Doctor Who

Shatner Talks More About Being In Star Trek XI

Although JJ Abrams and Paramount aren’t confirming that Star Trek XI takes place before the Original Series and features a young James Kirk, William Shatner has no problem talking about it. In a brief interview with SciFi Wire, William Shatner repeated previous comments that he and producer JJ Abrams have met and that Abrams wants him in Star Trek XI. The Shat also told SciFi Wire "Yes, we know the story is based on young Kirk." The original Captain Kirk still seems fixated on how this will all work, but in this case he implies that he expects to be interacting with the young Kirk:

They need to figure out how to put the dead captain in with the young captain…It’s a very complex, technical problem of how to write the character in, and I’m not sure how they will solve it.

The article does mention the Academy storyline again, but it isn’t clear if Shatner said that or if the author added that (we are trying to find that out). TrekMovie.com has reported that the film may include elements at the Academy, but the bulk of the film will take place later in Kirk’s life between the Academy and becoming Captain of the Enterprise. In the above quotes Shatner only states that there will be a young Kirk, and also notes that he will be a ‘young captain‘. This seems to imply more of Kirk’s time on the Enterprise than at Starfleet Academy. See SciFi Wire for original article.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Kevin
January 11, 2007 12:37 am

I haven’t seen anything that really implies that this will involve the Enterprise at all. I’ll just wait until some official anouncements are made on plot.

I’m just hoping if they decide to use Shatner and Nimoy that they write them together w/ this new cast in a way that is plausible (that is… within the realm of Star Trek) and not lame.

I’m hoping for continuity maintained… for the most part

I’m hoping they can maintain the feel of the TOS era w/o making it hoky and appealing to non Trekkers

I’m hoping they make a film were the casual movie goer doesn’t have to know much at all about Star Trek (that also means, what a Vulcan is, what the Federation is, how Starfleet works, ect. )

I hope they cast people that look and act like the original characters/actors. I’m not saying 100% … but come on, Matt Damon? I don’t see a likeness at all, not to mention how tall he is. They’d have cast someone 7 feet tall to play Spock.

I hope it’s well written, exciting and character driven.

I hope it appeals to trekkers and non trekkers alike

Damn that’s alot of hoping… okay, I’ve said my 2 cents.

Dustin
January 11, 2007 12:54 am

Surely the only thing that points towards the Enterprise being in it, is what has been picked up from interviews and the teaser poster (wasn’t that an Enterprise symbol?)

Also, if this film doesn’t feature the Enterprise, it will be the first film to not feature a U.S.S. Enterprise!

Josh T. (Truncate) Kirk Esquire'
January 11, 2007 1:06 am

Sp-ooock, You…don’t understand….I…am back.

Kevin
January 11, 2007 1:08 am

I’ve never heard one interview that says anything about the Enterprise. The symbol is for the Enterprise, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. It’s a teaser poster put out before the script was even finished.

ST:IV only featured the Enterprise in the last 5 min. of the movie.

I’m not saying that we won’t see the Enterprise in it. But I’ve seen no evidence that we will, or that it will largely involve the Enterprise.

It’s all speculation at this point. The only thing we know is young Kirk and Spock. There isn’t even any evidence that any of the other crew members will be involved.

Dave
January 11, 2007 1:33 am

If the bulk of the film takes place earlier in Kirk’s life between the Academy days and becoming Captain of the Enterprise then they must draw on the 3 wonderful books written by Jan Micheal Friedman. These books detailed Kirks life during this time and also his relationship with Gary Mitchell. Please don’t more away from this established canon! Moreover, there is no problem with Shatner playing Kirk, because Kirk isn’t dead!!!! Read the books post Generations. I consider these to be canon. Therefore Shatners inclusion is no problem.

Magic_Al
January 11, 2007 2:48 am

If they can find a way to put Shatner in this, how about Gary Lockwood too?

Trevok
January 11, 2007 4:21 am

It is only canon if it has been featured film or television eps and so in reallity the story is wide open. But I wouldn’t be suprised to see the film end with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise. Ofcoarse I wouldn’t count on anything.
LLAP

StillKirok
January 11, 2007 5:23 am

You’re right about that. Books aren’t canon. But at the same time, canon is what Paramount says it is. If Abrams wanted to make the Shatner post-Generations books canon, he could. Hell, he could simply have a reference to it in the movie. That’s not the way I would go, but it’s something that COULD be done.

