Shatner and Nimoy: Still Interested In Trek XI – Still No Contact |
jump to navigation

Shatner and Nimoy: Still Interested In Trek XI – Still No Contact May 7, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Conventions/Events/Attractions,Nimoy,Shatner,ST09 Cast , trackback

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy appeared at Creations Star Trek Convention in Minneapolis on Sunday. TrekMovie has received a number of reports from attendees regarding how Shatner and Nimoy started out by saying they had no real news regarding Star Trek XI, with Shatner even joking he was "out of the loop." Both actors did express an openness to appearing in the film (especially Shatner). Nimoy was more subdued; noting (as he has done previously) that he would only be involved "if they had a meaningful role" for him  However, they said that they had not yet been contacted by the Trek XI team regarding appearing in the film. Shatner did talk up his upcoming novel Starfleet Academy: Collision Course, noting how it also tells the story of Kirk and Spock’s early years.

As recently as January Shatner seemed certain that there would be roles for the pair, but recently he has become less certain. TrekMovie has already reported that the script has gone through significant changes since its first draft so it is possible that roles for the original Kirk and Spock were taken out. One thing is for sure: with shooting set to start in 5 months, time is running out to work all this out.


Thanks to Richard, Alexis, Julio, Scott, and Troy for their reports. Image courtesy of Pioneer Press. See article for more info and images 

VOTE  time for another Shatner/Nimoy poll

what are you current thoughts about them in Star Trek XI?


Attending a Trek Con?

remember is always interested in con reports…send them in via the tip line (right column)


1. Slick - May 7, 2007

They need to get on it and work things out!!! It wouldn’t be the same without Shatner and Nimoy to pass the torch….First.

2. Stanky McFibberich - May 7, 2007

So it looks like they might not be in it unless they are in it, which they may be, if they are offered roles in it, in which case they may or may not be in it. ;|

Wish I could have been there. I’ve never been to a convention, but if I were to attend one, those are the guys I’d want to see.

3. Michael Hall - May 7, 2007

Okay, purists. Time to smell the coffee: this film is not being made to either ‘fix’ Star Trek: Generations or to give you one last fix of that admittedly wonderful duo of Nimoy and “The Shat.” Rather, it will be an entirely new take on the subject matter, filtered (for better or worse) through the sensibilities of one J.J. Abrams. For all the talk of “respecting canon,” in the end Star Trek XI will bear about as much resemblance to TOS as Dr. No bears to Casino Royale. If that means “fake Star Trek” to you, plan on saving your money and find other things to look forward to.

(And don’t bother wasting your bandwidth or postage with demands to Abrams or Paramount about your favorite stars. He’s a busy man these days, with lots of stuff on his plate, and won’t be reading them.)

4. Dennis Bailey - May 7, 2007

Just as well if they aren’t in it.

5. Tim - May 7, 2007

3. Michael Hall – May 7, 2007 – Wow and no posts yet from Purists. If there is one thing I want to see in the movie and that would be recognition of ST: Enterprise, season 4 went to great lengths to explain alot of continuity problems in Trek (klingons for one!). I agree, this Trek probably will not resemble the original TOS, I have no doubt that some of the sets will in some way echo that show but it will be a departure. My gut tells me that they may merge the set designs between Enterprise and ST:TMP/WOK, which would be logical. Either way Trek is in for one shake up and re-invigoration, I can not wait!

6. Woulfe - May 7, 2007

Time to move on, yup….

I’ve learned long ago if there was gonna be another TOS era film even if it took place after ” The Undiscovered Country ” that there’d be new actors in it as both De & Jimmy are no longer with us anymore, let’s face reality for a moment here…..

Someday Bill & Len will be dead as well, would you rather wait ’till they were gone to recast or do it while both can still say something about it ?

If it were me, I’d do it while I could get some input from the folks who are still around that matter, 40 years is a long time after all….

Now if the recast happened after they all were gone you bet that folks would scream ‘How dare they disrespect the original actors by doing this after they were gone !”

Namely we’d be having the same arguments only without Bill & Len around ‘nor any of the others for that matter….

– W –
* Just my $0.02 *

7. Anthony Pascale - May 7, 2007

star trek xi cannot be a swiss army knife of references to Generations, Enterprise, Voyager, The Dominion War, Edith Keeler and your grandmother’s kitchen sink

it has one job….to reinvigorate the franchise and make it a creative and financial success for Paramount again.

if they can have little continuity nuggets thrown in great, but they are not the priority

8. Stanky McFibberich - May 7, 2007

re: 4. Dennis Bailey
“Just as well if they aren’t in it.”
I agree with Mr. Bailey, though maybe not for the same reasons. :)

re: 3. Michael Hall
“…in the end Star Trek XI will bear about as much resemblance to TOS as Dr. No bears to Casino Royale. If that means “fake Star Trek” to you, plan on saving your money and find other things to look forward to.”

