Shatner: Including Old Cast In Trek XI Will Bring Audience ‘In Droves’ January 26, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast , trackback
While the brain trust behind Trek XI remain mum, William Shatner keeps on talking. This week The Shat talks to Time magazine, where he reveals a tiny bit more about his thoughts on Star Trek XI.
Time: Lost producer J.J. Abrams is working on a Star Trek movie for 2008 about a young Kirk and Spock, and there are rumors you will make an appearance.
Shatner: I did have a talk with J.J., and he outlined what he wanted to do. Getting a character who is supposed to be dead to talk to his younger self is a storytelling problem. But if you want to guarantee the audience will come in droves, one of the things you might do is include some members of the old cast.
Time: You are so indelibly linked to Captain Kirk, how do you pass on the torch to a younger actor?
Shatner: Well, you light a match … No, I really have nothing to offer. I can’t say to some young actor, "Play it this way," because he’s going to play it his way. But I will say, he’s got to be young and good-looking and rich. And charming.
Time: Some people say Star Trek is past its prime, and it’s time to move on. Would you agree?
Shatner: There was something about Star Trek that sustained it all those years. But with so many entities of Star Trek out there all at once, the audience began to leave it. Now there’s a huge experiment going on: Will the audience pick up their love affair? We don’t know. And as talented as J.J. is, this is the real test for him. He’s got to give a known quantity the Abrams twist and yet maintain the Star Trek game.
The meeting of the Kirks?
Of course with Shatner you can’t always read too much into things, but this is now the second time his comments implied that if he were to be in the film he would be playing older (or possibly ‘post-dead’) Kirk and be interacting with the younger Kirk This would mean that the role would be beyond a simple flashback ‘bookend’ and would inovle some means (possibly time travel…again?) to get the two Kirks together. Shatner has previously stated that if Abrams wanted him and Nimoy, then the roles would have to be more than just cameos. It is all speculative, but hopefully soon we will learn more about if Shatner (and Nimoy) are to be in the film and if so how they will be used.
See Time for their 10 questions for William Shatner
Comments»
I like the idea of the two kirks meeting it could be really interesting if its done well.
When Shatner says “But I will say, he’s got to be young and good-looking and rich. And charming.”
I know he is saying this tongue in cheek but why does he have to be rich?
Surley good looking and charming should do it just fine.?
YIKES! Dueling Kirks? Why? :(
In other news, latinoreview.com reports that Matt Damon TURNED DOWN a role in The Dark Knight (to play Harvey Dent). That tells me there *might* be something brewing with Damon and Trek XI. Anthony, what say you kind sir?
I have to wonder if they had to extend the doors in Shatner’s house. With a head as big as his he could hardly walk through normal doorways.
I wonder….is it even possible for the people who do either makeup or computer generated graphics (combined) a job well enough and convincing a job to bring back the major original characters? Of course
I imagine with enough $$ and everything else thrown in - that miracles
are still possible.
BUT….why bring back characters who we all know are too old for their respective jobs? Who wants to look at old people on the Enterprise? Now….IF they were written in to serve or act as consultants at Starfleet Command or some Space Station then maybe it may still make for a worthwhile story and effort but only if its done right….wouldn’t you agree?
Yeah….I know the people in computer graphics did a excellent job on Patrick Stewart in the beginning scenes of XMEN - 3 so who knows?
am I the only one that find this site exceptionally slow, on a consistent basis? I’m actually starting to find it to the point I don’t come as often.
anyone else?
i am curious to see what others ahve to say, but the site has outgrown its current host. I am already paying for the new better faster more upgradable host and just havent got around to moving the site over….maybe I will get inspired this weekend
I’ll wait for an ‘official” announcement. Shatner is again, doing what he does best, working the media to his advantage while no one in any position to make such statements remain quiet.
Shatner’s good at getting press, no doubt about that. But until JJA and or Paramount have something official to say it still means more of the same… nothing.
If they bring back Shatner at Kirk, they should go the full risk of getting him “back”, post Generations. None of this “make him pre-Gen, make him the great-grandfather, make him a holodeck character”…. they have to go to the lengths of fixing Trek’s greatest mistake. It would be the greatest gifts to the fans…. if done right.
Well, they could bring Kirk back in the time, from the 23rd century, by having the events that transpired in “Generations” to have all been a bad dream.
It would certainly be refreshing for the Trek Universe to parallel the real Universe in that respect, it being the best possible alternative to going back in time, in the real Universe, and, aborting the ill-conceived “Generations” in utero.
If they bring back the old cast for XI, they could call it, “Star Trek: Geriatrics.”
#6 Anthony,
Yesterday, sometime in the early evening, I ran into a message on your server saying you exceeded your CPU or some other thing. Look, I’m not a tech guy and I know there are a few of you scoffing at me right now, but the bottom line is your page couldn’t load because of you exceeded your hosting “doo-hickey-thingamagig” Does that help?
IF this speculation about a “time travelling” plot proves true…and yes, it is the second time Bill Shatner has flagged this up now… then I for one say *GROAN*, NOT ANOTHER TIME TRAVEL MOVIE! Sorry, but I would rather have had the less intrusive “bookends” of Bill and Leonard, originally speculated, as a plot device concerning some amazing storyline concerning something or other EXCEPT time travel…It better be VERY good…Be afraid…
Perhaps Kirk never died in Generations…. he could of revived and unburied himself, then went to live in the forrest on Veridian III for 14 years until he either was found, or managed to find a way of contacting Spock to rescue him (he thinking Spock is the most likely survivor from the original crew, and best friend, to contact first). That can account for the natural aging process in the time since. Kirk could be in quite a state when he’s rescued, having been in isolation for all that time, and Spock needs to somehow ‘go back’ to the early days of his career to “re-educate” the older Kirk, and remind him of himelf again. Or something lol.
Basically I just wanna see a dramatic scene of Kirk’s double-fist punching through those rocks haha!
Bottom line is this–whether the two Kirks meet or not is unimportant. Shatner is 100 percent right that including the original actors will increase audience. Never underestimate the power of nostalgia. Plus, THAT is the only true way to pass the torch.
At this point, with all the comments Shatner has made, I would be extremely disappointed if he’s not in the movie.
No more cheap time travel BS. Please. I’d rather they just pretend Generations never happened. It works for me. But then I’m in denial about a lot of things.
Maybe something the Enterprise encounters plays mindgames with the crew, including confronting them with their older selves.
I doubt it’ll out and out time travel!
By the way, no probs with accessing the site here! First I’ve heard of it!
Oh, and NO MORE damned KLINGONS either in this Movie please…
Guys you have a interesting site here. All the information I ever got about the movie is from here. Keep up the good work.
Here is my idea about the movie and the plot.
As we all know, Sisko is in the celestial temple with the bajoran “gods”. Because he is such a good friend with them, they do him a favor, and contact “our gods”. Sisko somehow manages to perswade them to revive Kirk. So he is alive now in the 24th century, and they call Picard to chear him up, because he was really bumped because Kirk died helping him. They go to DS9 to celebrate the event, and of course Spock comes to see his old buddy. They normally get very drunk, and the first thing you do when you get drunk is to call some chick. After carefull consideration they message Admiral Janeway. Janeway excited of the gesture, boards her ship, and heads for DS9 with maximum warp. But she gets to excited and she pushes the warp core to the limit resulting with an overload, and the warp field will destabilize, some problems in the subspace will occur and a Time Anomaly will take place. A time hole will open and it will pull her in. But before she enters the Time Hole, she will manage to send a transmission to the gang in Quarks at DS9.
The other end of the Time Hole, is the 22 century. She immediately beams Archer on board (don’t ask why) and they study the anomaly.
In the 24th century upon receving the distress from Janeway the gang (still drunk) runs to their ships to help her. And they got too excited, and they too push the warp engines to the limit which results to an overload and the warp fields will destabilize, some problems in the subspace will occur and a Time Anomaly will take place. But this time it will be a lot bigger because it’s generated from three ships. The anomaly will be so big that they will pull Janeways ship (archer is still on it) and take them all to the 23rd century in the days when Kirk and Spock are at the academy.
From this point JJA will explain to you what will happen.
But I can tell what happens in the end. This movie will have a happy ending, everyone will be back in there respective time (still drunk offcourse).
The following and ending scene is as follows.
Sisko wakes up with a terrible hangover. His head is like a bajoran wormhole ready to open, in his stomach the Dominion war tooks place again, his hands are shaking like the Borg Queen has suddenly appeared in front of him. His throat is so messed up, as he was singing Klingon Opera all night.
He heads to the bathroom, and looks him self in the mirror. He can’t remember almost nothing from the previous night.
He looks again in the mirror and says:
Sisko: Captain Kirk??? Jonathan Archer??? Temporal Anomalies??? Time Holes???
(beat, while he washes his face)
Sisko: I have to stop drinking.
