Shatner Unsure If He Will Be In Trek XI – Thinks It Would Be Cool | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner Unsure If He Will Be In Trek XI – Thinks It Would Be Cool March 26, 2007

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

In the recent MTV interview with the Trek writers, there was a mention of a recent meeting with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. TrekMovie.com asked the folks at Shatnervision to ask Mr. Shatner about this meeting…and they were kind of enough to do so. 

The saga of is he or isn’t he in the film has gone on longer than the Abrams directing thing. At some times Shatner seemed to be very excited about the project, and at others totally disinterested. The latest interview with Orci and Kurtzman raised expectations that perhaps Shatner and Nimoy have been cast, but this video makes it clear that things are still not decided. Also apparently Oh and that bit with him and the cell phone was great! "the guy in a red shirt is gonna die"    

 

Transcript of the relevent bit…

Question: There is a rumor that you & Leonard Nimoy recently met with the production staff of the next Star Trek movie. Can you tell us about it?

Shatner: Leonard, I believe met with him, I met with them. A producer and director and presumably one of the writers….JJ Abrams. And nothing really occurred…as far as I was concerned, and I am sure for Leonard as well. It was an exploratory talk. I have no idea what the script is. I have no idea what they are doing. I have no idea whether they want me to be in it in some small way or not. As for me wanting to be in it, I think it would be cool but it would have to be meaningful in some small way. And that is really the truth of everything. And they want to go next fall, so as is apparent I will be working here [Boston Legal] so if they ever wanted me some arrangements would have to be made.

VOTE: Shat Yes or Shat No?

do you think he should be in the film…vote in the latest poll (sidebar)

 

UPDATE: Calls into question aspects of MTV article
The original passage from the infamous MTV article which inspired the above question to Shatner is as follows…

Speaking of the old guard, Shatner and Nimoy recently visited with Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams. According to the writers, the meetings went well. "It was pretty much the most stressful thing ever, but it was wonderful," Kurtzman said. "They were amazing."

That sounds like there was a recent meeting with both Shatner and Nimoy, but Shatner makes it clear that they never met all together. Also TrekMovie.com has learned that it wasn’t all that recently and it is likely that this meeting is the same one that Shatner spoke about having many months ago. The reason to pick these nits with MTV is that it shows how they may not have chosen their words very carefully. In this case ‘Shatner and Nimoy recently met’ is actually two seperate meetings from last year. Bear that in mind when you freak out over MTV’s usage of the word ‘reimagining’

Comments

1. Josh T. ( The Mirror Universe Josh T.) Kirk Esquire' - March 26, 2007

I still maintain the film should be a two hour slow zooming closeup on the Shats swollen face.

I look at it this way, when you consider Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis, ANYTHING Abrams could possibly do with this film could not be anyway worse than what we have been spoon fed the last few years.
Alot of people said the same thing after Insurrection, how could it get worse?
Nemesis.
I don’t really think there is a danger of that that phenomenon here for the simple fact the law of averages, the Jew qoutient on this new film, (if you want a magnificent Trek film, hire some Jews, and I don’t say that facetiously, I’m quite serious) and the fact it will defy ALL pre-concieved expectations and notions, will guarantee at least something different.

At the very least, we are getting away from the same visual appearance of Trek that we have experienced the last 15 years so that will be something new.
And with a new composer, production designer, director, actors, and script-writers, this new Trek should on paper at least be unlike anything previously seen, despite existing within the same universe as the former.

From rock bottom there is nowhere to go but up.

2. Steve Austin - March 26, 2007

i am still not sold on how this can work

Shat is the man, but he will be a distraction from the new kids

3. JoeB - March 26, 2007

I can’t stand it when you people dis recent Star Trek. Not everyone shares your narrow view of how Star Trek should be.

4. TiberiusK - March 26, 2007

I say NO. A Shatner cameo would serve as a distraction, either timeline-wise, or due to trying to explain why Kirk is no longer dead. Neither Nimoy nor Shat would accept a light-hearted cameo. When he says “meaningful,” he means what Shat and Nimoy always mean: My character has to have a good deal of screen time and character development, and my character’s actions MUST be integral to the story. Oh yeah, and let’s negotiate a hefty paycheck for that as well.

Nimoy rejected a role on Generations because he considered it a meaningless cameo, as did De Kelley, Takei, and Nichols. I suspect that Shat would not have accepted a part in Generations if he hadn’t been promised a glorious death scene.

So, to sum up, I think that all factors are working against Shatner and Nimoy having cameos. 1. It’s a distraction; 2. It’s inconvenient for the writers; 3. It’s highly doubtful that the actors would accept small cameos.

Their actions in the past regarding salaries, script input, screentime, and ego-stroking set a consistent pattern in how they’ve dealt with Paramount and a “new” movie.

5. JoeB - March 26, 2007

I agree with you TiberiusK(#4). Very good points.

6. Michael Appleton - March 26, 2007

Leave Shatner and Nimoy out of the new movie and start fresh! It would be like having Sean Connery pop up in Casino Royale to have a chat with Daniel Craig! No friggin’ way!!

7. JoeB - March 26, 2007

#1 – While I disagree with your view on modern Trek, I do share your optimism for ST XI.

8. Anthony Pascale - March 26, 2007

i am of two minds

one says…yes yes Shatner as Kirk would be cool

and the other says…

this is a new movie that is to launch a new cast

I think Shatner and Nimoy’s requirements for significant roles is pretty much the deal killer on this. It seems to make it impossible w/out taking away from building a new franchise

9. CmdrR - March 26, 2007

I kind of hope they do something cool… like let Shat and Nimoy split the “Space the final frontier…” speech in voice-over. Beyond that, I really think this film doesn’ t need to “pay homage,” “tip its hat” or do anything else that covers for Hollywood raping its own heritage.

Oh… Josh… I suppose you meant your comment as a compliment, but somehow it came out way harsh. Not very IDIC. IMHO. (Actually, I prefer IHOP, I humbly offer preferences…)

10. Josh T. ( The power of Shat compells you) Kirk Esquire' - March 26, 2007

#3

That’s quite alright JoeB, alot of us can’t understand or fathom can anyone can in good conscience apologize for recent Star Trek, so it all works out pretty much the same.

Speaking purely out of intellectual curiosity, I’m genuinely wondering, in all truth and candor, you seem to be a fan of recent Trek, kindly share with us that resent it what there was to like, I’d hate to think I was missing out on something significant the last 15 years.

11. TiberiusK - March 26, 2007

#8

I agree with your second point there. Shatner and Nimoy have always been deal killers. Take Nimoy for example:

ST1: I won’t play Spock unless Paramount settles my legal disputes and pays me royalties for the use of my image over the last 10 years

ST2: I won’t play Spock. I’m done. Oh? A death scene? OK, in that case…

ST3: Either let me direct, or you won’t get Spock.

STIV: Let me direct and guarentee that I be allowed to direct 2 other films, or you won’t get Spock.

STV: Either make every change in this script that I demand, or you won’t get Spock. Also, I need a huge raise.

STVI: Either let me write it with Meyer, or you won’t get Spock.

Generations: You won’t get Spock. He’s only in 25 minutes of this movie!

STVI:

12. Darkowski - March 26, 2007

As Josh said, after the last Star Trek movies (except First Contact), you can’t get any worse. And it’s a totally new team so it’s even better news.

I think they should cast at least Shatner if not Nimoy. And seeing the recent advertisement on Youtube of Shatner and DirectTV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voILEz4iD_8 ), It’s nice to see the Shat in starfleet uniform one more time! He can still look good with some minor CG tweaking, but he still has it! A few minutes on screen would be enough – he doesn’t have to steel the show.

Plus, this is the best opportunity they will ever get to bring back Kirk from the dead after that stupid death in Generations. What a nonsense movie that was! And they even screwed up the cannon! (if you guys noticed – concerning Scotty)
I just hope they will come up with an ‘intelligent’ way to bring him back. And with that energy ribbon called the Nexus he died in, which is a temporal anomaly, it’s not that hard to come up with something with just a little imagination.