Personally, I want to see something new but definitive. Either way, so far, it still sounds like this movie is going in the right direction.

The day Abrams announces Shatner and Nimoy officially are cast, is the day Trek fans can truly celebrate.

JON
January 11, 2007 5:52 am

Citizen Kirk

Sam Belil
January 11, 2007 6:20 am

#5 Dave — those were EXCELLENT books, and I could not agree with you MORE!!!!

Don Corleone
January 11, 2007 7:37 am

This is your life James T Kirk.

It seems almost certain Shatner will be playing Kirk in this film in one form or another.

It must be post nexus. 14 years will have passed between Generations and ST XI. Shatner’s physical appearance has changed (just like the rest of us) in that time.

Im my opinion. If Shatner + Nimoy were to appear it almost has to be post nexus.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 7:37 am
Why don’t they just have Kirk (Shatner) and Spock (Nimoy) having a discussion over dinner (OR SOMETHING), have them mention the launch of the Enterprise-B in casual conversation (to imply before Generations) and have them flashback to their “first mission”. Everything solved. Bringing back Kirk from the dead is just stupid, if that’s what they decide to do. Have Spock explain he’s leaving for Vulcan to begin talks of “reuniting” the Romulins…”It may take some time”. i.e. Next Generation foreshadowing. This is the only way I see it can be done and be plausable and make sense. There will need to be a little CGI touchups done for the horrible aging both are showing, but the Direct TV commercial proves it can be done. I think it’s been proven that, despite the big fanbase of Star Trek that I truely feel is out there, it hasn’t been shown with any of the movies since really Generations. If they scew this movie up and make it to where fans won’t see it, which let’s face it is all that WILL go see it, then they will declare “We were right, Star Trek really is dead” and that’s it…end of story, and it will be on them for making a sucky movie nobody wants to go see. Since they obviously aren’t going to do everyone’s first choice, which is, I feel to further the story without going BACKWARDS. (This was proven by lack of interest for ENTERPRISE), then I say just call… Read more »
Don Corleone
January 11, 2007 7:42 am

To much time has passed between that film and ST XI to set their parts in the pre Generations era.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 7:43 am

How about forgetting the money gonig into this controversial movie and go the way of a new series. i.e. ‘The Titan”. Hell, Sirtis and Frakes aren’t doing shit and you know they would jump at the chance (just look at the finale of Enterprsie.)

Or, what about the Enterprise-B story. Harriman isn’t doing anything right now (Spin City got cancelled and just look at the crapfest called of gods and men.).

What about the Excelsior. Takai would have an orgasm to do Star Trek again, just listen to him talk about it.

GO FORWARDS..NOT BACKWARDS…

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 7:44 am

“To much time has passed between that film and ST XI to set their parts in the pre Generations era.”

For what? Their age? CGI (Direct TV Commecial)..

but if you’re talking about as far as Star Trek Time.. for god’s sake, they’re going back to BEFORE, and using different characters, so that argument holds no baring whatsoever on the situation.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 7:48 am

RIKER=KIRK. That’s why Roddenberry didn’t put his character as the captain, because he’s too much like Kirk and they didn’t want to basically have an Original Series makeover.

If you people can’ t let Kirk go, and let’s face it I love the man to death, but I don’t want his legacy in Star Trek tarnished over stupid writing anymore than it already is (Generations). They should have called it quits with him after VI.

But if you can’t let him go, just pick up with Riker as captain… he’s the same character can’t you see that?

mikeg
January 11, 2007 7:59 am

I understand the Riker-Kirk connection, but I have to admit I always found Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk to show a lot more depth than Frakes’ portrayal of Riker. This is not a dig against Frakes, cos I do like him as Riker… But, in spite of the obvious similarities, Riker and Kirk are definitely not the same character, and the actors who portrayed them defined those characters more than anything else.

Also, I would wait until seeing either the script or the film of ST XI before assuming it will be more “stupid writing”. I think Abrams & Co. have already shown they are a bit above the usual crowd, and they are all TOS lovers… unlike the previous group who tended to look upon TOS like the black sheep of the family.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 8:08 am

I think the reason Kirk’s character may show more depth because of the focus on Kirk’s character. It’s all on the writers, and you can’t argue that Kirk has gotten more focus than Riker, for obvious reasons. (Captain, First officer.)