What about something where old Chekov talks to young Chekov…. ;-)
Now I know there will probably be some fans out there of any possible “time travel” or “Klingon” storyline for this upcoming Star Trek Movie, but I am personally absolutely NOT one of them for the following reasons:
I don’t think that a “time travelling” plot is GOOD ENOUGH for THIS hopefully franchise-rejuvenating Movie…it certainly doesn’t ENTHUSE me IF it turns out to be so…It is an OVERUSED idea in too many Movies these days I belive…SURELY the writers will give us something more original than this?
I know that “Klingons” are also a part of popular Trek culture that has entered the lexicon of mass media, but I think this is because they were an OVERUSED feature of various Trek series and Movies in the past…and again SURELY the writers will give us something more original than this?… Somewhere down the line again by all means, but AFTER and IF this Movie franchise restart hopefully gives us an entertaining WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE plot…Just my own humble wishes folks.
Lastly, while I’m here, IF as is seeming more and more likely now, that Bill and Leonard will be wanting to “mix” it up more with their “younger” characters, rather than brief “bookends” to any kind of storyline…then I also wonder how a NEW and currently young demographic will “appreciate” these fine people being contrasted with the eventual new cast. IF they are now to be “more heavily involved” in this Movie, there is more of a pressure to cast actors that “quite resemble” them surely, or another suspension of disbelief may just be one TOO many…I wonder.
Happily it seems that “reasonably big name” Matt Damon is now said to be quite open to the role of Kirk IF the script is good. Whether this pans out EITHER way, I just hope that WHOEVER eventually is lucky enough to be given that iconic role ( and Spock’s role ) will COMMIT to sequels for the benefit of CONTINUITY for the benefit of fans of this 1st Movie…
If this is indeed a time travel story, this would be the second time Kirk tried to save a whale, this time it’s himself! ZING!
But seriously, if this is Young and Old Kirk interacting in some substantial way, then the premise is screwy. I won’t say the movie is a disaster because of it, but I would be skeptical of its prospects given a plot that puts these two versions of Kirk in the same room. However, if its something more ethereal, like young kirk coming across the Nexus and seeing a shadow or an impression of his older self, seeing him alone and “married to his ship” then that sort of a moment would explain Kirk’s choices in life throughout TOS and movies- he’s fatalistic, he knows his ship is his life. He knows he’ll never settle down or give up his love of being “out there.”
But as it stands, it sounds like bringing in older Kirk, and by extension older Spock, is a gimmick. That would be unforunate if true.
I agree with Shatner.
If they bring back Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock the audience that left the series will return.
Just to clarify…When I say I’m hoping for a WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE plot, I don’t mean a rehash of the original series episode of that title! But I DO mean a plot that is ORIGINAL, INVENTIVE, EXCITING, AND UNKNOWN, and echos the promise of that original series “voiceover” at the start…
I agree with Shatner that including himself and Nimoy in the film would definitely boost its profile into a “can’t miss” movie for a lot of people. I also think that making the movie’s plot in any way about “rescuing Kirk from the Nexus” or “bringing Kirk back to life post-Generations” is a terrible mistake. The whole point of this film is to jump start the franchise fresh with new people with hopes of broadening the audience. I don’t think basing your plot around loose threads from a 13 year old movie nobody really liked in the first place is the way to do that. You don’t want people to have to refer back to events in 1994 in order to enjoy the film. Its counterproductive and I don’t think that’s the direction they’re going to go in. Abrams is smarter than that.
Having Shatner and Nimoy in the film will defintely generate some initial buzz, and may even translate into getting people into the theatre initially.
However, if all that the audience is greeted with is ANOTHER time-travel/ temporal nexus/ “bend the plot whichever which way we can so that the torch is passed” gimmick, then that same buzz may just as likely turn right around and kill the movie.
Do we all suffer from short-term memory? How many of you liked the “passing of the torch” concept in Generations? And for those of you who liked TNG (Josh, please refrain), how much of that depended on episodes like “The Naked Now”, or even having McCoy, Scotty, or Spock show up?
Why, why, WHY do we need another “passing of the torch”? All this talk of rejuvinating the franchise, and they are still afraid to take off the training wheels! Too unsure of their own talent to strike out on their own without holding onto the coat tails of what has come before.
Even those of you who hate BSG must have SOME degree of respect that they didn’t have the pilot episode with Richard Hatch’s Apollo coming through some sub-space rift into an alternate galxy to pass the torch on to Jamie Bamber’s Apollo.
Since I have absolutely no control over which way they go, I can only hope that this doesn’t translate into another sub-par movie.
This movie should be “Citizen Kirk” and from what Anthony has described, that seems to be the case– flashing forward and backwards in time (narratively speaking) to see the evolution of James Kirk into a Starfleet Captain. So, “Kirk Begins” to beg another movie’s title sounds great to me. But Kirk meeting himself and interacting… that’s a stretch,
Please not the rest of the cast just Nimoy & Shatner. I would add Kelley if he were alive.
Shatner: Including Old Cast In Trek XI Will Bring Audience ‘In Droves’
The way it did for STV?
I would love to see TOSers involved in this movie but it will succeed or fail on th strength of the new cast.
Why does JJ and the gang even have to deal with how Kirk survived Generations? They could simply leave it to our imaginations (or tell the story another day) and go on with the main plot of the film without having to deal with “loose threads from a 13-year old movie.” Just throw Kirk and Spock in there, post Generations, and let ‘er go…
The real Kirk was in the Nexus the Kirk who died it turns out was a copy. They just didn’t understand how the Nexus really worked until recently. They could give us a 5min brief to catch up the audience with whats going on.
Matt Damon might be great in a Trek film. He’s certainly a serious and talented actor. But, having him play a young Kirk is not a good idea.
Firstly, Shatner was in his mid-thirties when he played Kirk. How much younger could the captain of a galaxy class starship be? (and, Damon is already the age Shatner was when he played Kirk in TOS.) And, the whole look-alike, suspension-of-disbelief idea is just a big disappointment waiting to happen. I mean, hello…does everyone remember a little film called “Nemesis,” that broke all of our hearts just a few years ago?
The first thing that the audience would notice about Matt Damon would be that he doesn’t look enough like Shatner. And, the second thing that the audience would notice about Damon is that he doesn’t act like Shatner. And, to both their credit, who COULD act like Shatner, without seeming like an impresonator?
Damon’s a fine actor, but Shatner’s a one-of-a-kind, walking idiosyncrasy, and, asking Damon to play Shatner would not be doing Damon, nor the film, a favor. And, asking Damon to play Kirk totally differently from Shatner would be weird, if not suicidal.
Having a fine actor, like Damon, in the film is a fantastic idea. Trek films CAN actually be good, serious films, if the makers so wish. The only reason that they’re identified with campiness, is that the makers too often haven’t sufficiently respect their own work. And, of course, having Shatner as the star of a film, tips it precariously toward campiness, from which precipice the film must then work to not plummet (unless, it’s a deliberately funny film, as was ST IV). But, nevertheless, we can all point to Wrath of Khan as an exemplar of what a Trek film has the potential to be.
So, have Damon in the film - I think he’s great. But, give him a fresh role, for this fresh, new film. And, you might even consider giving Damon a bit of creative license with his character, as well as with the story. If he decides to get involved, he’ll be the only person in the history of Trek to have won an Acadamy Award for writing, and, he might even teach the new franchise HNIC a thing or two about how to write and produce an outstanding movie that makes tons of dough.
An afterthought…how about making Matt Damon the protagonist and Ben Affleck the villain? How great would THAT be?!! Affleck may be an inconsistent actor in leading roles, but, as a deeply flawed character, I think he’d be great!! Remember Affleck’s early, promising work, as the heavy/bad-guy in “Dazed and Confused” and, then, in “Dogma?” I’d love to see Ben Affleck as a sadistic, fundamentally twisted love-to-hate villain in a Trek film!!!
#26 Adam Cohen
Now “Citizen Kirk” I could handle! Good call about how this Movie could have a “younger/older Kirk” storyline flashing forwards and backwards in time only in a NARRATIVE sense, as opposed to some lame “time travelling” tale where they actually PHYSICALLY interact with each other.
THAT would satisfy egos AS WELL as allowing some kind of INTERESTING plot idea. I LIKE… A LOT.
#31 - Cygnus-X1
“who COULD act like Shatner, without seeming like an impresonator?”
I couldn’t agree more. Having Shatner in this film as “old Kirk” basically forces the actor playing “young Kirk” to play Shatner playing Kirk. Would Daniel Craig’s “Bond” fit into a flash-forward scene with Sean Connery playing an older “Bond”? Absolutely not… so there’s no room for interpretation… you essentially HAVE to have the new actor performing Shatner performing Kirk.