Again, I hope it’s not the last appearance of Kirk while he still looks good!

13. Jeffrey S. Nelson - March 26, 2007

Shatner and Nimoy could have significant parts that aren’t necessarily large.

14. Still Kirok - March 26, 2007

Shatner and Nimoy would be the best thing for this movie. Period. It would be a hell of a gift from Abrams. This video said absolutely nothing new.

Bottom line–Shatner + Nimoy = $$$$$$

15. Xai (give him a bag of popcorn, twice the butter... Shat will be happy) - March 26, 2007

#1, #10 Josh,
For what I could read of your comments (“kindly share with us that resent it what there was to like”), IMO it looks like you are baiting people into arguments.
I won’t speak for JoeB, but picking up his thread, he is correct in saying that yours isn’t the only opinion of how Trek should be. Without going into things that have been pointed out over and over on this site, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT all had their shining moments. Was very episode an Emmy-winner? No. The same can be said of TOS. Were the movies Oscar-winners…no. Inspirational… at times. Were some of them dogs? Hell yes, for both TOS and TNG. I’d watch a weak episode of any Trek (TOS to ENT) before watching 90% of the current crop of “Quality TV”.
Frankly, no one need apologize for what they like on TV (#10). We all have likes and opinions and they are all valid as long as you don’t believe your opinion is the universal truth.

#12Darkowski,
I understand your opinion about “correcting” Kirks death in Generations. You aren’t the first to consider it. But why is it needed? If Shatner’s not in it, there’s no need and if he is.. does it matter? Taking a half to a third of XI to explain that “Kirk really didn’t die, it was a fake Kirk, etc” will surely kill the flow of the film for most but the most ardent fan-boy or girl.

16. Xai (give him a bag of popcorn, 3x the butter... Shat will be happy) - March 26, 2007

Tiberius hit the nail on the head with both posts

17. VOODOO - March 26, 2007

Get Shatner + Nimoy back no matter what.

The idea that they would be a “distraction” in some way is just silly.

They are Star Trek and their presence gives this film a sense of legitimacy it would not have otherwise.

Besides, Kirk deserves a better ending than falling off a bridge.

18. Xai (give him a bag of popcorn, 3x the butter, super-sized... Shat will be happy) - March 26, 2007

Let’s keep the story line simple… no multiple Kirks belly bouncing off each other through a TOS era Enterprise. No “meeting your younger- self” paradoxes. I want an adventure, not a rewrite of Trek history to correct a movie plot – line from 14 (?) years ago.
Blame Shat… is was him that fell lamely off a bridge. He got paid to do it and knew what is was when he first read the script. Perhaps he was blinded by the desert sun and $$$ in the eyes.

19. Redshirt - March 26, 2007

I remember the year long speculation of getting Shatner on Enterprise..My feeling is hes on a Emmy Award winning show . Hes moved on for so long without Trek and done it successfully . The Priceline.com Commercials and Boston Legal are doing well.

I don’t see him as James Kirk anymore…James Kirk is a action Hero …
75 year old men do not play action hero’s. It looks silly. it was looking silly by the end of Generations.
Do you know anyone that age using karate chops or Kicking the feet under their enemies? Presence or a simple cameo wont be enough.

The execs concerned over the films budget might just shut this down as much as Abrams might literally beg on his hands and knees for them to appear. it all come down to is money and how much Paramount has.

I really like Kirk but i like him in his prime and and when he was facing his mortality in the first 6 films. To me its becoming a beat up cliche to bring him back from the dead. Yes we brought Spock back but now anyone that dies have these legion of cult followers that want their favorite character back. Yeah Its Science Fiction everybody has to live no matter what… or people become very upset and turn blue.

When the writers want to grasp on more action..(Watch Nemesis) the whole idea of developing the character or more importantly a simple plot further is just unrealistic for a 2 hour movie.

A recast is something that has to happen unfortunately its going to look like a impression. Impressions are best left to vaudeville acts.

20. Orbitalic - March 26, 2007

………. James Tiberius Kirk…………
………………………RIP…………………….

Let his future self rest in peace.
Let his younger self do what he
does best, entertain us with his
adventures as a young starship
captain.

Please let William Shatner have the class to pass the torch to the next generation of Star Trek actors and allow them to move the legend forward with their contributions.

21. Michael Appleton - March 26, 2007

The only impression concerning the next Star Trek film is the one we’re left with after watching it! I don’t want to see imitators of Shatner and Nimoy, but talented actors bringing their own INTERPRETATION to the roles!

22. Jon - March 26, 2007

I think their roles would be to be respectfully celebrated as the originators of the roles while endorsing the movie in publicity campaigns

23. TiberiusK - March 26, 2007

#18 Xai

I agree. If the rumor is true that XI will focus on Kirk’s first mission as captain of the Enterprise, then bringing in a time travel or Nexus or blah blah weird sci-fi concept that allows young and old Kirk to meet would be a huge distraction from what could potentially be a very nicely written straight-forward adventure story that establishes the characters in a new light (while giving the franchise a new lease on life).

Plus, unless they find an actor who is spitting image of Kirk when he was 30, then the audience would have the same reaction as with Nemesis:

That’s a younger Kirk? It looks nothing like the older Kirk! What a gimmick! Wow, Matt Damon didn’t age very well.

24. dannyboy1 - March 26, 2007

Basically, if Bill’s not in it – I’m not interested.

25. omf - March 27, 2007

#19 – Beautifully stated, thanks.

26. DEMODE - March 27, 2007

Funny,

I see alot of you think Shatner shouldn’t be in the movie. And yet, 63% of people checking out these boards have voted that he should be in it as Kirk.

I think the majority have spoken! Shatner should be in the movie.

27. Josh T. ( To thine own self be true ) Kirk Esquire' - March 27, 2007

#15

Xai,

I have no interest in baiting anyone into an argument, nor do I percieve my opinion to be the only one, and have never stated that, it seems more often than not people shift the focus and attention to ME somehow rather than I bringing attention to myself.
Be that as it may, I am genuinely curious for someone that enjoys the later Trek series to attempt to explain to me how those series can be equated in any way,shape, or form with TOS, or even Next Generation for that matter in quality, relevance, and cultural impact.
It isn’t an attempt to be trite or callous, I’m genuinely curious.
Are supporters of these shows so embarassed to try to explain why they infact like the show that they immediately assume someone wanting to know why they like it is trying to ellicit an argument?
If someone asked me why I enjoy Star Trek, I would be banned for spamming, such would be the length of my personal dissertation on my affinity for Trek. I would go on and on.

So again, why do people that enjoy Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, or Nemesis infact enjoy it? What are the percieved redeeming qualities, what stands out, what impacts, what is worth remembering?

Before someone is bashed for wanting to know, at least explain the reasons for liking these shows, and maybe we can figure out why they were cancelled or tanked at the box office, and what is ultimately to blame. For if these shows and films didn’t stink to high heaven and back, then there must be a greater problem going on with Star Trek.

28. MichaelJohn - March 27, 2007

To me what’s really important is that the next Trek movie has a great story, regardless if Shatner and Nimoy are involved.

TOS was and will always be more than just Kirk and Spock. When I here people clamoring to have them in the new movie I think…what about the other original cast members?

TOS was great because of the ensemble cast of great characters, and the many find performances of not only Shatner and Nimoy, but all the actors from TOS.

I would truly like to see ALL the surviving TOS members take one final curtain call in this movie, but in cameo roles only. This way they don’t have to come up with a script that brings Kirk back from the dead etc.

Though I didn’t like the movie version of Lost in Space at all, I did like that all the surviving original cast members were invited to have small cameo roles in the film. That’s what I would like to see happen in Star Trek XI.

Mike :o

29. Josh T. ( To thine own self be true ) Kirk Esquire' - March 27, 2007

Why is everyone dissing on the fatness that is The Shat?

I’m flabbergasted.

William Shatner has more Trek in his left his ass cheek than most of us have combined in hours spent watching the series, dollars spent on video games, toys, memorabilia, potential dating partners missed because we are geeks, etc etc.

You talk about traitorous, disloyal….stabbing him in the back the first chance you get…..I……wouldn’t have believed it.