I doubt it will bear even that much resemblance. Thank you for including the phrase, “for better or worse.”
It’s interesting how Mr. Abrams is generally regarded by many who post at this site as being almost god-like in his Trekspertise, despite the fact he has shown nothing yet. I am not even really that familiar with his work, but I’m guessing that if his shows are popular with the “modern” viewing audiences, I probably would be wise to save my money for something else, even if I could overlook the recasting elements.

Curiosity, no doubt, will cause me to go to the thing when it comes out, and it will be impossible for me to be disappointed by it, since I don’t look forward to it. Just one of the fringe benefits of being a pessimist. :)

9. Sleeper Agent X - May 7, 2007

#3 – Hear, hear, Michael Hall! Exactly right, and I hope all us fans take it to heart.

We all need to go into this movie with open minds, and not base our opinions about it based on just whether or not our favorite stars or favorite canon references appear in it.

10. CmdrR - May 7, 2007

Agreed, Anthony, Bailey, et al. Job 1 is to sell tickets, and make sure there are few or no regrets from the people who buy them.
Job 2 is to live up to someone’ s expectations. This is new ground, as it should be.
Can’t wait til Christmas 2008.

11. Michael Hall - May 7, 2007

Stanky, I think you probably understand that J.J. Abrams doesn’t have to be “god-like in his Trekspertise” to make a good film, or even a great one. Harve Bennett knew very little about Trek, and Nick Meyer almost nothing at all, when fortune passed the baton into their hands, and while people like Gene Roddenberry and myself had our reservations, I think it’s safe to say that most of the posters here would be very happy if Abrams wound up producing something as critically and financially successful as The Wrath of Khan.

What’s most important to me is that he gets the ineffable fucking spirit of the thing right, whatever that may actually be. I understand completely your inability to get past the recasting. Hell, I was there in the audience years ago when Gene Roddenberry would joke at his lectures about the studio pressuring him to recast the roles (“Dustin Hoffman as Captain Kirk and Robert Redford as Mr. Spock”) as we obediently hissed on cue. But truth be told, at this jaded juncture I’m more intrigued by the possibilities than not. One thing is almost certain: Trek XI will either be a grand success or a total failure. If it fails, the franchise will be handed to the booksellers, merchandisers and its fans for safekeeping for the next few decades, if not forever. If it succeeds, Star Trek still becomes. . . something else. What? We’ll find out next December, and in the meantime, your low expectations are probably not a bad way to go.

12. Duane Boda - May 7, 2007

These two actors have enough cash but obviously not sense or pride or just common sense to call quits and say enough. What do these two honestly want and expect anyhow? Star Trek in order to start in a new direction MUST leave Star Trek (as it was) with them in our memories. Why look back at something that can’t be changed for the better? These two first whine then they complain about anything under the stars – its all quite silly – at the best.

13. VOODOO - May 7, 2007

Get these two signed on already.

I for one would wish ST XI well, but would have no interest in the film if Shatner + Nimoy do not appear as Kirk + Spock.

14. Stanky McFibberich - May 7, 2007

re:11. Michael Hall
“Stanky, I think you probably understand that J.J. Abrams doesn’t have to be “god-like in his Trekspertise” to make a good film…”

Yeah, I understand. My point is just that some people are so ga-ga over the fact that it is Mr. Abrams that has been chosen to do this…and maybe he is the right choice for those people who support the idea of this type of movie. Who’s to know? There’s just so little known about what the movie will be like, I just find it curious that there is that level of excitement at this stage.

I do remember being very pumped for Star Trek-The Motion Picture when that was announced, but basically from the start we knew it was the original cast and that the ship, though updated, was very recognizable as the Enterprise. For this movie, it is all complete speculation to this point.. I guess some people get excited by pure speculation. So be it.

Whether it becomes a hit or not makes very little difference to me. I do believe that no new Star Trek is better than bad new Star Trek. What it will be remains to be seen.

re: 12 Duane Boda
Not sure what whining or complaining you are referring to in regards to Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Shatner. I got no sense of them whining or complaining from anything that was written in this article. They merely mentioned that they didn’t know if they were going to be offered to be in it. Maybe you are referring to Mr. Nimoy wanting a “meaninful role.” Well, why wouldn’t he want a decent role? He’s basically retired from acting and it is well within his rights to accept or decline a role (if offered) for whatever reasons. Apparently, the only reason they would be offered roles in it would be for the speculation that it might sell more tickets. Personally, I think they would both be wise to just stay out of it. Let it sink or swim on its own merits, or lack thereof.

15. VOODOO - May 7, 2007

Anthony or Dennis:

What is your gut feeling about Shatner + Nimoy being in this film? Are you hearing anything behind the scenes that we have not heard?