I’m sure some people on this thread will LOVE that, since it cuddles up so nice to cannon. So, having said that, ask yourselves this…would Joaquin Phoenix be as convincing as a young Johnny Cash, if the real Johnny Cash had a substantial role in the film as an older man? Maybe… maybe not. Now what if the two SHARED a scene, interacting with one another extensively? Joaquin would have to be a pretty darned perfect imitation of Cash to have the audience buy-in.
IMHO, with Shatner and Nimoy in this film, particularly interacting with younger actos playing the same parts, we’re setting ourselves up for a disappointment.
#31 - Cygnus-X1
By the way… I’m normally not a big fan of Affleck, but I just saw “Hollywoodland” the other night, and he was excellent as (the very flawed) George Reeves.
Shatner’s pitch to include the old cast sounds like an insurance policy for jitterey movie execs.
Anything with “The Shat” in it will pull in an audience. I can see Trek fans, Boston Legal fans, and more checking him out in this movie. Then, if you add a good story and decent young actors, you may pull in the younger crowd. In some ways, it seems they are gonna try to make this a movie for all ages and types. The question is, can they pull it off? I hope so. If it ends up being an “across the generations” movie like “Generations” was, we are in big trouble. Oops, I forgot, repeat after me…”It’s JJ, not Rick, it’s JJ, not Rick, it’s JJ, not…” I wonder if “Lost” fans may check into JJ’s work here, too? LOL
Okay… love Shatner & Nimoy in the movie (not as a cameo) -i also agree with cervantes… for goodness sakes let’s have some new life and new civilizationa and BOLDLY GO! –Also agree about the Klingons –The soviet union doesn’t exist anymore and that’s what they were a metaphore for… mention the klingon empire in passing and let it go. How about orion pirates as a metaphore for Al Quaida or some such?
Also agree about old & young interacting? Not to cross franchises but what about Doc Brown’s time paradox destroying the universe… “Be sure not to bump into your “other self!” I thought you couldn’t exist in the same place at the same time…
Also.. don’t make the mistake the Bewitched movie made…besides messing up the what the original show was that is.. Steve Carell did a great impersonation of Paul Lynde playing Uncle Arthur… and then they showed the real Paul Lynde on Will Ferrellls TV and ruined the illusion.
So I’m a little doubtful about them side by side
another thought - they could have several actors play kirk at different ages as the did for spock in ST III
Howabout shatner voicing over whoever plays him? or better yet Kevin Pollock??? - LOL
I think to some degree bringing back the old cast brings some baggage,it…invites comparison,destroys or hampers the illusion that the new cast are indeed the characters,muddles or limits the storyline with old threads that need to be addressed(such as Kirk’s death).Those are just a few that I can think of that will bind or distract from this movie .I’m all for a new vision.Trek’s funny,so many people are invested in either the characters or the actors.Seems like this movie will be a bit of a compromise.
#17 Q
Whoa, I don’t know what this guy’s been smoking, but I wouldn’t mind getting some! Why not throw in a poker game with a Gorn as dealer just to make it really interesting?
Bringing back the old cast = bringing back the fans.
DO IT
Bringing back the old cast = bringing back only the old fans
DON”T DO IT
Bringing back the old cast and a new cast=bringing back the old fans plus new ones
JUST DO IT!
(if the new cast is made up of the right stuff)
Bringing back only the old fans>Rick Berman driving away the old fans.
DO IT!!!
Bottom line is that the familiar characters appeal to the main stream. And the original actors are proven winners in those roles. Nostalgia brings in cash.
I agree with brining back Shatner and Nimoy - THAT IS IT!!!! And wile a huge fan of time travel stories, in this case, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Lets see the “early adventures” with Kirk, Spock, Pike and Mitchell. And PLEASE…..NO Matt Damon!!!!! If this movie is done right it has a chance to be the best film since STIIWOK!!!! Again — Abrams and crew must DO THIS RIGHT!!!!!!
Old Cast = Baggage
Baggage New Ideas
New Ideas = Exciting Movie
Exciting movie = Bringing in Old and New Fans
Therefore, when we balance out the equation:
Bringing in Old and New Fans Old Cast
It’s science…. ;)
Awww… should have known that HTML would mistake my “” (does not equal sign as HTML tags…
Bad BAD HTML! ;)
Awww… screw it… Anthony… just delete those posts… it doesn’t work if you have to imagine the mathematical operators… :(
Yanno, I’m in camp of ERASING the Generations debacle as much as anyone, but when you start pointing out the possiblity of Old Kirk meeting Young Kirk, it does start to seem a very tricky proposition. The only “out” I can think of, really, as if instead of de-aging Kirk & Spock, they actually age them more and smudge’em up a bit. ;-). Seriously, though, it is a great consideration. Frankly, if anything, if it was me, if the old Kirk and young Kirk had to meet, the lesson might be that young Kirk might have to make up his own damn mind and NOT listen to old Kirk’s advice… especially if it results in an openendness, a possiblity of change, which doesn’t therefore negate canon, but accepts wiggle room. By the end of the movie, we should be excited about joining the “new” crew on “new” adventures, and content that O.G. TOS Kirk & Spock have been retired respectfully and for good!
Who does Shatner expect to come out in DROVES, new viewers? Unlikely…it would be the core Trek crowd…the same folks who are likely going to go see this movie anyway. It makes absolutely no difference to me if Shatner is in it, I’ve stated before…I don’t want him in it. If they have to use stupid gimmicks, then I’ll wait for it to come out on DVD…I’m not wasting my money on another ‘time travel’ crap story. Do something original, do something fresh. If they’re going to be brave and start over, they should pull up their pants and bloody well do it. Enough of this ‘half way’ shite.
44- Ah, StillKirok. Still up to your old antics of assuming what’s true for you holds true for everybody, everywhere. You may be on the nostalgia bandwagon, but how could the younger audience members be? Many of them never watched anything with TOS crew in the first place! And why keep bringing up the old Berman references? Yeah, he drove the franchise into the ground. He’s also gone. Saying that your idea will be better than anything Berman would have come up with isn’t saying much.
I think if there’s something the new movie has to be wary of, it’s being overly reliant on that nostalgia factor. That only appeals to hardcore fans. I think #43 has it right, though, in that having Shatner and Nimoy appear (hopefully to a limited extent) could generate some extra publicity for the new movie, without necessarily destroying the chance to create a good story.
But really, this movie is going to live or die on the strength of the new actors, and how appealing they are.
Imagine if the Abrams twist was that the adventures of Kirk and Spock were in fact the real Mirror Universe, and what we thought were the Mirror Universe Kirk and Spock were in fact the real Kirk and Spock?
52- Oh, come on. Is that twist the kind of thing people who are casual fans or are new to Trek are going to be able to appreciate?
John N, you said…
“Would Daniel Craig’s “Bond” fit into a flash-forward scene with Sean Connery playing an older “Bond”?”
Casino Royale was a good spy film, but the character is unrecognizable for far more than Craig’s blonde hair. The character has become so diluted in the process of “updating” it over the past 40 years that it is as unrecognizable as New Coke was from Coca-Cola. BTW, how many Bond fans have you heard say Connery is the *only* or *best* Bond?
There are degrees of change. Treating Trek as nothing more than a marketing label (something to be constantly turned into whatever is most popular at any given time) would cheapen it to the point that any argument made about “creativity” or “artistic freedom” would become laughable. If the people are so creative and their creation so good, so popular, then why do they need to resurrect an old “BRAND” to sell their new ideas?
If this iteration of Trek is going to be the “start of a new chapter” **i.e. something ongoing beyond just this one film** then a degree of change that will be later respected is fine. But if every 2 subsequent films a complete recharacterization is going to take place (i.e. like the Bond franchise), then Trek will also become unrecognizable very shortly.
To both the “TOS Only” crowd and the rest of us alike, BTW. ;)
I don’t think that’s what Abrams has in mind, but it *may* be what Paramount has in mind. Thus, I’m in favor of an Abrams trilogy.
All Shatner said was bring in a FEW members of the original cast, not the entire surviving cast. And jeez, he’s joking with the “good-looking” and “rich” quotes! Some of the folks above take things way too seriously.
If you need a sign of how this would re-energize Trek’s public appeal, look how many comments emerge when Shatner talks Trex XI (like this thread). I have no doubt that a meeting of young and old Kirks will get them on magazine covers again. Heck, TIME put Kirk and Picard on the cover in ‘94, but the franchise guardians blew Trek’s greatest PR moment with a downer ending.
Simply put, I want them to fix Kirk’s death and pass the torch properly to a new cast, and I have faith in J.J. and his creative team.
BTW, my 11-year old daughter has become a classic Trek fan thanks to the Remastered episodes — so the potential for appealing to young and old is there.
#54 - Canonista
I’m not really sure that I’m getting the point that you’re trying to make.
My point about Craig and Connery was that you couldn’t possibly put those two actors in the same scene and accept that one was an older version of the other.