I don’t know if you can really compare the two as far as depth.

John N.
January 11, 2007 8:20 am

#5 and #10

While it is always open for debate, most Trek fans acknowledge that books are not canon.

On a personal note, I also enjoyed “Enterprise: The First Adventure” by Vonda N. McIntyre. Not canon, but enjoyable.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 8:27 am

#5 and #19

Not to mention the post Generations Shatner “THE RETURN” books are fun to read but would make horrible movies.

Kirk belongs in his own time, not in the Next Gen.

Jim J
January 11, 2007 8:49 am

I think it’s just time for us all to have an open mind and see what transpires. I think they can write it in a way that isn’t hokey. They’ll find a way to bring back Kirk (after Generations) and Spock and tie it all in to the Pre-TOS 5 year mission time of Kirk (and somewhat of Spock). I think they can still give us our Shatner/Nimoy fix in a believeable way, yet introduce new actors into familiar (and some new) characters-younger years. If the story is written well, I guarantee you MANY Trek fans will buy into it after grumbling a little (I was a grumbler about the new Bond, Superman & Batman, but I’m now sold on them). The story is what really matters and if written well and in a way that attracts “Joe-average” movie goer along with Trek fans, it CAN be a win-win situation. Sure, it could be a no-win scenario, but “I don’t believe in a no-win scenario!!!” It just MIGHT revitalize the franchise, and, isn’t that what we truly all want? I feel better about it’s chances without Berman lurking behind the scenes, that’s for sure.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 8:59 am

Hope so. The fate of the franchise rests on this movie. You know how Paramount already feels about Trek.

January 11, 2007 9:10 am

You know what, I’m not setting up any expectations as to storyline or elements of canon or that sort of thing.

Why is everyone trying to script this movie? IF Abrams read anything here, he can’t even use it anyway, you know that. And honestly, I don’t think you’re going to be seeing details as obscure as Gary Freaking Mitchell. No way. Abrams has said that this movie is going to be accessible to everyone.

Shatner’s books, I think, will be ignored as well as any “canon” lit that exists on the pre-5-year mission. These guys are scriptwriters and were hired (ostensibly) from the rep of storytelling with LOST and such. No way they are going to head to WaldenBooks to try to tell a story that’s been told in paperback.

Hey – Waldenbooks!!! That’s where I special ordered my TOS collection at the foothills fashion mall in fort collins back in the ayyyyyyties!!! Proof and DA TROOF once again that moderated abuse of alcohol and drugs vastly improves brain functions. Joe SixPack™ isn’t quite so much what I am saying here. You need a little more committment to the cause. More like Joe 8-12Pack™. Then you take a few days off. Lather, rinse, and repeat, por favor!

best!!

=h=

January 11, 2007 9:25 am

Shatner is likely to say anything that pops into his head. He’s talked to Abrams – what, once or twice? Since he’s not writing the movie and you can be pretty damned sure he’s not getting daily faxes of the script in progress, trying to figure out what the movie’s really like based on what he says when asked about it is like trying to figure out what living in Iraq is like from listening to George W. Bush. :lol:

dalek
January 11, 2007 9:28 am

Sign the Shat already.

SithMenace
January 11, 2007 9:30 am

B.Hathaway, I know alot of Trek fans want to go forward and not backwards, but there are also a huge number of Trek fans that DO want to go backwards, including Abrams himself.

Just because it’s a prequel doesn’t mean it’s going to be bad. Enterprise didn’t suck because it was a prequel, Enterprise sucked because it sucked. Period. No matter what time period it took place in, it would have been the same crappy show if the same people were involved. We don’t need to go forward, we need to get someone in there that understands Trek and it’s characters, who is not afraid to try something new. We need someone who can move the franchise forward, not the time period. The when and who is irrelevant, what matters is the story and characterization.

Finally a great new talent has come onboard to invigorate the franchise and I have to tell you, I can’t even remember the last time there was this much buzz over a Trek film, especially one that isn’t even going to come out for almost two more years.

Theo
January 11, 2007 9:35 am

Is there any Trek-related message board that isn’t stunk up by Dennis Bailey’s arrogance?