I’m sensing a generational thing going on here.
It seems those chiming in slandering the fatness that is the Shat were raised on diet Trek, Trek-One, just one calorie Trek, Quasi-Trek, while those that experienced full-fledged Shatness yearn and long for his bloated return in glory to glory.

This film should BEG the fat Shat to be in it. To shine in it. To swagger and waddle his girth through every frame, belching clipped dialogue like only someone reading from a cue card can.

How can it be Star Trek without Fat Shat?
We have gone down that long road before, getting from there to here, and there was a fork!

Star Trek doesn’t seem to work very well without his bloatedness. People can cry and bitch about that apparent reality, but at the end of the day after your prayers are said, the apparent truth remains, lest they wouldn’t be resurrecting the character.

No one cares about John Luck Pickard
No one cares about Benjamin Cisco ( That shit should be illegal)
No one cares about kathryn Lameway
No one cares about Jonathon Asser (Would you serve someone named Jonathon?? How effiminate can one be?)

The truth is rarely popular at first. Certainly not accepted. That is an axiom.
There is a REASON modern era Trek failed and the producers and those that make the decisions are going back to Kirk and crew. It WORKED.

How many are old enough to remember New Coke? That shit lasted all of two months, yanked from the stores.

If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

With all of the multitudes of things one given a blank check could do within the Star Trek universe, why Kirk and crew? Especially someone as talented as Abrams? Why?
It worked.

People can accuse me of being a bully, talking for everyone else, etc etc ad yawnium, regardless of what one thinks of me, the message remains, modern Trek failed, it wasn’t deemed successful, it’s time to move on.

Can you make a Superman movie without Superman?
Can you make an Indiana Jones movie without Indiana Jones?
Can you make a Gremlins movie without Gremlins?
Does Nascar NOT suck?

They tried making films without Kirk, it didn’t blow over very well.

When in doubt, It’s time to get back to basics.

30. DEMODE - March 27, 2007

If they don’t put these guys into the new movie, why don’t they just go the Direct-to-DVD route and make a movie with these two staring in it. Sure it wouldn’t be released in theatres, but so what. Guaranteed it would be the best selling Direct-to-DVD movie of all time!

31. DEMODE - March 27, 2007

…and heck, they could even make a sequel or two with Shatner and Nimoy if the Direct-to-DVD movie was successful. Shatner and Nimoy would stand to make much more money going this route than with cameos in the new movie, and Paramount would make tons of cash.

32. Josh T. ( The power of Fat Shat compells you ) Kirk Esquire' - March 27, 2007

Ya don’t tug on Supermans cape, ya don’t spit in the wind, ya don’t pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger and ya don’t make Star Trek films without Shatness.

I offer an olive branch to all the Neo-Trekkers out there that don’t want his Shatness in the film, or who prefer modern Trek to Classic Trek -

If Shatner can just bless the film by rubbing his ass all over the script so it has that distinctive stench of Shat, I’d be content.

I’d say that’s a fair compromise.

33. Stefanbkk - March 27, 2007

Josh T… dude, I have got to hand it to you…. you have written two of the funniest, most entetaining lines I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading on a message board:

1. William Shatner has more Trek in his left his ass cheek than most of us have combined in hours spent watching the series….

2. If Shatner can just bless the film by rubbing his ass all over the script so it has that distinctive stench of Shat, I’d be content.

HAHAHAHAHHAA…. I’m laughing again, even I cut and paste them here. Keep those funny, passionate, hysterical posts coming.

And yes, I did go through a period several years back where I began to hate Shatner as much as I love Kirk. But of late, I find the SHATNESS growing on me… like one of those really nice cases of jock itch… you know the kind I mean… where you wait all day to scratch, because you know that when you finally do, it’s gonna be heaven….

Oh my God… am I REALLY going to post this? Hahahahahah!

34. Lets hate Paramount - March 27, 2007

Josh T is effin right! There is no way star trek can survive without the fat shat, and since abrams version won’t feature him whats the point?!

35. Driver - March 27, 2007

The script is going through a budgetary rewrite = No Shatner and no Nimoy. Put their 10 million paychecks back into production.

36. Dennis Bailey - March 27, 2007

So he’s down to “meaningful in some small way.” Sounds like the studio folks are not being pushovers.

37. Driver - March 27, 2007

If Shatner and Nimoy want to make their own Star Trek flick, there’s nothing stopping them. Fan films are made all the time. “Of Gods and Men” is being released next month on the web.

38. Windsor Bear - March 27, 2007

I’m sorry… but the thought of someone else playing the parts of Kirk and Spock remind me of when Robin Curtis was brought in to play Savik. Don’t get me wrong… I love Robin Curtis, but her interpretation of Savik just didn’t work for me. Kirstie took that part and made it her own. After her, anyone else playing it would be a letdown. The same holds true for Shatner, Nimoy, Doohan, etc. They took their characters and made them their own. Part of the legacy of these characters is because of the actors that were playing them. Having them played by someone else is just asking for disappointment.

So my question is… why the prequel in the first place??? Is Hollywood having a writer’s block? Is the only way they can make something interesting is to take existing characters and explore their past? What fun is an impending doomsday moment when you know the character is going to survive??? HAS TO SURVIVE because if he didn’t… well… there goes 40 years of continuity. I had the same issue with George Lucas going back and making three prequels to the original Star Wars. Wasn’t much fun for me… I knew Darth was going to die in #6, Obi-Wan was going to die in #4… so it didn’t matter what peril they were put into during the three prequels… you knew they were going to survive. Well, anything they put this “new” TOS cast into is going to be the same…. maybe lots of adventure, but you already know the outcome. At the most, we might find out the exact moment when the Enterprises’ nacelles were changed from spikes to rotating disks with pulsing light. Or maybe we’ll see the maint. crew come in and remove the gooseneck devices from the bridge.

I guess maybe I just don’t get it. My friends could never understand why I never saw Titanic. I told them there was no use… I knew what happened at the end… the ship sank. They told me there was so much more to it.. a love story… adventure. Didn’t matter for me… I already knew the ending of the movie… the ship sank. So no matter what happens in ST:XI… I guess I won’t need to see it… I pretty much know what happens… Kirk survives until ST:GEN, Spock lives on to unify Vulcan and Romulus; Sulu moves up in rank to take command of the Excelsior.

Eleven other ships in the starfleet waiting to have their stories told (at least the ones that weren’t destoryed in TOS). If we must go back into the Star Trek past, I’d rather see something about these other ships. Then I could concentrate on the movie instead of spending my whole time comparing the new Kirk to the old Kirk.

39. TiberiusK - March 27, 2007

#38

Kirstie Alley was demanding a paycheck higher than what Nichols, Koenig, and Takei were getting COMBINED. It was outrageous. According to your logic, Paramount should have accepted her outrageous demands, gone over-budget, and made less profit. That is just unreasonable from a studio point-of-view.

40. Windsor Bear - March 27, 2007

I never said that Paramount should have brought her into STIII. What I did say was that Kirstie took the Savik role and made it shine. There is no denying that the Savik role was a great part of the movie. Should Kirstie’s demands have been given in to to bring her back into STIII? No. Should they have taken the Savik character out of STIII and put another character in it’s place? Yes. Unlike STII, the Savik character was “weak” in STIII, and changing that character to some other character would not have been difficult. It would have made for a more enjoyable viewing experience. I remember the first time I saw STIII in the theater, and during the movie, there was a lot of grumbling from the audience about how the Savik character had changed. If they had just changed the character to someone else, the audience would have accepted it better.

41. DEMODE - March 27, 2007

The more I think about it, the more I would rather see Shatner and Nimoy in a Direct-to-DVD movie. I normally don’t do this sort of thing, but what the hell. Here is what I would do:

1. Get David Carson to direct the film (he directed Generations, and is a good director of Trek). This would make it easier to use footage from Generations.

2. Start the DVD film with the deleted Orbital Skydiving Kirk scene. This would be a fun way to start the film, and lets you have a brand new scene with Scotty and Chekov in it.