If you do that to the “young Kirk” actor, the only hope of the audience accepting it is if that actor plays Shatner playing Kirk. IMHO, this is quite the task for any actor to fill, and may potentially weaken his performance, and the resulting product of work.
Take for example when Richard Harris died and Michael Gambon replaced him as Professor Dumbledore of the Harry Potter movies. Those portrayals of the same character are very different, with Gambon coming across much darker than Harris. Gambon didn’t try to play Harris playing Dumbledore because no actor works that way… that’s the job of impersonators.
In fact, can you think of any actor who has successfully replaced someone for the same role by simply trying to impersonate the previous actor? I can only think of a few examples… and none of them included having the two actors interracting on the screen at the same time.
I’m not suggesting that Trek become a product or brand, etc. I’m suggesting that you don’t set the new actors up to fail before they even start.
#55 - Elrond
Why another passing of the torch? Wasn’t the disappointment of Generations enough?
Wouldn’t it have been a better ending to leave the original crew at the end of ST:VI and just let the TNG crew loose on an adventure to explore strange new worlds, and new civilizations?
Doesn’t anyone see the similarities between this new proposal and Generations?
“Hmmm… We need to get two captains to meet… but they’re separated by many years. We’ll need to come up with a plot device to get around that.”
They could just ignore Generations entirely. Only we care about canon, not the general public (which is why it won’t be anything to do with Bajoran gods, Guardians of Time or anything like that.)
58 - I think that might be the best approach. For us hardcore fans, they can always explain the discrepancies in a novel, or something like that.
Shatner said nothing new.
Geez, how long can you folks ponder the”Kirk/Nexus conundrum” Write them out and move on.
Trekweb, you simply don’t realize just how big TOS is. Not was. IS. More people know about the original series than all the other series’ combined–by far. Just because you think that no one under 30 has seen TOS doesn’t make it so.
There’s a reason 5 seconds after Berman was canned, the first thing they do is go back to the original series. The reason is that Rick Berman and his crew were the only morons who didn’t see the sheer STUPIDITY of killing Kirk and then wasting a decade not using the WILLING TOS actors.
Rick Berman’s vision of Trek bombed dramatically.
James T. Kirk and his crew BUILT this empire. People actually PAID to see Kirk and crew.
And like it or not, William Shatner is riding a bigger celebrity status now than ever before. He is a bigger name than every other spinoff actor combined, including Patrick Stewart, who couldn’t carry a Trek film.
You talk about making a good movie, and you seriously argue that ignoring Generations is valid? Star Trek fans are NOT stupid. Regular movie fans are NOT stupid. To actually bring Shatner in without addressing Generations would require the audience to be stupid.
Please name one example where a character, in any situation, was brought back from the dead with NO explanation.
And I laugh at the idea someone said that Shatner and Nimoy have “baggage.” Baggage? What kind of ridiculous comment is that? Baggage implies something negative. Their “baggage” is BUILDING a billion dollar franchise. They aren’t “baggage.” They are LEGENDS.
Legends bring in the money.
You want baggage, cast Matt Damon as younger Kirk.
You want money? Turn to Shatner and Nimoy.
“Please name one example where a character, in any situation, was brought back from the dead with NO explanation.”
Sherlock Holmes.
Really, StillKirok, most people don’t care that much about Kirk’s death in Generations, and are probably more than happy to gloss over whatever happened in that movie.
Lod you guys are behind the times, I was commenting and postulating on the Kirk meets Kirk notion weeks ago in other forums and no one saw fit to elaborate.
Trekweb forever - a killing riposte!
No. More. TIME TRAVEL!! >:(
Star Trek has traveled to the time travel well far, far too many times in the movies and various TV series. And I’m sorry, but I said my goodbyes to Shatner as Kirk 12 years ago. It’s time to move on.
64 - Thanks, Al. I was going to going to add Kenny and Mr. Bill to the list, but I decided to keep it short. :)
Did Holmes die in a movie? Was he brought back in a subsequent movie with no mention?
And if Kirk appears with no explanation, it would be beyond stupid. It WOULD be like Kenny or Mr. Bill.
Kirk, and Shatner AS Kirk IS still in demand. The only way to truly move forward is to fix the ending. I’m glad Abrams is seriously considering it.
Did a little quick research:
“In The Adventure of the Empty House, in The Return of Sherlock Holmes, we find that Holmes had survived the fight at Reichenbach Falls. He had rock-climbed up the cliff, and that is why he didn’t come back down the path from the falls. Once Watson had left, he climbed down, and went on to explore the Himalayas, letting Watson (and therefore, the rest of the world) think that he was dead. He did this to avoid his many enemies, one or the other of whom, he says, would eventually kill him. ”
http://www.jimloy.com/arts/holmes2.htm
bear in mind that Paramount probably want to seel twice as many tickets as they sold for Generations…and they have made it clear that it is not required for you to have see it or any other Trek
so the likelyhood that they will dwell on the events of it or any other film are essentially nil
Abrams should do his own vision of StarTrek.Putting the old cast in and playing off whats been done before is just building on Wise’s,Meyer’s,Nimoy’s,Shatner’s old regurgitated stories.What a missed opportunity to redefine an american legend and be the next visionary like Lucas or Speilberg instead of an “also ran”.
Still Kirok #61
You are exactly right.
TOS and Kirk are the icons that made Star Trek the legend it is today.
Legends do bring in the money. It’s obvious nobody cares about the recent versions of ST and want the real thing back.
Clearly, Paramont understands this. That is why they are going w/ a TOS film as well as bringing Shatner + Nimoy back.
I agree 100% with everything you said.
#71-Voodoo — I could not agree with you more. Even non-Star Trek fans or for that matter Star Trek haters KNOW DAMN WELL who Captain Kirk and crew are — they are a HUGE part of Popular Culture, especially here in the U.S. The same CANNOT be said for Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer. But I still say bring Shatner and Nimoy back in somewhat of a limited capacity to help introduce their younger versions. As I said before this movie does not need “star power” ala Matt Damon (I think he would be a complete disaster). The “Star Power” comes with Shatner and Nimoy and they will bring in the “dead presidents”.. And dare I say it — whoever plays young Kirk and Spock must bare a strong resemblence (or at least as close as possible). Paramount realizes the incredibly strong power of the TOS franchise why else would they be planning a TOS movie and NOT another NG, DS9 or STENT movie?
RE: Shatner and Nimoy
even if they are in it…they cannot be the stars. This film is about the new trek cast and Crew. Whoever is cast as Kirk…he will be Kirk…it is his movie…he is the star. Just like Daniel Craig is Bond and Sean Connery is this cool guy that *used to be* Bond.
And like it or not, Shatner and Nimoy are not ‘big enough’ stars to bring in the real masses. They will help, but a big star will guarantee it, especially in oversees markets.
and anyone who has doubts about Matt Damon should go see The Departed…possibly the best film of 06. He plays a character that starts out the film at an academy and goest through an arc in a very believable way. And anyone doubt his pulling power for an action film check out the numbers on the Bourne films. Trek would be lucky to have such an actor in the franchise.
Having Shatner and Nimoy in some small way will be cool, but problematic….but this is not their movie. If paramount want Trek to move on then they must build a brand around the *new* Kirk and the *new* Spock.
and all us Trekkies will need to either learn to deal with that or forget seeing future trek projects
68 - Dang it you have me there, StillKirok. I had forgotten that there had been any explanation for Holmes’s death at all because 1) the first book after Holmes’s fall was The Hound of the Baskervilles, which made no mention of his death and 2) the explanation given in the story you cited makes no sense whatsoever, and contradicts elements of the earlier death story.
But Holmes still is a good example of my larger point. People didn’t really care what the explanation for Holmes’s death was, and so the fact that the explanation was ridiculous was glossed over.
As to your post 67, I have no idea how whether or not Holmes died in a movie matters to this discussion. And all this “Shatner AS Kirk IS still in demand” is just fanboy ventilation on your part. Why should I believe you there? Because you wrote “IS” in all caps?
72 - Nobody’s saying Kirk and his gang from TOS aren’t cultural icons. But so are James Bond, Batman, Superman, and other franchises. They’ve all been successfully reinvented. There’s no reason Star Trek can’t be, either. Looks like Star Trek isn’t going to get the full reboot, but there’s no reason to think the general public won’t be willing to accept a lot of changes to the franchise hardcore fans would have a stroke over. And since this movie isn’t going to require people to have a deep knowledge of Kirk’s death in Generations, I don’t see the film spending too much time on bringing old Kirk back to life–otherwise it wouldn’t be the big problem Shatner mentioned it was to the film.
I’ve said it before but I will say it again–you hardcore fans are in for a huge disappointment if you aren’t willing to be a little more flexible about what’s in and what’s not in Star Trek XI.
