapes. I doubt in today’s Hollywood they’d wait for a design team to do that; why do it anyhow when you have such a beloved design.

90. MichaelT - November 16, 2006

Dave in #84…
EXACTLY!! We don’t have a one solid lead that Shatner and Nimoy are in this for sure and even if hired, they could be anything from actors to advisors. I like Shatner, but he likes his money and he’s the biggest piece of Canadian bacon (ham) there is. He’s an attention whore. If he’s in the film, I pray it’s not more than a small part intro-ing the new Kirk.
Don’t follow my post with another chorus of “Bring Back Shatner” or there’s no way Trek can go on without Shatner and Nimoy….puleeessee. It can. Trek dam near started without Shatner…twice. Don’t get me wrong, Shat and Nimoy almost…. almost own the parts. And I enjoy them both… but it’s time folks… let them pass the torch with dignity (on ours AND their parts) and let’s truly see the legends of the TOS crew move on to new adventures.
I agree, Kirk’s death was a poor choice and a stumbling block for all the wannbe writer’s in this thread. We have more plot devices buried in the messages above mine than I can count. And I don’t discount any of them, they are your opinions. I won’t launch into my own without knowing IF Shat’s in the flick and to what degree.
In my opinion and others I have read here and on other threads, this film is almost 100% likely to be a Kirk/Spock TOS story. Not any of the other franchises because since TOS was first and did it well (for the most part, despite giant space amoebas), and it’s the most recognizable to fans and non-fans. Both are needed to make this film a financial success.
I disagree with the all the smack talk about TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Especially TNG and DS9. Those shows wereTREK in a different form, not just in a different uniform. All had their moments. I won’t go into great detail, but poor writing was not the only problem ENT had… the final season was fun and that’s why I watch any Trek show…to ENJOYit. In my local market ENT was buried late at night and made it difficult to watch and the time varied. I suspect this could have happened in several markets. Also, the audience changed… and more channels have been added. It’s called fragmentation of the viewing market and TV viewing as a whole has suffered.
These posts are getting far too caught up on trivial things at times..
P.S…. this is my opinion. Thanks

91. MichaelT - November 16, 2006

And who “pony-upped” at Paramount to allow the awful Direct TV Star Trek spoof. That’s not paying homage to an well -respected franchise if the other spots preceeding it and follwing it were Austin Powers and Dukes of Hazzard.
She has great legs… but what the studio allowed gagged me.

92. MichaelT - November 16, 2006

oh Josh… I Do agree with you on #82

93. Josh - November 17, 2006

I was referring to his death in Generations Michael,

If Abrams rectifies that gross error and brings Shatmandu back, the film should end with us never knowing what becomes of Kirk, the same with Spock.

I don’t need to see my fictional heroes die thank you, escapism is escape from reality, not reminders of it.
If I wanted to see death I’d just turn on the damn television.

It’s very telling and revealing when Braga and Moore in retrospect say “well, it was a mistake killing Kirk.”
Gosh, do ya think??
The morons alienated half their fanbase. That’s really productive!

I still maintain it was a Berman inspired decision to bury TOS so the impetus and focus would shift exclusively to TNG.
Berman maintains it was actually bringing Kirk back for one last bout of heroism.
What is the point in that? Kirk had closure in The Undiscovered Country.
Either Berman wasn’t confident TNG crew could carry a film by themselves (which we have seen is quite true), or he wanted to forever get away from the shadow of TOS so he metaphorically buries TOS by burying Kirk, the greasy corporate bastard. Don’t get me started on Berman.

I’m a child of the 80’s. Although it isn’t entirely related, there is another VERY telling analogy to having killed Kirk.
I was a big fan of Transformers when I was young, and I recall when the film came out and they killed the main character Optimus Prime, the backlash was SO loud they had to bring him back. And they did.

Same scenario here.

You simply dont KILL your heroes. It’s tired and uninspired.
They learned their lesson with Spock, and evidently they learned it with Kirk.

94. Cervantes - November 17, 2006

Agreed #36 Daren Doc

For some more of, ahem, “classic” Trek…check out the excellent ANIMATED Star Trek series just recently available on DVD with very good extras. See for full details.

This was great in my youth, and had equally memorable original “voice acting” and music.

95. Cervantes - November 17, 2006

Ah, NOW I know how come ol’ HITCH ended up in the “Nexus Ribbon” Anthony…

96. Cervantes - November 17, 2006

Back on message…after the shock, horror, of supposedly killing the Spock character in the second Trek movie…and then setting up the resurrection for the third…I was one of the people REALLY disappointed with the Generations movie storyline killing off another POP ICON character. Hell, they have even killed the ENTERPRISE in these movies.