3. Use the Enterprise B scenes (with some minor edits) to show how Kirk gets into the Nexxus.

4. Move the story 10 years into the future from Kirk’s disappearance. Have Spock trying to solve what happened to him. You could even have him (or Uhura) interviewing survivor Guinan to gain knowledge on the incedent.

5. Have Spock go to the Excelsior to see Sulu with Chekov and Uhura. Have them track down the Nexxus and try to retrieve Kirk. Have them almost succeed, but then fail.

6. Travel 70 years into the future (after NEMESIS) . Spock feels himself being drawn to the Nexxus by Kirk. He travels to it and finds a way to safely enter it and retrieves Kirk.

————————————————————————————————–
I would rather see this than a cameo in a new Trek film. This could also allow the old crew to make a few Direct to DVD sequels if they wanted too! Plus, as well as using existing footage from Generations, they might be able to use the new Enterprise bridge set from TREK 11 for some scenes inside the NEXXUS, where Kirk visits his old ship.

42. Dennis Bailey - March 27, 2007

#39: “Kirstie Alley was demanding a paycheck higher than what Nichols, Koenig, and Takei were getting COMBINED. ”

That Alley’s salary demands were exorbitant was what the usual suspects claimed, and credulous fans just go for that kind of thing.

If it’s true that Alley wanted more money than Nichols, Koenig and Takei were getting combined – that would *not* have been an exorbitant or outrageous demand. She was worth every penny of that, given her part in ST II and the potential her character represented for the Franchise…potential that was, of course, calculatedly pissed away in the following films so as not to interfere with the gravy train.

43. Al - March 27, 2007

Shatner and Nimoy will play their own grandfathers – the only way it could work

44. Windsor Bear - March 27, 2007

I agree Dennis. Kirstie’s interpretation of Savik had great potential. It would have been interesting to see if her playing Savik in ST:III would have changed the “mood” a bit… given it a little more “umph”. But this brings me back to what I was trying to say… once an actor takes a character and makes it his or her own… and for the amount of time that the TOS actors have “owned” their characters, it is hard to find the line that separates the two. Given the amount of time that separates TOS from the first movie, I think I could handle having a new cast taking the roles AFTER TOS rather than before it.

45. Anthony Pascale - March 27, 2007

from the looks of the poll, the vast majority want him in the movie and I can understand that. I think the best way would be as a voiceover/narrator.

One thing that I think just wouldn’t work is to have scenes with Shat as Kirk playing against ‘new Kirk’. if his scenes were set in a different time/place it might work, but it would just look funny to have him standing there next to the new actor…and suspend the disbelief that the new guy is Kirk.

one thing I am sure if, the film makers should not feel obligated to get them into the film, if they cant find a way to make it work….then dont just shoehorn them in in some attempt to placate the purists. If they cannot elegantly solve the dilemma of giving them substantial roles while not having them overpower the new kids then don’t do it at all.

46. Jon - March 27, 2007

Shatner would impeach a new Kirk’s performance

47. Don Corleone - March 27, 2007

Shatner is telling Abrams (with these bi weekly videos) that he wants into ST XI.

Get it done.

Kirk deserves a better ending.

48. Don Corleone - March 27, 2007

84% of the people want Shatner back in ST XI.

The people have spoken.

49. Xai - March 27, 2007

Josh,
I really don’t see where it’s up to anyone to sell you on the merits of the younger Trek series. I and others have answered your questions in the past on Trekmovie.com and you either don’t see the response or choose not to answer. I suspect no one can satisfy your query to your satisfaction, so why try again?
And I don’t understand your posts. First you want someone to answer your curiosity because you genuinely want to know, then in a following post you say no one cares for _____ (list of misspelled ST captain’s names).
Speaking for myself. I enjoy all the Treks, TV and Movies. Some had more to offer than others, some were dogs, some shone brightly. The rest of my opinions on Trek have been posted regularly for the past several months.

50. StillKirok - March 27, 2007

Having Shatner be a narrator would be a major disappointment. Anyone can be a narrator. I can be the narrator. Only William Shatner can play an older Kirk. I do agree that it’s not necessary to have Shatner play a scene with younger Kirk. That’s not important. Shatner’s scenes should be in the future era.

51. Jeff - March 27, 2007

#48

Remember Mr Corleone, most people are idiots so we shouldn’t listen to what they have to say. ;)

To me, Star Trek has always been (among other things) about looking forward and not backwards. Having young Kirk and Spock in the new movie is a copout and not very creative in my opinion. I think that is what I liked about DS9 so much is that is wasn’t afraid to try something different.

That being said, if they are doing a movie about the first adventures of Kirk and Spock, let the new actors and creators do their thing unfettered by the old guard (except perhaps Robert Justman). Despite being icons, having Nimoy and Shatner in this would be like your Mom and Dad standing with you at the bus stop to make sure you didn’t trip getting on. Let the new blood do what they want by themselves.

Actually, I have a great idea….maybe Nimoy and Shatner could go into the future and replay their first adventure together on the holodeck and talk to each other about it while it plays out.

Sincerely,
Rick Berman

52. FlyingTigress - March 27, 2007

#50

Anyone could, you’re right. But using that distinctive voice could add something to serve as a useful movie intro to those who have some limited exposure to Trek. Aside, if it were added, the TOS Shatner-spoken intro.

53. StillKirok - March 27, 2007

No doubt #52, but after all that, limiting Shatner to being the narrator would be a massive let down. It would be like expecting to go out with Angelina Jolie and having Rosie O’Donnell open the door.

54. TiberiusK - March 27, 2007

I suspect that those of us that would love to hear Shatner narrate haven’t played Star Trek Legacy or Star Trek Encounters. He sounds awful: bored, old, disinterested, and monotone.

Regarding Kristee Alley, we have to remember that WoK was her first feature film role, and, I believe, SFS would have been her second. She negotiated a modest salary for WoK, and Bennett et. al. assumed that they could get her with similar or slightly higher offer. Suddenly, she demands top notch 6 figure pay for her role in SFS, which, as someone else pointed out, wasn’t that substantial of a role.

Of course they could have casted a new character, but Saavik was intended to be a regular character. In fact, Valeris the traitor of STVI was originally written as Saavik. GR protested that Saavik was too integral a character to turn against Kirk and Spock, and I think they also had trouble getting the same actress back again. That is when they finally created a new character. They could have done it in III, but most had high hopes for the character as a regular persona.

55. StillKirok - March 27, 2007

There are those of us that understand that Shatner acting in a video game and Shatner acting on the big screen are completely different things. The man is winning accolade after accolade for his current work.

56. TiberiusK - March 27, 2007

#55

Well Bakula, Brooks, Mulgrew, and Stewart took their voice roles pretty seriously in the video games, taking the opportunity to relive characters that they love to play.

Perhaps we have a double-standard when it comes to Shatner. If so, I can’t imagine him taking a small cameo seriously.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Shat. But if this movie really wants to draw a new younger and mainstream audience back to the charismatic character of Capt. Kirk, stay away from the 76 year old obese guy in the toupee.

57. Lord Garth Formerly of Izor - March 27, 2007

#56.. Are you drinking??? Of course there is a double standard with Shatner. He’s F*cking Shatner!!!!! You can’t compare anyone else in the series with him let alone Scott Bakula??? Kate Mulgrew????? Give me a break. The man is a legend and has transended Pop Icon Status. He’s the Beatles and Elvis. It doesn’t matter how old he may be, hell Patrick Stewart is ten years younger and looks tens years older than the Shat. The video game in question sucked anyway. I was the first to give a mini review of it on this site. It was completely disappointing as it was produced by the same group of people that produced xbox360′s finest game “Oblivion” – Patrick Stewart fans take note. The game could have been so much more and turned out to be a clumsey jumble of what could have been. And before you rip Shatner for his big belly, take a look at Jonathan Frakes and Brent Spiner who both look like they ate Shatner as well as a small Gorn family. We just want Shatner to be a part of this somehow, if he plays an older ressurected Kirk and it is plausible – wonderful. If he is the narrator from beyond the grave- wonderful, if he plays pappy Kirk- wonderful!! The TOS is back, though it never went away, you next gen fans have a comic book so stop sniping and enjoy!!