#61 - Still Kirok
Laugh all you want… including Shatner as Kirk requires any intellignet writer to explain how he came back from the dead, and also to come up with yet another temporal plot device to get him interacting with his younger self. Furhtermore, having Shatner interact with young Kirk will make comparisons between them all the more stringent.
If you don’t call that “baggage” in terms of coming up with a fresh, inventive story, then I’m sorry.
OK, Young Kirk is missing from the academy on the eve of graduation. The only one who seems to notice this is a young Vulcan cadet.
YK wakes up in the Nexus where he encounters Old Kirk.
This rips a hole in the space-time continuum, which ejects Old Kirk into the academy, and Young Kirk into the office of Ambassador Spock.
Cadet Spock and Old Kirk then steal an old decommissioned ship, (Enterprise NX-01), and attempt to get Old Kirk back to his own time, and hopefully rescue his younger self. However, this old rattletrap of a ship does not have the power to break the time barrier, and they are quickly arrested by a soon to be retiring Commodore Malcolm Reed.
Meanwhile, Ambassador Spock recalls the situation, and knows what must be done.
He gathers Rear Admiral Uhura, Commander Chekov, Admiral McCoy (CGI), & Scotty (CGI).
Captain Sulu and the Excelsior give them a lift to Starbase 3387.
There, they steal a ship undergoing repairs, (NCC-1701-C Enterprise). The crew is on shore leave, but there is a small training unit on board.
The leader, Ensign Janeway, quickly agrees to help our heroes.
They make the jump to the past, switch Kirks with the help of Captain Pike, explain everything to Starfleet, and everything is forgiven. This is Classified Top Secret in the past, and life goes on.
When Old Kirk & Spock get back to their time, Starfleet already knows, so everything is still forgiven.
Old Kirk & Spock get drunk on Romulan ale, reminisce, and try to figure out how to get into Star Trek XII.
By the way Canonista, I have heard many people say that Connery is the *only* or *best* Bond? None of the others ever lived up to the Man.
Which is not to say that another actor can’t be great in an iconic role.
And Anthony is right…
If Shatner and Nimoy are such LEGENDS, and will bring people in droves, then how do you explain that only 22% of ST:VI box office came internationally?
Shouldn’t LEGENDS transcend borders?
#57. John N. — That’s a very good question, aand I see where you’e coming from. To be honest, I have always wished that the classic crew had ended their movie run on a high note with Star Trek VI. My reference to passing the torch is aimed more at J.J. bringing in a new cast to play the classic characters. I’d imagine that they will take the reins and go solo after this film. But why not use the two icons of Shatner and Nimoy while we still have them, since the mainstream public knows them so well? (as does the casual Trek fan who tired of all the different crews?)
This can also undo the negativity among Trekkers that Kirk’s death caused, and heal those wounds by fixing a low moment for the franchise. I agree with folks above that the filmmakers can gloss right over how they bring Kirk back — the general public won’t care. The bottom line is to establish the new cast, but use Shatner and Nimoy as a springboard — plus get some big publicity and take advantage of my generation’s fondness for the original Kirk and Spock.
Whatever they do, I’m keeping an open mind . . . Rick Berman isn’t running the movies anymore, so I have faith again.
#74-Trekweb Forever — as I have stated before the difference between Kirk and Spock versus Batman, Superman and Bond (I happen to be a HUGE BOND FAN) is that over 40+ years, especially with James Bond you got used to the fact that the character was played by six or seven different actors, each with their own (with the exeption of Roger Moore) with their own talents — if you read Ian Fleming’s novels — you know that Craig (especially Craig/Connery are Ian Fleming’s James Bond(s). No one else has played Kirk or Spock — again over 40+ years — that is why Abrams needs to be very careful in who he selects to play the younger versions — I still maintain tha Matt Damon would be disasterous. I honestly believe that if Gene Rodenberry were still around, he would want the younger versions of Kirk and Spock to look like (as much as possible) the young Shatner and Nimoy.
Some of you “trekkies” are so emotionally invested in canon it’s almost like it’s part of your identity.Maybe that’s why they say Star Trek has a “cult” following.Leave all those old storylines behind ,they just drag the whole franchise down.sometimes I think what hardcore trekkers/trekkies canonistas fear most is becoming irrelevant or obsolete when Trek is re-defined.It’s just a show,don’t sweat it.
#56, 57 and 73… bRAVO!
Sanity reigns!
And if you must have Shatner…. do you need to identify “when” he’s from?…put him in half shadows so his younger self doesn’t recognize him. (..additionally he can’t see how many pounds he gains in the future). That solves Generations. BooHOO.
But I am NOT in favor of the Kirks interacting for the good reasons stated above…it reduces the newer Kirk actor to Imitating-the-older-chubby-Kirk. And I did like someones comparison to the Kirks meeting to Generations. Why do it?
And while I am at it. I didn’t like the way Kirk died either but I tire of the laments and curses some of you have… “HOW DARE THEY KILL HIM THAT WAY!!!” Newsflash folks… William Shatner read the script before signing up for the movie. He KNEW how the charactor died and he’s as responsible for the horrible non-heroic death as anyone. HE didn’t have to take the deal, or could have worked out a better death scene… since he’s “the SHAT!
But you’ll all ignore this and continue to complain….. watch.
#76…. It’s been a long dam week and that brought me my first laugh of the week… very fun and inventive. But you forgot Sisko as the young redshirt security guard the old Spock neck-pinches to get onto the ship. Or Odo posing as a lamp in the Admirals office…..LOL
Good Job!
#81Orby…
AMEN!
79 - Younger audience members haven’t been watching Shatner play Kirk for 40+ years (they probably know him better from Boston Legal). It’s been proven that people will watch Star Trek that doesn’t have either Shatner or Kirk in it at all–TNG the series and at least one movie, First Contact–so why wouldn’t they go see a movie that has Kirk, but not Shatner?
Will it be a big challenge for any actor to succeed Shatner? Yes. But I think the audience will be willing to give the new guty a chance, and accept changes to the way the character is portrayed.
Fresh Start… new adventures. New cast.
Let Shatner do the preamble and then give him a (big) bag of popcorn. Do we have OFFICIAL Paramount announcment of their signing and acting parts?…Until then …. moot point.
Anthony… BTW thanks for the site.
I did notice a small glitch yesterday, last night???
Trek is past it’s prime. I am not happy about that but with 700+ TV episodes it wasn’t a bad life. It’s not dead as much as it’s not prime and I doubt a prime time for Trek is anytime soon. It’s not impossible, but even before this JJ film we need a break. Trek is too good to get too thin and poor. With that said we did have many an awful 3rd season TOS to deal with as well as the first season of TNG, a lot of so so DS9, even less than so so Voyage, although magnificent most of the time Enterprise and the last feature film was the best of the TNG cast and still we can’t get a good buzz going with TOS Trek Remastered. It’s time to sleep it off before we open another good bottle of Trek wine and get drunk with sci-fi glee.
#87…
Where have you been? I am excited for Trek…. I see a resurgence in interest and a new vigorous series of films (hopefully). In my opinion, this needs to be a fresh start (not a reboot) without the spectres of the past there to upstage and demand a high wage just because they can (unrightfully). I look forward to seeing a young TOS crew “go where no man has gone before.”
✮✮
I doubt Paramount will be saying anything on their casting choices in the near future. I would think casting would not be a priority until they are almost ready to shoot the film. At first it really did bother me with a sense of recasting James Kirk. My first thought was any actor brought in is just going to impersonate him. And I have seen some really bad impersonations. This whole idea of meeting oneself at some point I would agree sounds like a time travel trek episode. Personally I am way tired of those as well. I think I can handle a unknown better or somebody who I would least expect to play the role. I’m not really going to buy a Shatner cameo. The man seriously needs to get into shape, not for just the role but for his health. For his age its not easy.
For me at least James T. Kirk is basically an action hero. The guy with the flying kicks, swooning alien babes and a ripped shirt over almost every other episode of the classic series. That Kirk never existed in the films at all. The presence was just enough to carry the films. I would be happy to see that version of Kirk again. Doing some of those things in his fifties would look just silly in my opinion. Kirk the adventurer is still there but thats it.
In Generations the fight at the end just looked silly on screen. I was not angry about the death of Kirk but the way it was handled. I believe in his book “Movie Memories” he was having second thoughts about the death scene and He didnt want to do it. He approached Rick Berman about a follow up to the film. From what i undersatand the conversation lead to “Wel’ll do Lunch”. In other words Berman in his head dismissed the idea completly.
Nothing against Patrick Stewart as Picard but it looked utterly ridiculous as he ran around with a phaser rifle in the bulk of the TNG films. Shatner especially is not in action hero shape. He’s beyond that. He can bring that Kirk charisma to the screen but that’s all. I don’t think this film has to just satisfy Trek fans on different levels but entertain the rest of the audience as well. I hate to say it but the general public does matter and the critics do matter.