I agree with the views that it is lazy, unimaginative, and certainly unsatisfactory writing to think that “killing off” much-loved popular characters is in anyway a good method to add gravitas to a movie such as these…I wanted the FUN and ESCAPISM of the CONTINUING voyages of the crew of the good Starship Enterprise…not the deaths of iconic fantasy heroes, and a bad feeling in my stomach when I came out of the movie theatre!

If Bill and Leonard are somehow worked into this reboot, great, but give us the iconic characters, whether with new actors or not, and all will be well.

97. RL - November 17, 2006

In response to post #96:

This isn’t going to be a reboot.

98. RL - November 17, 2006


In response to post 84. Nimoy is also on record as saying JJ wants them to be involved in the film.

99. MichaelT - November 17, 2006

RL…. what’s your source? As I stated in #90… this is all guesswork, noone, especially here… knows who’s doing what.

100. MichaelT - November 17, 2006

#93 Josh… I DID understand what death you referred to.

101. Dave - November 17, 2006

Re #98 – That’s good the Nimoy has said it too, but again no one has actually said in what capacity. Until JJS says it , its just rumor. Nimoy hasn’t said he’ll be playing old Spcok. Shanter has said he is in, that JJA is blowing gas, and then said he had a meeting but then he said he hasn’t had a meeting. At this point, the only statement that counts is the one JJA makes. Until he speaks the only thing you can be concluded is that Shatner and Nimoy will have some role within the making of the film. Are they starring or consulting? Who knows. Until JJA speaks all this talk means essentially nothing.

Shatner and Nimoy will work the press to their advantage. They want to be associated with Trek in any possible way. They will spin this production to their advantage until someone makes a real decision and then announces it to the world.

No comment from JJA means that he is not ready to make a statement or that its not worth addressing because its not happening. As for Shatners comments about seeing a script where this happens or that happens… well, I don’t think JJA is going to show Shatner a script that is still in rewrites. Rewrites are not finished products. The story can change drastically from a treatment to final draft.

So again, until JJA makes that statement that you all want to hear, this is a big non-event that people are debating and arguning over. Fans get impatient and cannot wait before the rumor mill kicks in and takes a lot of the enjoyment away from actually getting the news first hand.

Half of the folks reading this are probably pretty sure they have seen an official statement from Paramount or JJA that says that Shatner is in and Nimoy is in. Go back and read every post in this site for the past six months or so. No such statement exists or Anothony would have posted it since he is very well connected in terms of getting the news when it is released.

Casting on a film doesn’t begin until the script is finished. Its on record on this site that the script is NOT finished. They may be considering people to approach but nothing is official as of this time. Anthony would have posted it. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

102. acb - November 17, 2006

re: 101 ………go back and read every post from the past 6 months…………ok, hang on a second be right back………………

103. acb - November 17, 2006

…………..phhhheeeewwwwwwwwwwww, boy that took some stamina. Yeah, Dave is right……………….unless i missed one, hang on a second……………….

104. MichaelT - November 17, 2006

Aw shucks, Dave…ya spoiled all my fun. LOL

You are correct, as I mentioned above. I don’t mind people expressing a theory… but we have fellow posters that are dead sure they’re right. No offence, people…. but Dave called it correctly. No contracts have been made public so we have to assume no agreements are made. Shat loves to blow smoke up people’s azz… So wait and see….

105. Litenbug - November 17, 2006

…”to Boldly go…”
This movie needs to be bold and keep Shatner off the screen. Pay him to advise and promote, but don’t put him in front of the camera. I like Shat, but this looks to be a fresh start movie. I’d even let him direct. But “chasing ’round the cosmos is a game for the young”

Bill, JJ, Paramount… pass the torch. Trek deserves it.

106. Litenbug - November 17, 2006

Pardon my misquote, I should have said…
“Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young…”

107. William - November 17, 2006

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.

108. Reggie W - November 17, 2006

There are a million ways in which Kirk can be brought back. It seems to me the nexus was created with this in mind. Just in case at some point in the future(now) the franchise needed Kirk to return.

I don’t see Kirk’s return as a problem. After all, this is Star Trek (where nearly every major character has died + come back at one point or another) we are talking about.

I hope they do bring Shatner and Nimoy back one last time. It would be a lot of fun. And in the end isn’t that what Star Trek is all about?

109. Cervantes - November 18, 2006

Hi there RL

In post #97 you said “This isn’t going to be a reboot.