Lord Garth is back to police the utter nonsense !!!, now Marta will dance for Anthony, Flying Tigress, StillKirok, Adam Cohen, Spockboy, Dennis, Darin, Demode, Voodoo and Josh T . Quite a wonderful family we have here!!

58. Kev - March 27, 2007

Having Shatner and Nimoy in it will help the movie greatly if he and Nimoy have something to do; i.e., an active role in solving some problem occuring in the past and effecting (or recurring in) the future. I really don’t care about having them show up just to walk down a corridor, unless it’s clear that Kirk survived the Nexus. if neither of those things are done, why have him in it at all?

59. FlyingTigress - March 27, 2007

#53

I’ll take your word for it — since every time I think of Rosie O’D the “Psycho shower-scene violins” come to mind….

60. FlyingTigress - March 27, 2007

I’ve got IT!

The Shat could be in the movie, in a bar scene, singing [sic] “Lucy in the Sky…” and “Rocket Man”…

61. TiberiusK - March 27, 2007

#57

I agree that Bethesda and Maddoc completely botched the games, and I’d love it if trekmovie.com took them to town for the false advertising, deceptive system specs, and lack of developmental follow-through.

I also agree that Shatner is on a level above Mulgrew and Bakula in trekdom. But, my original point was not to compare Shat to later actors, but to ask, “Why would he take a small cameo or role as a narrator seriously when he hasn’t in the past?”

It would be neat, but I think, in the best interests of the film, having Shat (if he accepted a small cameo, which I think is doubtful) would be a distraction involving either time travel or some nexus scifi concept. Then, they’d have to somehow get around the fact that a. Kirk is dead, and b. old Kirk looks nothing like young kirk. Maybe my imagination is just poor, but I’d rather enjoy a more straight-forward adventure story focusing on the character of Kirk as we see him in the film, as well as the existing relationships among the contemporary characters in the film.

Maybe a voice-over would be cute, but how can the audience believe that two different onscreen voices are the same character? It only works when the main character is a child (think Stand by Me).

As I see it, the only realistic option involving Shat that would truly work: Shatner and Nimoy reprising their full roles and characters in a movie that focuses on elderly heroes (no younger recasts). But there are still enormous obstacles: Kirk is dead, as is Scotty and McCoy (due to the actors’ deaths). And, when Shat and Nimoy die soon, where is the franchise left? Back at square one, although perhaps profitable again.

62. Trevok - March 27, 2007

I think it would be good for Shat to do a voice over but then what do you do with Nimoy? I think maybe they should be used to bookend the film. Then again maybe the best thing for the film wuold be just to leave them out of it, as much as I’d like to see them in it.
LLAP

63. Aaron R - March 27, 2007

So much hostility pulsing through this one. The only reason Shat will do a part as he has stated and eluded to is if he can bring his character back to life in the movie. He has said that he thinks that Kirks death was badly done however he did sign on the line to do it and ok’d the death in the firstplace. True Kirk was originally supposed to be shot in the back and die that way but that was even worse than the bridge. Oh well… You know initially I thought Shatner/Nimoy would be good in this film but now I am just not so sure. I think Shatner accepted the death scene in Generations and then changed his mind later and now wants to fix it. Well you know sometimes you make your own bed and you just need to lay in it. On another note the last 20 years of Star Trek far out dwarfs the TOS 79 eppisodes and people need to stop thinking that TOS is all mighty and the last 15 years is nothing but terrible. That is certainly not true by far. DS9′s ‘Far Beyond the Stars’ is not only one of the best Star Trek epps ever it far outdoes most science fiction in general. To slander newer Star Trek in such a way is not logical. Give me ‘Year of Hell’ before TOS ‘Spock’s Brain’ anyday… TOS through ENT Star Trek has good and bad epps with every crew even the Shat. Let this bad tempered attitude rest now. Let it rest… .. … ..

64. Jon - March 27, 2007

#48 .84%of the people want Shatner back.Yeah,on a website where trekkies can’t tell the difference between characters and actors.Real people,audiences,don’t want to see a James bond movie with an aged Roger Moore or playing a Bond with aging issues.That’s not the way Bond was written.that’s why you have Daniel Craig.You guys had your movies about old Star Trek characters either coming out of retirement or coming back from the dead,and the REST OF THE PUBLIC LOST INTEREST.I for one am looking forward to see the characters portrayed as they were originally written.alot of you guys are more afraid of becoming obsolete yourselves because your ‘klinging on” to these old actors and when they go so do you(IN A WAY),that’s what your really afraid of.your little trekkie world becoming irrelevant.sorry ,no disrespect ,but I do thing my point is valid and should be considered.

65. jonboc - March 27, 2007

I’d love to see the Shat back as an older Kirk…who cares how he got out of the Nexus, it’s a non-issue with me. I would love to see Kirk and Spock bookend this picture, similar to how Private Ryan took us to modern day. Kirk and Spock could be a McCoys funeral or some such event that should tie in to the story we just watched. It could be either an emotional ending or an upbeat exhange punctuating the fun of the last 2 hours..all depending on which direction they take it. But Shatner and Nimoy’s involvement would be great as far as I’m concerned, as long as they have something worth doing in the scene I’m all for it.

66. Aaron R - March 27, 2007

#64 I agree with what you say…

67. Jeffrey S. Nelson - March 27, 2007

Got the Comedy Central Roast of Shatner. What a rip: they didn’t include the Nimoy filmed bit at the open. Must have been a copyright clearance thing, but what they hey?? Borgus frat!! Only good thing about the dvd is the inclusion of the Shatner Promise Margarine ad that didn’t air in the original broadcast.

68. Darkowski - March 27, 2007

#38

So THAT’S why Kirstie didn’t come back for III !!
I was always wondering what the heck happened, why the heck she didn’t return, because she was amazing!
Now that you enlighted me, I can sleep better at night. And if I’m not mistaken, it was her first roll on the big screen! Demanding already more than the ‘legends’ of Trek… seriously…. (it won’t change my opinion though, that Curtis’s Saavik wasn’t interesting at all).

About Shatner,
I still think he can be an asset in this new Trek, and will pull a larger audience.

1. The new actors will pull a new audience
2. Kirk will pull some of the older audience
3. Bringing Kirk back from the Nexus will fix the cannon.
What I mean is that there was a TNG episode with Scotty being saved from the transporter by Geordi. In fact, Scotty thought that it was Kirk who saved him.
THAT happened in the future – after Generations. Hence, Scotty saw Kirk die, but later in the future, he thinks that he is saved by Kirk…… Is it me, or that’s what really happened?

The old Kirk doesn’t have to be in the same time as the younger Kirk. It would be too weird. Actually I hope they won’t be in the same time period!

Anyways, I’m not a ‘bringbackkirk’ fanatic, but it would solve a few problems. And if the old actors aren’t cast, then it’s fine with me too. I will go see the movie because it is Star Trek, and by curiosity to see how the new actors play their roles. Hope the story is good…

69. steve - March 27, 2007

Two (related) points.

First, why a prequel? Because these great characters got short shrift in the original. Think about it, only 79 episodes and half of those were crap. Six movies (sorry, Generations doesn’t count) and one of those was crap. There are a lot of stories in these characters that can still be told if the slate is wiped clean and started over. And high on my list is some back story for Jim Kirk. Who is he? Where did he come from? What made him what he is? I think an integral part of that would be to introduce Kirk’s parents, just as Spock’s were introduced in “Journey to Babel”. And who would be a great choice to play Kirk’s dad?

Point two: how bout the Shat?

70. yo - March 27, 2007

#31: “… they could even make a sequel or two with Shatner and Nimoy
… Shatner and Nimoy would stand to make much more money ….”