From what I can see from Abrams background more than likely this movie will be a physical action oriented picture. It might have those “Lost”style flashbacks thrown in just for show. And I can see that working here also.
Bottom line if the movie is entertaining and leaves me with a good feeling with my family I will see it again. Instead of overtones of what I have seen already I would more than likely see it again instead of waiting for the DVD rental.
Anthony - fwiw, I only have dial-up, and have never had trouble with the site.
As far as the overuse of time travel, perhaps Abrams will come up with something a little more clever - kind of like what they did in Frequency.
# 79 - I made the same point in another thread; not sure which one of us came up with it first, but in addition to the fact that only one actor (Shatner, Nimoy) has played the characters for 40+ years, all of the others mentioned (and some not) were characters that already existed in another media (comics, books, radio) before we saw them on screen (big or small.) With Kirk and Spock, these were original, unique characters that did not exist prior to their portrayl in movies and tv. There’s no valid comparison between Kirk and Spock and Bond, Batman, Superman, The Lone Ranger, The Shadow, et al, and no reason to think that there will come a day, as someone else suggested, when people will ask who was the best/favorite Kirk or who was the best/favorite Spock. It would be nice, but I just don’t see it.
Just checked BoxOfficeMojo…
Every TNG film had an international gross representing 35% or more of the total gross. By comparison, ST:VI (the only TOS movie with this kind of data) only had an international gross representing 22% of the total gross.
One could argue that the TNG crew would be better defined as LEGENDS, based on their appeal around the globe, rather than just North America. :)
#90.. but Mark…it has to happen. Even Shatner will die, although he may believe otherwise.
◈
91… oh John, the can of worms you reopened……LOL
#93 - Xai
I know, I know. :)
I just think that some people on this board should wake up and realize that perhaps they love Shatner just a little bit more than the average person, and that they are projecting that onto this conversation.
Calling him a “legend” is fine… he’s a legend in their minds. But the figures just don’t support their argument.
Younger audience members aren’t stupid. They know damn well Shatner has played Kirk and made the series what it is. Paramount and Star Trek have tried the non-Shatner route in the movies. It failed. Star Trek hasn’t been right since Generations. This movie can appease everyone if they fix that ridiculous death. They can have it all. Young Kirk, old Kirk, broader appeal. Shatner and Nimoy.
A legend in their minds? HA! These two men were the main reasons Star Trek built a BILLION DOLLAR FRANCHISE. They’ve accomplished more in Star Trek in 79 episodes than Rick Berman did in 500.
#78 - Elrond
And I see where you’re coming from, and I can respect that.
The major difference between us is that you see bringing back Kirk as somthing that can be glossed over without interfering with the new film. Given that point of view, bringing back Shatner and Nimoy doesn’t pose a problem.
However, I feel that glossing over any return of Kirk would be lazy writing and an insult to an intelligent audience. Kind of like the scene in Austin Powers 2, when they try to explain how the theory of time travel will work in the film:
Basil: I suggest you don’t worry about those things and just enjoy yourself.
[to the audience]
Basil: That goes for you all, too.
Except of course, this was a comedy, and I hope that Trek is not.
Given that I think an intelligent script would require significant exposition to explain the appearance of Shatner, I think that his inclusion would be a mistake for the following reasons:
1. requires significant PLAUSIBLE exposition to explain how he came back from the dead (i.e. no dream sequences, no quick gloss over and a wink at the camera)
2. requires them to come up with yet another temporal plot device (i.e. time travel, nexus, etc.) to get him interacting with his younger self
3. would require the actor playing young Kirk to impersonate Shatner, as the two of them will be so closely compared as they share either the same screen, or worse yet, the same scene.
#95 - Still Kirok
Yelling your opinion doesn’t make it so. Back it up with some facts.
“Paramount and Star Trek have tried the non-Shatner route in the movies. It failed.”
FALSE: First Contact and Insurrection both grossed over $100M, and both had broader appeal around the globe based on their international box office (see #91).
“Star Trek hasn’t been right since Generations.”
So… you can’t directly link this back to the absence of Shatner. Many would argue that instead it was the presence of Berman.
“This movie can appease everyone if they fix that ridiculous death.”
Based on the comments on this thread alone your argument is an exagerrated one at best. There is by no means a consensus here that fixing Kirks death is the key to making the new movie a success.
“These two men were the main reasons Star Trek built a BILLION DOLLAR FRANCHISE.”
Gee… doesn’t someone named Gene Roddenberry get any credit anymore? Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Wayne Gretzky built the Edmonton Oilers, but they don’t keep him playing the game into his 40s. There comes a time when it’s ok to move on.
Still… you are entitled to you own opinions. But not your own facts.
i dont know why everyone is getting so excited over this crap. look at the obvious - JJ is obviously paying shatner and nimoy money to create a hype nd possible story scenario. eventually i think we will end up with sometihg completely different then what we are being made to belive (atleast that is what i am hoping). because i love will shatner but trying to somehow fit him into a story line is just such crap. he is dead and star trek will become once again too much like sci- fantasy if they pull another one of these “back from the dead” scenarios
Someone needs to do what Ewan McGregor IMHO so successfully did. He played Obi-Wan that blends very well with what Alec McGuiness did without trying to imitate him exactly. It is of course different as even in ROTS, he was supposed to be around 20 years younger, (18…?) but still….
StillKirok, you’re just making the same argument over and over again. Making unsupported claims, and then there’s all the Berman bashing again. Just because Berman was “wrong” doesn’t make you right. It’s like you’re stuck in the past, and can’t move on.
And we should still keep in mind the possibility J.J. has Shatner and Nimoy appear in the film but not as old Kirk and Spock. That way you’d still get the publicity of their appearances in the movie, but not all the story problems.
There is something to be said for ignoring the abysmal “Generations,” and moving on. With the TOS series, as well as with the TOS films, embarrassing failures were redeamed by subsequent triumphs.
Cringe-inducing TOS episodes, such as “The Way to Eden” (Se.3, Ep.20), are now (at least, by me) appreciated for their campiness and comic fodder, and, thought of endearingly, as parents do their slower-witted children, due to the subsequent triumphs of the TOS films and the TNG episodes.
Likewise with the embarrassment of ST V and the triumph of its follow-up, ST VI, as well as TNG episodes.
“Generations” is a sore spot, now, because it marks what has become the decline of the franchise, and was only followed up by one reasonably good film, ST:FC, before the franchise went down for the count with two disappointing films and (one or two) disappointing series.
The hardest part of “Generations” is that it comprised seemingly irreversible events, namely, the end of Kirk. And, such an abysmal end does not befit such a triumphant character. However, if the franchise were to fantastically revive, with totally different characters, the shame of “Generations” might seem, in retrospect, to have been a necessary failure which paved the way for the subsequent success of the new characters/films/series.
So, I guess my point is that, either ammending the shame of “Generations” (rather like the way that Tasha’s death was deftly ammended in TNG), or letting it recede into campiness and comic fodder, could work out, if the new film is good enough.
And, in all of this back and forth, about what to do storywise, and which actors to employ, at the end of the day, if the new film is good enough, all of the decisions entailed in its making will be seen to have been good and necessary. And, isn’t it that way with life, in general?
Admittedly, however, I’d love to see them give “Generations” the Tasha redeeming resolution.
101, 102 - Good points, but let’s look at how they restored Tasha’s character. They DIDN’T flash back to Tasha’s death with the oil slick monster, and they didn’t come up with a convoluted explanation to bring her back to life like “why, it turns out the oil slick monster zapped Tasha using a proteolytic reverse quantum cascade beam…meaning (gasp!) Tasha isn’t really dead, but in a state of temporal hibernation! A focused neutrino pulse from the chronotonic relay array will bring her back!” The Tasha we knew from the first season stayed dead.
But I suppose J.J. could use an “alternate universe” Kirk, one in which Kirk didn’t die falling off a bridge, without damaging the real storyline of Trek XI much.
Shatner will play Kirk’s grandad. Official
All this speculation…. geez… truth is we rreally don’t know. We all only know what each of us want to see.
Some thoughts tho. -Patrick Stewart was at his best in First Contact, when he seemingly lost control of his usual cool-temperedness. His frail side exposed is what made him an interesting character in that movie as well as the TNG episode when he visited his brother in France after the Locutu incident
Shatner & Stweart were great counterpoints on screen together… they should’ve kept him alive. They wanted the hype of Kirk’s death for the TNG’s first movie to pass the torch and jmp start them, plus they’d been avoiding the subject on TNG tv for years. It backfired on them.
TNG movies didn’t have good writing or storytelling except for FC. That’s why the movies failed. They were 2 hour tv shows. Not epic movies
Be fair…Shatner is 75. How many of your grandparents or parents look that good despite his weight. I agree he needs to get in better shape for his health, but cut him some slack… no 75 year old will have the physique they did when they were 50 no matter how hard they try to achieve it.