January 11, 2007 9:52 am

Well, I guess the next possible star trek series after Trek XI will be “Star Trek: Phase II – reloaded”…

Canonista
January 11, 2007 10:11 am

From Anthony’s description of what Shatner actually said, Shatner seems to be indicating that “old Kirk” could actually MEET “young Kirk”.

Recently, we’ve heard –in the comments section here — a lot of speculation about Shatner’s and Nimoy’s roles simply as a “flashback” device.

I admit to be intrigued at the prospect of a time travel meeting between young Kirk and old Kirk – even if it isn’t a major part of the movie -as long as it is done artfully and with relative respect for Canon.

I admit that this could make for an exceedingly complicated plot.

Mark T.
January 11, 2007 10:13 am
I think Paramount is also looking to go backward because of the successful “reverse engineering” of another franchise: Bond. “Casino Royale” was, in my opinion, a fantastic way to reboot a drained series. They had similar fan concerns over the story and the new actor playing the super spy. In the end, they went their own way and gave us a fantastic and very different James Bond from anything we’d seen before. I know they are completely different series with different requirements. (The main argument being many actors played Bond over 40 years while only one man was Kirk) However, I think the lesson is still valid. They can go back to the beginning with iconic characters, re-cast the roles, and still create a great adventure. They just need the right team. Now, why I am excited about J.J. being involved has to do with M.I.3. Shortly before the movie came out, I read an article in the paper about the director and the production process. I believe that he remarked that in the two previous M.I. films they had only used the main Lalo Schifrin theme music. Yet, there was another, equally important, theme which was always featured in the TV show, called “The Plot”. It’s the music that always accompanied the team members as they skulked around setting up their “sting” operations. For some reason it was never brought over to the films. This was something which bugged me as well. Abrahms made a point of working it… Read more »
Lao3D
January 11, 2007 10:13 am

Since it now appears almost a given that Shatner/Nimoy are in this thing, I hope at least they allow them to appear as their true ages. They HAVEN’T aged horribly, they’re men in their 70s for heaven’s sake. They only look horrible when trying to pass for 50 or something. And please don’t mention that DirectTV spot — I get queasy every time it’s on. It looks some weird Kirk-Troll or something. If they’re going to be in it, just let them appear gracefully as they are, not some corsetted, CGI’d freak show.

January 11, 2007 10:19 am

@Canonista
And the old Kirk tells the young Kirk that he will die alone. That’s the reason why Kirk knows that in ST5. The old Kirk has to be part of the multidimensional nexus and maybe there will be revealed that Kirk’s incident on the Enterprise-B was absolutely forced by himself to get in the nexus… the nexus is a classical time travel paradox – you can go wherever you want.

SithMenace
January 11, 2007 10:21 am

30. Mark T., I agree completely. Abrams did a great job of capturing the look and feel of the original MI. He was even able to take the Tom Cruise one man show aspect out of it (as much as he could) and turn it back into a team effort, with everyone doing their part. If this doesn’t show his respect for original source material, I don’t know what does. Cool story about the music too, I also noticed this in MI:3.

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 10:22 am

Honestly, forgetting all of other posts… is a Titan epic , Excelsior, or Enterprise-B story not on anybody’s list of wanted things?

Do you think they would bomb ala Enterprise?

Mark T.
January 11, 2007 10:32 am

A thought continuation from my last post..

Flashing back to the “Friday’s Child” thread for a moment, given J.J.’s respect for unused, but classic, theme music, there is a possibility we might get to hear some familiar Trek themes other than Alexander Courage’s title music.

I think Michael Giacchino could do some nice things with Gerald Fried’s fanfare pieces.

Just another two cents..

Canonista
January 11, 2007 10:36 am

# 23 “Hitch”

I read “The Return” and some of the subsequent Shatner novels long ago. I never really cared for Kirk’s resurrection by the Borg. It always seemed to me that the Borg would have better things to do than resurrect a Captain from the 23rd century for use in the 24th century.

January 11, 2007 10:44 am

I’ve never seen LOST, or any of the mission impossibles. I have no clue what Kurt Russell over there is bringing to the table in terms of that stuff. But what I DO know is that he seems to have a respect for TOS that was sorely lacking during the reign of the twin AntiChrists and their revisionist history Next Generationism – which, don’t get me wrong was fine for the time – but still. TNG, DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise what I saw of it were all good in the shadow of TOS, but taking the movie franchise back in this direction is what is needed.