“Shatner And Nimoy’s Movie” is an anagram of
“Movie Star’s Money In Hand”. ;-)

71. ALLAN ROSE - March 27, 2007

WASNT JACK LORD ALMOST PICKED TO PLAY KIRK IN THE ORIGINAL SERIES? I BELIEVE JACK LORD IS NOW DEAD, WHICH MEANS IF HE HAD GOTTEN THE PART INSTEAD OF SHATNER WE WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN SPARED FROM SEEING AN OLD SILLY OVER WEIGHT HASBEEN GROVEL FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES OF FAME.

72. T Negative - March 27, 2007

#69 I completely agree.
When Trek XI opens I would like to see Kirk in Iowa about to head off to Starfleet command. Before he leaves he has a profound one on one with his Dad, who happens to be played by Shatner.

This is the only way to have Shatner in the film and make it work. Which leaves one more question: How do they fit Nimoy in??

73. Xai (I christen thee... Enterprise.) - March 27, 2007

Star Trek XI…

I will see it regardless if Shatner’s in it or not, but…
In my opinion this will be a far better film and better attended if the story is straightforward. A space adventure named Star Trek, not a movie “band-aid” for the faults of Generations.
We have read where Abrams wants this to appeal to Trek fans and non-fans alike. And it needs to have that broad appeal to be a success. To add subplots about rescuing old Kirk from a bland death scene in a now old movie is frankly silly. And so is having two versions of Kirk appear in the film. This invites direct comparions and the suspension of disbelief is out the window. Give the XI cast some freedom to be who they are supposed to be without old shadows lurking around.

#63 Aaron R… excellent points and well written.

I say let Shatner do the preamble, then he and Nimoy pass the torch and be done.This could be done at the onset of filming in a very public way and would be a fantastic tribute to their large parts in the 40 years of Trek. Literally a passing of command from the original generation to the next.

Shatner and Nimoy get less money from the deal, but both come away with great PR, lots of positive press and fans can gush all over this as it hits the papers and nightly news.

What a great way to launch an enterprise.

74. Michael Appleton - March 27, 2007

#71
If Jack Lord had been cast in the part of Captain Kirk then we wouldn’t even be discussing the legend of Star Trek because it would have been cancelled after one season! Saying Jack Lord is starship captain material is like suggesting Whoopi Goldberg could win a bathing beauty contest!! Fahgeddaboutit!!

75. VOODOO - March 27, 2007

It’s just another boring prequel w/out Shatner + Nimoy.

With Shatner + Nimoy it’s something special. A perfect way to introduce Star Trek’s past to it’s future.

Without them it’s just another chance for Paramont to attempt to milk more money out of the franchise.

76. Xai - March 27, 2007

#75 VooDOo

Wow… the movie’s out already? It’s boring?

How the hell can anyone judge something before they have information?

We don’t know if it’s Shat-less or not, but give it a chance.

77. Michael Appleton - March 28, 2007

All together now, to the tune of John Lennon’s “Give Peace A Chance”:
All we are saying….is give Shat a chance….all we are saying…is give Shat a chance…all we are saying….

78. Chris Pike - March 28, 2007

72, His Shatness playing young J T Kirk’s father, nice one. And HIS character’s name just happens to be James Robert Kirk (Sr)…maybe? then Leonard, could he (as previously muted here) play Spock’s father Sarek…possibly, but is there a strong identity with the late Mark Lenard’s great rendering of the character?

79. FlyingTigress - March 28, 2007

#78

“but is there a strong identity with the late Mark Lenard’s great rendering of the character?”

Mark Lenard, IMO, became as identified with the character beyond the ability to be ‘replaced’ by another actor as much as — if not more — than many of the semi-regulars. Enough to be brought back years after a one episode (excluding the actor’s role in “Balance”) appearance in TOS to reprise his role in mid-run eps of TNG. Perhaps he isn’t ID’ed as much as the leads from the series, but, even some of the semi-regular characters: Kevin O’Reilly (TOS), Ro Laren (TNG) (hence, one of the reasons for the change for the Bajoran second-in-command from “Ro” to “Kira” in DS:9) , for two examples, were definately brought into their own by the actors selected, and would be problematic to replace with other actors.

I believe that the ‘dodge’ of using one of the actors to represent an ancestor (Dorn’s “Colonel Worf” cameo in ST:TUC, for example) doesn’t really work. In ST:VI, you had some advantage in the fact that Dorn’s “TNG-era” appearance (but, nothing was done to alter his voice) was able to modified, by a few tweaks, of the otherwise-usual prosthetics, so that it didn’t look like “Gee…Look, it’s Dorn’s character of Lt. Worf in the Qo’noS courtroom 80 years before TNG…”

It’s a bit of a lazy writer’s tool, and has a problem when you are already asking for an internationally-recognizable iconic film character

(shoot…even the concept of replacing characters with different actors is one category of a TV series “Jumping The Shark” (shameless plug for the guys over at “JumptheShark.com”). Think “Darren” and “Bewitched” — in another popular, although nowhere near as popular as Trek became, ’60s era TV series)

to be replaced by a new actor.

/0.02

80. TiberiusK - March 28, 2007

Having Shat as the new Kirk’s father would only confuse mainstream audiences IMO. Only hardcores would realize it’s not the same James Kirk because his middle initial is different, and those casually familiar with the movies would say, “Wait a minute, didn’t Kirk’s son die? Why is Kirk’s son doing exactly what Kirk did all over again? I’m confused.”

81. Chris - March 28, 2007

OK, I don’t care if Shatner or Nimoy are in the movie or not, as long as it is good and they don’t cast someone like Matt Damon as young Kirk. Please! Damon is too old for one thing and too Matt Damonish. I am not expecting another Shatner, but lets face it, part of Kirk’s appeal was the fact that Shatner was such a ham and knew how to make it work. They don’t need someone who looks like Shatner, they need someone who can make playing Kirk look fun. That’s what Shatner did.

Also, if the movie panders too much to die-hard Star Trek fans the result will be disappointing. Imagine what kind of movie we would see if the director tried to do everything you guys have suggested.

82. DEMODE - March 28, 2007

Damon is not to old to play Kirk. He looks the right age for the part.

83. Don Corleone - March 28, 2007

Xai # 76

I agree with Voodoo.

I don’t think he meant the film itself would be boring. If I understand him correctly he is saying the concept of yet another prequel is borng.

I also agree with Voodoo that Shatner + Nimoy would make this a special film in Star Trek history. It could be the passsing of the torch that Generations was meant to be but wasn’t.

84. Kaveman - March 28, 2007

As much as I hate to say it, I wouldn’t want to see either Shatner or Nimoy in another Trek movie, ever. They, Kirk and Spock, are done in the Star Trek universe. They did their part and enough is enough. Don’t get me wrong, I loved watching TOS and all of the movies and I still watch to this day, but the idea of trying to tie in TOS to another Trek story, series, or generation is getting old, particularly with Shatner and Nimoy. Also, I am over Kirk’s death and any more resurrections from him (constantly cheating death) or any other character at this point would be silly.

That’s not to say that they (Shatner and Nimoy’s portrayals) can’t be remembered in some way. Perhaps a brief memorial service to honor the entire crew of TOS set many years after TNG (when we are quite sure all of the crew of TOS have passed). If you want a cameo, perhaps Brent Spiner or Jeri Ryan or John de Lancie (I’ve always wanted to see Q in a Trek movie). The memorial could be brief and at the beginning of the movie so we could say our goodbyes and get it over with and move on. Just a thought.

Shatner and Nimoy have enough on their plates to keep them busy. They still occasionally talk about TOS, but they are getting old and they don’t need to play the parts any more. We Trek fans will always remember them for what they’ve done. Can’t that be enough?

85. Kaveman - March 28, 2007

Also, I wander if the character Captain Christopher Pike will show up?

86. Don Corleone - March 28, 2007

According to the poll the vast majority of fans want Nimoy + Shatner in the film.

I just can’t believe that real Star Trek fans wouldn’t want the original iconic actors in these roles?