Legends: Since when does financial success define a legend? Box office gross has nothing to do with it. It’s the body of work an actor does. Is Jerry Lewis no longer a legend cuz he hasn’t done a successful film in decades?
Roddenberry gets credit for the concept of Star Trek, but keep in mind he frequently protested how military-like star trek was becomming and he himself wanted to do a time travel story about the crew of the enterprise stopping JFK’s assassination.
I’m all for resolving Kirk’’s death IF it makes sense to the story and isn’t the same old “got a life saving plot device in my pocket” –let’s use it trick.
Perhaps they’ll pull a Back to the future 2 or Trials and Tribble-lations and have old Kirk/Spock in the background helping young kirk/spock in secret….they come face to face for 2 seconds and it doesn’t dawn on them til afterward..or they shake their heads with a “nah, it couldn’t be.”
We don’t know what JJ has up his sleeve so let’s keep it positive till we find out.
Thanks Mark #90-That is precisely the point that I have been trying to make. Addtionally younger audiences are far more knowledgeable that one might give them credit for — they know exactly, including my 13 year old son and his friends which character made William Shatner an icon, NOT Barbary Coast, NOT TJ Hooker and NOT Boston Legal. While the new Battlestar Galactica is hugely successful — the original one came NO WHERE close to being what STOS, in terms of brand equity, longevity, fan affinity and needeless to say cult status. At times the original Battlestar Galactica was at times campy ala the Batman series from the 60s. STOS, especially season 1 (which was its BEST in terms of pure sci-fi drama) cannot and should not even be compared to Battlestar Galactica, that would be like comparing a $400,000 Maybach to a $22,000 Mini Cooper.
And while I love time travel — I strongly believe that could be a mistake. Personally speaking (just like with Casino Royale in terms of the story telling), I want a trully original story that will completely capture my imganitation for the 2 hours that I will be at that movie theatre.
JJ wants Shatner to play Kirk not his grandfather,uncle or anything else.
Here’s the bottom line, very few people want an alternate universe, a clone, a mirror double, a robot, or any other version of Kirk that isn’t the “real” deal. That’s something Rick Berman would do. That’s actually what he WANTED to do when he tried to get Shatner on Enterprise.
It would have been a waste.
And what would be the point of some alternate Kirk interacting with young Kirk? Or even flashing back?
It’s weak.
This movie should be about the most important thing Star Trek ever produced–the Kirk and Spock friendship.
Kirk risked his life, lost a son, lost his ship, and risked his career–everything that Kirk cherished–for the sake of his friend Spock.
Now is the time to return the favor.
The claims I make aren’t “unsupported.” They are supported by a 40 year iconic franchise that would NEVER have become what it became without William Shatner.
The facts are simple–post Kirk Trek FAILED miserably.
Star Trek NEVER recovered after Generations.
They are looking to restart the franchise that Berman ruined.
The only storyline that hasn’t been told is the return of James T. Kirk.
They want money, and this is what they need to do.
Anything less, will not work.
Just look at the passion this subject causes every time it is brought up.
This is what Paramont is looking for. They are bringing Shatner + Nimoy back as Kirk and Spock because they understand they will get people talking about ST again. They will make Star Trek XI an event film. Not just another spinoff of the real thing.
Another spinoff would be just another copy of a copy that nobody outside the hardcore fans would care about.
The general public (that views ST as Kirk/Spock and Shatner + Nimoy) wants the real thing back. Not another bland take on the original. Few people outside the die hard fans know anything about Ds9,Enterprise,or Voyager. And they don’t care to know.
Plus, this is the best of both worlds. It gives people who want to see Shatner + Nimoy (and hopefully give Kirk a better ending) as Kirk + Spock. Plus, it introduces younger actors who can move the series forward.
106 - Your 13 year old son may know Shatner played Kirk, but he probably isn’t wedded to the notion of Kirk only being played by Shatner the way you are. If he is, it’s because he’s the son of a huge Trekkie. :)
Think about it. Until recently, TOS hasn’t even been in syndication since the late Eighties. Younger people haven’t absorbed TOS like us older folks have. Unless they have hardcore Trekkie parents, there’s no reason to think they ever watched the DVDs, either. They may have watched a few of the movies, but maybe not even all of those.
It’s like when I was growing up, and my family would go watch a Bond film with Roger Moore. My folks would tell me the real Bond was Sean Connery, but back then I could have cared less, I just accepted Moore as Bond,
Even Kirk can be rebooted.
#101, 102 - Cygnus-X1
Decent arguments, and well-spoken. I’m not so close-minded to believe that a REALLY good writer could come up with a clever and interesting way to include Shatner and Nimoy.
And lastly, I must agree with Trekweb…. that didn’t “fix” Tasha’s death in the main timeline. If something similar was done with Kirk, fans demanding a “fix” would still be unhappy.
#108 - Still Kirok
“The facts are simple… my opinion, my opinion, my opinion, my opinion.”
1. “post Kirk Trek FAILED miserably.” Many would agree that the TNG movies were not as good… yet somehow the TNG series did VERY well despite not having Shatner in it.
2. “Star Trek NEVER recovered after Generations.” Agreed… unfortunately you can’t prove this was because Shatner was not involved.
3. “They are looking to restart the franchise that Berman ruined.” - Opinion, but one that we happen to share.
4. “The only storyline that hasn’t been told is the return of James T. Kirk.” - Really? The only story left? Guess that sucks for our chances of Trek XII.
5. “They want money, and this is what they need to do.” - Opinion, but if you feel that strongly about it, raise $100M and make this film…
6. “Anything less, will not work. ” - So certain of the future? While you’re at it, can you tell me next weeks loterry numbers? After I win, I’ll lend you the money to make the Trek film that you want to make… ;)
Is it any coincedence that Shatner’s “The Return” is the best selling (of the thousands) of Star Trek books ever?
This is the one and only subject that fires up the hard core ST fan. Along with the fanbase that left the series after Generations. And it is the only subject that the general public cares about.
Don’t you remember when ST was a big dea at the box office? Paramont will not make films + tv series for the hardcore fans only anymore. The franchise is too much of a cash cow to not give the mass public their ST. Not Rick Berman’s watered down version.
Paramont wants to recapture the financial success that the iconic TOS brought them. That is the one and only reason Shatner/Nimoy/Kirk + Spock are coming back.
People want the real thing back. Not yet another imation of the real thing.
ST XI with Shatner + Nimoy (Kirk’s return) will bring in at least $150 million domestic.
I like the flavour of these recent posts. Juicy meat regarding how to bring James Kirk back from his silly demise in Generations. #105 hit on something. A Back To The Future 2 flavour where we have the older Kirk and Spock go back and help IN THE BACKGROUND for some pivotal moment involving their younger selves and then leave. This might give the “old guard” a fitting sendoff while allowing us the opportunity to bond with the new cast. One caveat: if you’re going to take this route, it would have to be a killer script with the originality of something like The Usual Suspects. Maybe a bonafide TWIST ending that nobody could anticipate. Say older Kirk making the “ultimate sacrifice” to save his younger self so that all the great adventures we’ve enjoyed all along are allowed to unfold like they were meant to in the first place?
I just take the view that they can brush off Generations in a throwaway sentence. Have Kirk in the 24th Century (which doesn’t have to be specified as such!) involved with some undercover operation along with Spock. When someone asks him what he’s up to, he can make a remark along the lines of ‘Officially, I’m dead.’
Abrams is a bright guy. He’ll figure something out. I’m sure he’s aware of people’s feelings where Kirk’s death is concerned and if he chooses to address it, he can.
Fans (of any story) should care more about quality of product and very little whether the studio meets its “revenue targets”. Furthermore, the amount of $$$ spent on a film doesn’t necessarily increase the quality of the product.
John N….
“My point about Craig and Connery was that you couldn’t possibly put those two actors in the same scene and accept that one was an older version of the other.”
Point accepted, you’re correct that it wouldn’t look right. But then, I doubt there would (or could) ever be a time travel plot in a Bond movie such that this would happen.
Sorry if I missed your point earlier; the point I was trying to make is that the Casino Royale / Trek XI comparison that has been repeatedly made here by commenters is, IMO, invalid. They are very different fictional universes, with very different character dynamics, appealing to somewhat different audiences.
#116 - Canonista
And certainly you’re not the first to state your point of view that these types of comparisons are invalid.
Personally, I see them as completely valid. Agree to disagree… :)
There are many, many good points above, most I agree with. My work is mainly in PR and marketing, and from that perspective Paramount is really going to get it’s money’s worth if Shatner and Nimoy appear as Kirk & Spock. This the most passion I’ve seen among Star Trek fans in 10 years, and that’s with no formal announcement.