And I disagree with anyone who says that the entire franchise’s future rests on this movie – they’ve said that with every Trek movie that ever happened. The truth is the regime at Paramount changes so often that anything is possible depending on who is in control at the time. SO on the heels of the failure of Nemesis, someone had the light bulb go off that this was a way to bring the franchise back. And a good decision it was. Lettuce hope that this shall come to fruition. It appears at this point that it still has a grate chance.

This is now 2 posts without any references to anything in the anything. Aren’t you guys proud of me? I am trying!

best!!

=h=

January 11, 2007 10:51 am

Canonista®, you are very macinDApants™ in addressing this. I too, thought Borg implants to resurrect Kirk as a Zombie like Shat™ was very creepy and never could get my head around the whole necroShat® when I read the first of the books, so I stopped.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Shatner, but those stories need to be disregarded altogether. One good thing I will say about Berman and Braga is that the Borg concept was brilliant. Too bad that Shat tried to jump on that bandwagon to bring his character back. Again, proving that Shat should have stuck to acting rather than storytelling Trek. I’ve always maintained that and always will. His music is top rate though. HAS BEEN is just dead-on priceline kinda stuff.

Does anyone know what the take from the folks as bringbackkirk.com is regarding the shatner novels? I’ll go with whatever they say. They have the campaign and I defer to and respect their authority on that.

=h=

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 11:05 am

37: what do you mean the franchise doesn’t rest on this movie? Have you not been paying attention the past two years? Trek was pronounced dead after Enterprise and had to have legions of fans convince Paramount to give us ONE MORE chance.. ala Trek XI.

People may have “said” that after every movie, but, with the exception of the 60’s, (which doesn’t count because Trek wasn’t in the culture by then), THIS has NEVER happened.

True, if this fails we may get another ONE MORE SHOT, but we’re talking about Years and Years on down the line MAYBE. Last chance for us.

StillKirok
January 11, 2007 11:15 am
The Shatner books are merely ONE WAY to bring the character back. But I think there are plenty of ways a creative writer can get the job done. But the worst possible way would be to have it take place before Kirk went into the nexus in the first place. That would be such a wasted opportunity. Berman and Braga incidentally, are not the writers that created the Borg. They are the ones that took the big menacing Borg, and let Voyager kick the crap out of them on a weekly basis. The Borg were completely ruined by Voyager. I’m not saying the Borg should be involved in Trek XI by any stretch. But what I would have a tough time with is a pre-Enterprise B Shatner. Without a post-Generations Kirk, the audience now will KNOW just how Kirk dies. It kind of hurts past adventures knowing just how Kirk dies. And it would hurt the movie franchise too. But knowing Kirk has an open future would do a lot to restore the optimism of the franchise. Otherwise it’s, “no matter what you do, you lose.” That is NOT Star Trek. The Kirk/Spock friendship is the cornerstone of this franchise. This movie needs to be about that. Use the young Kirk and Spock to establish the origins, while using the older Spock to go to bat for Kirk’s life and return the favor so Kirk can cheat death one more time. It has the making of a great movie without… Read more »
B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 11:21 am

There needs to be an ending to this character. If we bring him back to life, then what? There’s no closure to this character then.

Star Trek VI was a great way to end the Original Series cast…but it was ruined with Generations.

Bringing him back to life would be rediculous if there was no closure, then fans would be pissed if you brought him back to life just to kill him again.. is this Friday the 13th?

Kobiashi Maru.

January 11, 2007 11:54 am
“Trek was pronounced dead after Enterprise and had to have legions of fans convince Paramount to give us ONE MORE chance.. ala Trek XI. ” No, no, and no no no. That is NOT why this movie is being made. Paramount does not and should not care about “the fans” and giving us one more chance. And that’s not wrong. Star Trek is a cash cow, um, it’s a FRANCHISE. It’s a freaking SIGNATURE franchise. It’s never going away as long as someone can sell it – and someone will buy it. That never goes away. The fans did not “convince” anyone to revive the franchise, what are you saying? A career minded opportunist within Paramount convinced management that this was a safe bet. Where does that involve “the fans” and second chances? Last I heard, even “the fans” ponying up production money could not get another season of Enterprise produced. This franchise will never go away, but the question is in which form can it continue. Obviously someone in the 70s made the decision that movies were the way to maximize that, and a good decision it was. The TV shows that followed were simply addendums, in one case to sell directly to syndication (TNG, DS9) and the other (Voyager) to kickstart a new network. Again, nothing about “the fans” being considered there. Just innovating ways of doing business. Which is ALL this is to Paramount. It’s what they do for a living, man. I think you’ve been shot… Read more »
SithMenace
January 11, 2007 12:03 pm