87. Kaveman - March 28, 2007

And while we’re on the subject of crazy ideas for Star Trek characters, how about a movie with all of the captains: Kirk, Picard, Janeway, Sisko, and Archer. They could all join the Q Continuum and become the next ‘Greek Gods’ of the universe. As a result, each character will be renamed to fit their new ‘God’ status. Shatner’s character can be renamed ‘Kirok’. Patrick Stewart can be Locutus. Kate Mulgrew will play Helen Donnelly. Avery Brooks can play Hawk (from 80′s TV Spenser: For Hire). And Scott Bakula can play, of course, Sam Beckett. In this movie they will dress up like Native americans, assimilate everyone, beat people up, and travel through time uncontrollably. Helen Donnelly will be like a mother to her four out-of-control sons. And who will be able to stop them? No one!!! That way, this story can go on and on for ever in the Star Trek universe and we’ll at least get to see Shatner until the day he dies. And who knows, by then CGI technology may be able to keep him going long after that. Maybe we can get Leonard Nimoy to bring back and host the TV show “In Search Of:” and have him do an investigative report on the “Captains.”

Obviously, I’m being a smart ass here. But it seems that there are a few (just a few) people who just can’t let go. Everybody eventually dies, even fictional characters. The only torch that needs to be passed is the one that will burn any corny idea of bringing Shatner and/or Nimoy in to play their parts in this new movie, which they probably wouldn’t do because the roles wouldn’t be big enough or pay enough and their would probably be little or no creative control for them.

88. Xai - March 28, 2007

#86 Don Corleone
“I just can’t believe that real Star Trek fans wouldn’t want the original iconic actors in these roles?”
You need to be very careful with your words, Don. I most certainly am a REAL fan of Star Trek and only want the best for it and it’s fans.
I have stated several times why I think what I think on most subjects here and do not appreciate the implication that I, or anyone else isn’t a real fan.

X

89. Anthony Pascale - March 28, 2007

oh no….someone is using the ‘real trek fan’ card again…that is a serious bozo no no on this site

as I have said before….everyone here is a fan, no one is better at it than anyone else.

…and as a fellow paisan, I mean no disrespect Don Corleone

OH AND ALLAN ROSE STOP USING ALL CAPS IN YOUR POSTS, IT IS ANNOYING….what you have to say isn’t more important that what other people have to say

90. Don Corleone - March 28, 2007

Sorry guys.

A bad choice of words on my part.

I just think they would really bring a lot to the project and the general public would eat it up.

91. Michael Appleton - March 28, 2007

What if we have a naked Shatner and Nimoy stand there for two hours, looking each other up and down, and we’ll call it STAR TREK XI: The Search For More Liver Spots.

92. Tim Handrahan - March 28, 2007

Abrams has too much respect for them not to include Shatner and Nimoy. When the dust settles, they WILL be in the film. He will find a way…If he honor’s them both…he must!

93. Xai - March 28, 2007

#89 Anthony, thanks./

94. Xai - March 28, 2007

#92 Tim H.
I hope he also is respectful of his audience and Trek itself.

To be clear, I will watch it Shat or no Shat. But, if this thing becomes a huge “band-aid” for Generations or we see 76 year old bodies doing flying drop-kicks, Trek will be a laughing stock and deservedly so.

I want a Trek adventure, not a farce (accidentally or on purpose).

95. VOODOO - March 28, 2007

Why would Shatner + Nimoy be doing “flying drop kicks”

Can’t they just play mature versions of these characters? Don’t people age in the ST universe?

96. The Question - March 28, 2007

I think you all miss the real villians here. Rick Berman and Branna Braga are not part of this project. The battle is half won already. Read what our new Producer/Director has to say about Trek. “Emotion vs Logic, Us vs Them, ect….He understands what made TOS great. Don’t get me wrong, I have TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise on DVD. I enjoy it, but I can see how non-fans are turned off by it all. We need a fresh cast using the formula that made TOS great and I think thats what we’re going to get, if not, then its back to being a Closet Trekkie again.

97. jonboc - March 28, 2007

Agreed #95. These ARE rich characters and they can be just as entertaining and endearing at 76 as they were at 36 and 46 and 56 and 66. And the real beauty is we really HAVE seen these actors portray these characters at these ages over the course of the last 40 years. To witness the same actor portray the same character throughout almost all the phases of adult life is fascinating and unheard of. Of course they aren’t going to do dropkicks, and anyone that thinks they would just doesn’t get it. I would welcome a 2 hour movie of these two men in their 70′s every bit as much as I would welcome them in small roles “reflecting” back on their initial meeting. As far as I’m concerned there is no disadvantage to having Shatner and Nimoy in this movie and it does my heart good to see that, according to the polls, most people feel the same way.

98. Jeffrey S. Nelson - March 28, 2007

Jonboc… you hit the nail on the head. Yes, I would love to see a Shatner and Nimoy movie all by themselves… but unfortunately it appears we get the “first adventure” with new actors. I just hope it’s not Matt Damon as Kirk. Somebody posted the comment that he’s “too Matt Damon-ish” and I think that also is an astute observation.

99. Sam Belil - March 28, 2007

#94 — I could NOT agree with you more. We all LOVE Shatner and everything he (and OF COURSE Nimoy) brought to the franchise. Frankly at 76 believe he is too old to even play “younger Kirk’s” father. How many nearly 80 year old people do you know w/children in their pre-teens/teems? We need to be realistic here — I still maintain with a talented cast of new comers (please, please NO FRIGGIN’ Matt Damon) the movie can be successful! If this were 10-15 years ago I can see Shatner and Nimoy pulling it off as the “older” versions of their characters(and I say this as HUGE fan of the TOS series, I have been watching the series since it came on in 1966) — nearing 80 I can’t see them pulling it off.
Do I want them in the film, OF COURSE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT. Someone explain to me how to make it work…..

100. Xai - March 28, 2007

#95, 97.
As I said in #94, I will go to this movie with or without members of the original cast in it. My biggest concern is that this becomes purely a vehicle to “rescue” Kirk from death, and features a convoluted storyline jumping back and forth between Kirks that only the most hardcore Trek fan will appreciate.
To have Shatner and another actor portray Kirk in the same film, IMO invites disaster at the boxoffice. I can see people sitting with their mate or date saying” I recognize the old Kirk (Shatner), but who’s the other guy that thinks he’s Kirk? As a storyteller, would I want this distraction? Short of a Shatner clone, I see no solution. I have nothing but respect for the 40 years of work these men did, but to “honor” them is not why I see a movie.

101. jonboc - March 29, 2007

100- did anyone really have any problem believing River Phoenix was a young Indianna Jones? Of course not, Phoenix was fantastic. It’s all in the casting and the writing. Trek COULD be just as effective, but reversed, with the younger Kirk being in the greater portion of the movie. Like I said, I would LOVE to see Shatner play an elderly Kirk…but realistically,with Boston Legal being re-newed for another season, the logistics involved in scheduling may make it impossible.

102. Don Corleone - March 29, 2007

I’m sorry, but it is nonsense to say that “it would be a disaster at the box office to have Shatner + another actor play Kirk in the same film”

jobboc gives a great example of Harrison Ford + River Pheonix playing the same character (Indiana Jones) in The Last Crusade.

Surely the audience is sophisticated enough to differentiate the two.

Their presence gives ST XI a legitimacy in many fans eyes that it would not have w/out them.

As Voodoo pointed out in post #75.

I’t just another prequel/reboot without them. With them it could be something special.

As Jonboc + Voodoo also pointed out. These are rich (and now mature)characters. It would be very interesting to see them mature through the decades portrayed by the same actors. To the best of my knowledge it has never been done before in any genre.

Shatner + Nimoy in ST XI is a no lose scenerio for the film,for the franchise,for the fans and most importantly for the box office (where ST is dead + buried)

103. Tom - March 29, 2007

i think it is a good bet we will see Shatner & Nimoy. The fact that the production crew has been meeting with them indicates their involvement. Any interview with both Shatner & Nimoy makes it clear that they will not be satisfied with a consultants role. I am sure the production team knows this. They really do not need their stamp of approval. Any negative comments from Shatner & NImoy would probably be attributed to sour grapes. So these conversations would have to be about more than just keeping them up to date or asking opinions. Obviously they will not have major roles but i believe we will see them in the film. It is just a win-win for Paramount. the public relations will just be too good to pass up. With a good script, it would not detract from the story. In fact it would only enhance it. This is the last time we will probably be able to see these actors in the roles. If this production team are TOS fans as they claim to be they will not waste this oppurtunity.