Can you tell me what it IS going to be then please?…

110. litenbug - November 18, 2006

I am amazed by how many people don’t read the posts above them…

111. MichaelT - November 18, 2006


112. Allen Vandereccles - November 19, 2006

They should not make this or any other Star Trek movie or TV Series. If it can’t be done just as the real series of the 60s with the same creative people, then I don’t want to see it. The individuals who ‘create entertainment’ nowadays are a bunch of nincompoops.

113. RL - November 19, 2006


It is going to be the first adventure of Kirk as captain of the Enterprise. But, with new/younger actors. Combined with the return of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as the older versions of Kirk and Spock. Shatner + Nimoy’s exact participation has not been made public yet. My bet is it is post nexus. With Spock saving Kirk. Much the same way Kirk save Spock in ST 3 Although I have no information to back that up (it’s just my worthless opinion). Mr. Nimoy has indicated if he comes back it has to be in a meaty part. Not just a walk on cameo.

There is no reason to reboot the series if that is the idea they are going with.

All indications point to ST history being respected.

114. Mindy - November 19, 2006

Just heard on the radio that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy have signed on to appear as Kirk and Spock in Star Trek 11.

Now, take this for what it’s worth. This information comes from a local dj who claimed to have inside info.

This guy is the typical 25 year old rock dj/jerk. So if this info is wrong don’t kill the messenger. But, he is a well known local Trekkie that always talks about TOS. And his love for Captan Kirk. He claimed to have inside infomation from a friend who is associated (may be a writer for Enterprise, if memory serves) with the Star Trek franchise.

Could he be regurgitating the info that came out a couple of months ago that Nimoy and Shatner had signed a contract to be involved in ST 11?

But, I thought I’d pass it along.

115. MichaelT - November 19, 2006

Thanks Mindy,but it sounds like a regurg to me.
#113 RL….You are not attributing a source for this information yet.. I asked you in #99 where you got your information.
Is this your opinion or?

116. MichaelT - November 19, 2006

#112 Adam.
“They should not make this or any other Star Trek movie or TV Series. If it can’t be done just as the real series of the 60s with the same creative people, then I don’t want to see it. The individuals who ‘create entertainment’ nowadays are a bunch of nincompoops.”

I understand it’s your opinion… but it’s impossible.
I can’t understand making a comment like that on a site like this when you (or anyone else here) has no control over it.
They can’t use the same creative people because some of them have passed away or retired.
Secondly, it’s being wrtitten right now… despite your opinion.

I guess that means you won’t be in line for the movie. Sorry, bud.

117. Cervantes - November 20, 2006

Thanks for replying #113 RL

From my first ever post on the “Catspaw” Screenshots thread of October 28th and onwards, I have personally ALWAYS wished that this upcoming Movie be a combination of Bill and Leonard mixed with a fresh, younger cast of actors taking on their roles in some earlier adventure or other…

When using the word “Reboot”, I have only been using it in the sense that this upcoming film is unlikely to be a continuing sequel to the “Nemesis” Movie… the J.J. Abrams designed teaser poster and info. on this fab site have seemed to confirm that…I have NOT meant it in the sense that I regard it as a wholesale overhaul of characters, design ethic, story history etc. I meant “reboot” as in FRESH START for the franchise in Movie terms, to go back to the classic icon roots of the Trek universe.

As you say, you do not have any information yet to back up what you admit is just your opinion…and neither do I or most people on this site actually…LOL, but thanks to this site, like you, I like to think I am roughly in the right ballpark as to where this Movie may be going.

However, I can certainly see how the word can be misinterpreted, and shall henceforth only refer to this Movie as a “Restart” or a “Refresh”.

118. RL - November 20, 2006


I hate to say it but I don’t remember. If I get a chance I will try and dig it up. But, I am 99% sure I read it online. IT IS NOT OPINION.

I apologise in advance if my information was not correct. But, I am almost positive it was.

119. MichaelT - November 20, 2006

No need to shout, bud…. and pardon my doubt… but “experts” are a dime a dozen on this site. No offense intended.

120. acb - November 21, 2006

thats right michaelT, u and I and about 9 others are the only experts here. its sad. oh and RL, I also read that paramount is having them write 2-3 versions of possible story conceptions for Star Trek XI. Of course i read that on line too so who knows how true. I guess i will go with the old saying “Trust half of what u see, and none of what u hear”

121. MichaelT - November 21, 2006

Grandma was from Missouri… I’ll believe it when I see it.

122. MichaelT - November 22, 2006

I know the thread’s dying… but just a thought…
DirectTV didn’t have to “resurect” Kirk to film that stupid commercial…LOL is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.