As long as JJ involves them in a clever way that doesn’t insult people’s intelligence, I’ll be happy. I just want to see a good, fun Star Trek film again.
lol…Agreed..
;)
Someone please answer this question. Directly and factually.
Are they signed?… If so, are they signed to act?
If they are not….this is more BS and no facts.
Additionally… I’ve seen one person comment on this statement I made back on #81 and nothing else. But as I predicted… it’s easier to ignore this and complain further.
“And while I am at it. I didn’t like the way Kirk died either but I tire of the laments and curses some of you have… “HOW DARE THEY KILL HIM THAT WAY!!!” Newsflash folks… William Shatner read the script before signing up for the movie. He KNEW how the charactor died and he’s as responsible for the horrible non-heroic death as anyone. HE didn’t have to take the deal, or could have worked out a better death scene… since he’s “the SHAT”!
But you’ll all ignore this and continue to complain….. watch.”
If I am somehow blind to him not knowing of the death in the script he had to read prior to signing, enlighten me.
#120 - Orbitalic
Hey… I agreed with you the first time you wrote it… I just didn’t make it official.
Soooo…. now it’s official. :)
Hey Orbitalic, mate!
Who put you in charge? Some people like to say “HOW DARE THEY KILL HIM THAT WAY!!!”
So what? Just ignore those people if you don’t like what they say! Hitch, for example, likes to write in a completely bizarre way that is ‘Mac in the pants’ to some and ‘Microsoft in the pants’ to others. Trouble is, people complain about poor old Hitch, these days, rather than simply move on to the next post!
Anyway, I’m clearly not ignoring your remarks, I’m taking them on board and choosing to continue!
So … I also hate the way Kirk was killed ;) and, if you read the final page of Star Trek Movie Memories, Shatner is called in for re-shoots on Generations and wonders what it will entail for him. He agreed to the script where Soran killed Kirk, but presumably was pretty much in the dark about the new ending. I get the impression he hoped they’d ditch the death scene and keep Kirk alive!
As for the ambiguity surrounding Shatner’s and Nimoy’s involvement in STXI, that’s part of how they’re creating an early buzz for the film. Abrams says nothing while Greg Grunberg leaks info and Shatner makes deliberately offbeat remarks to create discussion on forums such as this one!!!!
Chill out, dude, and enjoy the wonderful weirdness that is trekmovie.com!
110- you say
“Think about it. Until recently, TOS hasn’t even been in syndication since the late Eighties. Younger people haven’t absorbed TOS like us older folks have. Unless they have hardcore Trekkie parents, there’s no reason to think they ever watched the DVDs, either. They may have watched a few of the movies, but maybe not even all of those.”
While this is true to a large degree, I think the shrewd strategies of CBS may change this. There are still a coupld of years to go before PAramount releases this movie…in the meantime we have TOS being HEAVILY exposed on G4..mostly a channel for techies and gamers, where it was their highest rated show…go to the Spock page on MySpace sometime and see all the kids connecting to this show…it really is refreshing. Add to that, TV Land’s recent acquiring of the show and it’s re-emergence in nationwide syndication and you get a huge amount of exposure. This is going to go on until the movie is released, so more and more young people will be tuning and and hopefully turning on to TOS.
I sense a definite turn in the tide regarding TOS and it’s percieved “coolness” as well. Many of the young people out there are really starting to dig TOS, and I couldn’t be happier. I think all this new exposure timed 2 years before the new movie is no accident. I think the studio is slowly planting the seeds to bring TOS back into the public’s awareness, eventually building up a huge built-in audience for the new movie.
This is a really bad idea. Could be the lowest grossing Trek movie yet.
C’mon, even though we’re not sure of the story for STXI, just for fun name one actor out there who has the acting chops, charisma and physical similarity to a young Bill Shatner. I can’t think of one. Do you think it’ll be a virtual unknown a la Brandon Routh? Thoughts?
#120
Hey, I thought it was a terrible idea to kill him in the first place.
Unlike others, I’m not a rabid “Anti-Generations” person. I do think Kirk’s death was written into the script as a half-hearted afterthought to Picard and Kirk’s meeting in the Nexus. The film was botched but it happened and now we get to live with it. All subsequent films were not debacles, regardless of how many times its furiously yelled by the TNG “sucks” crowd or by the “movie’s success = tickets sold” measurers.
But Generations is what you get when you have unimaginative writers trying to cash in on shock value and then packaging it as “creativity”. Seriously, how many more times are we going to see ships named Enterprise rammed, crashed, or otherwise destroyed? Same with Kirk’s death. Its EASY to blow stuff up and kill off main characters. Its far more difficult — *apparently* — to tell a story without these kinds of simplistic plot devices. TMP, TVH, and TUC were WELCOME exceptions. TWOK and TSFS are excused because (1) they were a contiguous story arc, (2) executed artfully, and (3) it was the FIRST time it had ever been used in a Star Trek movie.
I’m all for plausible resurrection, but the keyword being plausible. I’d rather the reasoning go unmentioned or unexplained than have it be explained lazily, stupidly, or half-heartedly as a revision or ignoration of Generations. If the story can’t meet those *basic* requirements, then tell “The Shat” that galavanting around the Universe is a game for the young…and then onto the task of writing a *good* story.
I agree with #26: “Citizen Kirk” is the way to go. A perfect time to set the “flash-forwards” would be when the Enterprise-A is coming back to Earth to be decommissioned and for the crew to retire post-TUC: that would be a time where two old friends - Kirk and Spock - would reminisce about the old times and how they met.
But still, it shouldn’t be “The Life and Times of Young Kirk”. There should only be a couple of scenes set before Kirk takes command of the Enterprise - the first mission should be the main plot, not a Kirk biography.
Hi Londo. I’m in two minds about the fim’s structure. Ultimately, we could get a movie with a Lost structure, which would suit me fine.
I can see how they could make a pre-Where No Man Has Gone Before film starring the new Kirk and Spock, with Lost/Citizen Kane flashbacks to their first meeting and so on.
Rather more difficult would be to have Shatner and Nimoy looking back to the new Kirk also looking back.
Fascinating to see what happens! :)
things i’ve read in this thread and others that are ridiculous:
1) Spock retrieves Kirk from the Nexus as a major plot element of Trek XI. Let’s not revisit a bad idea to start this new movie…
2) Post TOS era Trek is some kind of commericial and critical failure. That’s 25 seasons of post TOS trek that made a ton of money, and at least half of which was pretty damn good. Networks don’t make 25 seasons of anything based on it being a failure.
3) That no other actors could possibly replace Kirk & Spock. Give it time, its all about the formula, right actors, right script, right director…
4) That Trek XI would surely fail if Shatner & Nimoy are not in the movie. Generations sucked pretty much with the Shat in it…
5) That Paramount and/or CBS “owe” the fans something… they don’t owe us anything… (i’ll make an exception to individuals who actually wrote paramount in 1969 to protest the cancellation of TOS)
Doug
129 — Fantastic post, Doug. I agree with every point, wholeheartedly.
129- Atta boy, Doug! Very good observations!
131 — Terrible post, Michael. Just terrible. But I’m glad you agree! ;-)
I disagree with #5.
Every artist owes his fans. They’re the ones to whom he owes his livlihood, and his most honest and wholehearted effort.
HI Cygnus -
I appreciate your point, but two things come to mind.
First, the moment an artist starts pandering to his fans, he is compromising his artistic vision. The artist owes it to himself to be true to his vision… not his fans. Having said that, the artist should be respectful of his fans out of simple courtesy.
Second, Paramount and CBS really aren’t the artists here. They are the money and the means behind the artist for good or bad.
d
True, but Paramout/CBS are the commerce to which the art is necessarily married. Paramount/CBS have the final say over the art, so I hold them accountable.
The artist does owe it to himself to be honest, and, the best-case scenario is that the artist’s honesty yields a good product for the fans. But, I don’t think that anyone would argue that 3 out of the 4 TNG films were bad due to uncompromising artistic vision. Rather, the opposite would seem the case - a pathetic lack of artistic vision.
So, I’m not suggesting any pandering - quite the opposite, in fact. I’d love to see a real visionary writer and/or director follow through on an uncompromising artistic vision, and put it out there for people to either love or hate. But, that’s not realistic, given the ultimate control of Paramount/CBS, that they would be unlikely to relinquish, unless they were dealing with a proven success, like a Steven Spielberg (in the 80’s), Jim Cameron or Ridley Scott. Then, they might give the director total artistic control.
But, if the screenplay is good enough; if the casting and pre-production are good enough, then the money might see fit to not try an fix something that doesn’t seem broke.
#132 Which part was a terrible post?
Elrond # 118
I agree with what you are saying. Paramont would be getting their $’s worth.
Talk of Shatner and Nimoy’s return in their iconic roles has brought a level of passion to the fanbase that has been missing for years.