104. Jeff - March 29, 2007

Why don’t we just have Shatner at his Nexus cabin reminiscing to Spock about the good ole’ days? They can share a gander at an old scrapbook, take horseback rides together, wrestle a Gorn…..

I am sorry, it just isn’t necessary/funny/sophisticated to have them in the new movie. We all know who they are and what they brought to the Star Trek Universe but let them go. It is bad enough there is going to be a movie about early Kirk and Spock…

And by the way, haven’t we already seen Shatner and Nimoy “mature through the decades” already?

105. Xai - March 29, 2007

#101, 102,
Of course we are all expressing opinions here.

My opinion is that River Phoenix and Harrison Ford both playing Indy Jones worked because of a percieved age difference in the character in both time periods of the story. River was an adolescent boy scout Indy complete with long hair. Harrison was the older mature Indy. River’s character had more growing up physically to do. Teens faces still change to some degree (or can)

Compare that to Shatner vs. Matt Damon (for example).
Both are now mature men with a large difference in age. Matt is younger, but his physical growth to adulthood had obviously ended. Get a much younger actor to portray Kirk at… 15 and I can accept your argument. But then it’s back to the “Academy Trek ” so many are dissing.

Shatner and Nimoy’s participation, or lack of, is not a deal-breaker for me. I just want a good movie. Not an episode of “this is your life…”

106. Xai - March 29, 2007

#104Jeff
Agreed

107. DEMODE - March 29, 2007

Spock could always go to the Nexxus to try to save Kirk, but once he gets there, Kirk tells him that he can’t leave… because he is only an ‘echo’ of Kirk that will live on forever within the Nexxus. Inside the Nexxus, they could look back and reflect on their past, which is how we could meet the new cast.

I would rather they bring Kirk back to to life, but that is one way around it, and a way of letting Spock say goodbye to his friend.

108. ozy - March 29, 2007

Every star trek series ( TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT ) is great.

109. Sam Belil - March 29, 2007

#107-Of all the suggestions that I have heard, that is BY FAR THE BEST (in my opinion that is). If Abrams and crew are reading all these blogs I hope that they pay attention to your suggestion. It is one that certainly maintains credibility within the canon, and also serves as an excellent spring board for whichever young actors (hopefully unknowns and PLEASE AGAIN NO MATT DAMON) inherit the mantle and continue the adventures of the TOS characters.

110. Robert April - March 29, 2007

The way to give Shatner and Nimoy meaningful roles with limited screen time is to give them a secondary story arc and have it play out over three films. Just for fun, how about this:

Movie 1

Kirk and Spock have their first space adventure as seen through eyes of the older Kirk and Spock. Add 24th century uniforms to Shatner and Nimoy (with no explanation) as they look back to notch up the “WTF?” quotient.

Movie 2

Early years adventure continues with a Young Kirk in command of the Big E-1701. Plot involving Gary Mitchell . Events happen just before WNMHGB4 from TOS. Time travel-esque storyline that brings old and young characters together in some limited way. (perhaps subspace transmissions through time with a “time travel non-interference” directive in play.)

Movie 3.

Something big and unexpected with small crossovers from other trek series.

Nexus is revealed as a break away fragment of the Great Barrier.

Young Kirk Saves Mitchel from some disaster just before events in WNMHGB4. Movie ends with view of the Great Barrier and a remake of opening scenes from the famous Trek 2nd Pilot.

Old Kirk forced to choose between saving Mitchell in the past or saving Spock in the future. Kobayashi Maru all over again.

Old Kirk is freed from nexus by a young Spock at the end and semi retires in 24th century.

Berman and Braga are trapped in Nexus as punishment for putting Kirk there in the first place.

Ron Moore gets 1000 lashings from the blond Cylon for his role in the “Bridge is on the Captain” debacle but is let go to serve out his days doing great TV science fiction on “Battlestar Galactica.”

111. The Question - March 29, 2007

The Nexus is too good for Berman and Braga….

112. Michael Appleton - March 29, 2007

If Shatner would only go away for ten minutes then it might be enticing to see him pop up in the new Trek film. It’s hard to miss someone if they never leave. Between Boston Legal, comedy roasts,commercials and interviews he is severely overexposed. At least with Nimoy he’s got the good sense to be “low profile” and leave the audience wanting more. The Shat would go to the opening of an envelope, so there’s no feeling of missing him!

113. Xai - March 29, 2007

Oh please…. Berman and Braga have been castrated so many times on this site and others. This thread isn’t about them.

114. Xai - March 29, 2007

#113 Michael
Good point

115. jonboc - March 30, 2007

“At least with Nimoy he’s got the good sense to be “low profile” and leave the audience wanting more.”

112- I love Lenny as much as the next guy, but there is a big difference between low profile and not being in demand.

116. Mike - March 30, 2007

I think you need to keep Shatner and Nimoy out of it. Doing this movie with them I think will mess up the story. It is too much of an inconvienence for the writers and the producers. People will still go to see it anyway,if you are a true Star Trek fan. Keep them out of it. I love those guys but, don’t do that to them. It wouldn’t be fair to them or us.

117. ozy - March 30, 2007

I disagree

118. The Question - March 30, 2007

People keep saying “no Matt Damon”, but no one give a concrete reason why he shouldn’t play the charactor, any suggestions…

119. Michael Appleton - March 30, 2007

#115 Nimoy…not being in demand.
Or, maybe, Nimoy being rich and in his 70′s figures enough is enough, unlike Shatner who would wrestle a Gorn in the nude on live T.V. if he got paid a cheque with enough zeroes on it!!
P.S. when I said “in the nude” I meant the Shat, not the Gorn.

120. Robert April - March 30, 2007

The Matt Damon from “Good Will Hunting” would be great as a brash young farm boy from Iowa.

That Matt Damon we got to see in “The Brothers Grimm” would put me to sleep.

“Kick, punch; It’s all in the mind.”

Or in this case the script and director.

-RA

121. The Question - March 30, 2007

Dare I even mention the protagonist actor who starred in Titanic….as a potential Capt. James T. Kirk?

122. The Question - March 30, 2007

While I’m at it, why not Tom Cruise as Mr. Chekov…

123. The Question - March 30, 2007

Keifer Sutherland……how about him as Kirk…..

124. Xai - March 30, 2007

Re: Shat or not to Shat….

These are the questions the writers and producers should ask when thinking of hiring Mr. Shatner…in my opinion, of course.

Is he important to the story as written?
If so, will his presence detract from the other Kirk actor?
Will two (or more) Kirks be believable if they are both adults (as opposed to a teen Kirk)? Will they resemble each other if there is direct comparison?
Is his asking price within the budget?

#123, Question.
Your answer is…both mentioned are too old. and Leo as Kirk?…. IMO, no.

125. Michael Appleton - March 30, 2007

It’s too bad Sutherland is too old because he certainly has the acting “chops” to tackle a role like James Kirk!

126. The Question - March 31, 2007

Thats what I’ve been saying about Shatner, if Sutherland is too old, then certainly Shatner is too old. I’ve seen no suggestions on who could play Capt. Kirk, but I bet it’ll be Matt Damon, like it or not.

127. The Question - March 31, 2007

Matthew Broderick as “Bones”. Uma Thurman as “Nurse Chapel”. Halle Berry as “Ohura”.

128. Xai - March 31, 2007

#127 Question

Try “Uhura”

129. Xai - March 31, 2007

And all of them are too old as well.

130. The Question - March 31, 2007

The Nick kids choice awards are airing tonight, perhaps we could find someone on that broadcast.

131. Xai - March 31, 2007

Perhaps…. make sure you get their names.

132. The Question - March 31, 2007

Drake Bell as a brash young Kirk fresh out of the academy…

133. Terry - April 25, 2007

Mr. Doohan’s son, Chris, should get the role of a young Scotty, if that is they way they are going to do it. Come on Paramount. The fans would love it. Let the legacy continue!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.