42. hitch1969©, exactly. Also, Abrams got Trek as part of his multi picture deal, otherwise XI would have been floating in development hell for years to come. It was an inevitable project, but Abrams fast tracked it.

January 11, 2007 12:04 pm

#27:”Is there any Trek-related message board that isn’t stunk up by Dennis Bailey’s arrogance?”

If there is I want it found and…taken care of.

January 11, 2007 12:06 pm

#34: “Honestly, forgetting all of other posts… is a Titan epic , Excelsior, or Enterprise-B story not on anybody’s list of wanted things?

Do you think they would bomb ala Enterprise?”

Yeah, pretty much at this point.

January 11, 2007 12:11 pm
“There needs to be an ending to this character. If we bring him back to life, then what? There’s no closure to this character then. ” huh? Who cares if there’s friggin closure? ALOT of us don’t like the way OR the reason that Kirk was killed in Generations. It was disrespectful. I don’t even understand why Shatner went along with it. Oh wait, yes I do it was the money, and the acting opportunity. I dont think he really cares about canon or understands the significance of what he did. So lettuce not fault him in that. Again, as he stated in Star Trek memories IT WAS JUST A JOB to pay child support. I’m down with that. The theme here that I am getting at in my last 2 posts is that you need to understand and appreciate the other perspectives on this. The studio that gives us Star Trek is concerned with the financial bottom line. They are smart enough to see that creatively, the movie must work in order to do that. Ergo, Kurt Russell the flavor of the month being brought in. NOT a bad decision, really. Then in looking at his perspective, he understands the fan base and the need to respect canon but still – this is HIS story creatively. His whole thing is going to be to tell that story in a way that adds to his resume. The actors just want to act and again, do not even consider or know… Read more »
Jim J
January 11, 2007 12:13 pm

Perhaps the closure will be that (in the end), Kirk is immortal and will be roaming the galaxy in a starship until time ends-lol. Just teasing! Honestly, I’d rather know he is alive and riding off into the sunset (fate unknown) than buried under a pile of rocks ala Generations (fate known and stupid)!!!

B.Hathaway
January 11, 2007 12:33 pm

“you trust the creative people at Paramount?” Are you kidding? wow….let’s just hope they don’t let you down.

Jim J
January 11, 2007 12:40 pm

At least it’s a new creative team! Do I trust? Nope! But, remember…it’s not Berman or Braga so at least it IS new blood. Frankly, I am rooting for this movie’s success. I still the think basic time period of TOS is still the most interesting. Just enough balance of “hope” along with those silly human emotions (right, Mr. Spock?)! Not overly preachy like the later series, though I liked them all except Voyager….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

January 11, 2007 1:11 pm
Look, Hath™Away… listen, you’re a good guy and you have every right to have a wishlist or things you would like to see for this movie. I just want to make sure that we don’t lose you from our Trek legion of fandom by talking down to earth under the yellow sun kinda stuff of the real happenings and goings on here. Its imperative that an appreciation of the perspectives is happening, and I present the studio perspective let me also say that I respect yours. Its alot like little kids and Christmas. My 10 year old kid was going on and on about wanting the Wii, the XBox, the ninetendo DS, all that. That was fine up until the point where that was what he EXPECTED. So as any good parent would do, I felt that teaching about the spirit of Christmas that he had appeared to have lost would be much better for him than catering to his childish wants. SO what did I get the kid for christmas? 1 freaking pair of dark blue DRESS SOCKS. That was it. All the other kids got their nintendos and Wiis and I spent quite a bit of money on the baby with his riding tractor and all that. You know what though.. my kid passed the test. He put on the smiley face and thanked me despite his disappointment and put on a pretty good show of appreciation. I’m sure that he and I will both forever remember Xmas… Read more »
wpDiscuz