Shatner is difficult to read. At the start of the year he sounded like he was convinced that they were going to be in the film + started neogotiating in public “If you want us it’s going to have to be a major role” which means he wants a lot of money.

Now it seems Shatner is out of the loop + is asking to get back in.

Or I could be 100% wrong. Shatner on a good day is impossible to read with his seemingly endless contridictory statements on the subject.

Do you think they will appear in ST XI?

I know that’s a tough one to answer with so little being known about the film.

16. Xai - May 7, 2007

The lines are drawn again….

Oh well… I’ll go if they are in or out… but they are not a nesessity for a good story. I can go one movie without parallel universes, time travel, space /time nexi and even some flashbacks.
Let’s see Captain Kirk,Commander Spock and crew deal with the universe in a good tale and note that I said Captain Kirk in a SINGular fashion.
One Kirk per movie please.

17. Xai - May 7, 2007

#11 Michael Hall…

I don’t know you at all, sorry. Your comments seem to indicate you are affiliated with Gene R and Trek.
How so?


18. JTK - May 7, 2007

I think Generations was the appropriate time to pass the torch properly. That boat was missed. Its too late now to try.

I think the whole thing needs re-invigorating and should start fresh with all new cast.

19. Redshirt - May 7, 2007

Personally I’m doubtful they will be in the new film..It really comes down not just Abram’s but also how much Paramount is willing to spend to bring both actors on board. Money does talk. Hollywood does frown on age.
Not very many pictures can do that anymore these days . Which is unfortunate. Because the cost of living as you get older goes up. I’m rather doubtful Paramount wants to flip the bill for that.

Harrison Fords role in Indy IV for example maybe will be out-shined by someone who is younger ( I heard a rumor its his son) and more relatable to the audience. So yes you go for that younger demographic that group they can relate too. With Star Trek It would make sense. Wont be popular but what else can they do?

You have already enough people complaining in some shape manner or form before the film is even shot. They are so used to this by now they put us on mute a long time ago. Its turned into white noise already…. And people will continue to complain till next year…Its like beating a dead decomposed horse. People have a right to their opinions.

So those people are gone and planning go see the next best thing…. Whatever that might be..

After The Motion Picture the films were never really high risk movies..ever. All of them did very well or we would not be discussing STXI. Until Nemesis nothing was at stake … Most film series are way over. The logic of any studio is a good movie can act on the merits to cost very little and they get more for its buck and its true even with a Star Trek movie. If its worth the 8 bucks sure I “might” go see it but it might wait and see it as a good 4 buck DVD rental six months later.

I would go for it more If it wasn’ t for the pop and flair by Par amounts PR department. After Nemesis should I believe anything they say? Not really. Saying it will be “The best movie event ever!!” doesn’t fly with me anymore. They don’t want just a movie that’s financially successful, they want it to be a critical success for its fans that never ever left and critics which are so hard to please so it reflects the “fast food and utterly obese” franchise very well. All I can say is good luck with that.

I hate using the term franchise. Just once can they call this something else but a franchise? It makes Trek sound like a fast food joint. No one gets it there way so why the heck should they call it that?

20. Thomas Jensen - May 7, 2007

If there is a completely valid dramatic reason for them being in the movie, then so be it. Otherwise, it shouldn’t matter. Personally, I feel no connection to this movie, other then I hope it will do the original series proud in a fashion that is star trek.

Issues with consistency with what has been established could easily be addressed by just starting over. For me, Star Trek is an established body of work encompassing only the original series, the first six movies and a few select episodes of TNG and one episode each of DS9 and Voyager.

In that universe Kirk is still alive. If the present generation of movie makers want to set up everything anew, then that’s just fine. If it coincides with what has gone before, then great, if it doesn’t and it’s a good movie then I’ll categorize it mentally as it deserves.

But I hope it is succeeds wildly and surprises all of us.

21. Duane Boda - May 7, 2007

14: I was referring not to this article as it was but rather to their history with Star Trek.
Two examples: Mr. Shatner…Well…jokingly telling Star Trek fans to get a life. I believe this was when he appeared on Saturday Night Live? Not certain. And on course having numerous clauses in his contract to either get this or have the script changed in his favor – all the while getting tons of cash. I mean the guy wants us to pay him to wipe his backside IF you know what I mean….must be nice to have a life where everybody is at hands and feet.
Mr. Nimoy: His book….I am not Spock….Fair enough….you’re not. Thats plainly obvious But all the while he gets what he wants also with fringe benefits up the wing-wang. IF I could only be him for a month then I’d be set for life yet he wants more. He should go ahead….be choosey and enjoy his old age that he worked so hard for. I know I would.

22. Michael Appleton - May 7, 2007

Let’s face it, the opportunity to “pass the torch” was way back when Paramount wasted the brilliant “Yesterday’s Enterprise” script on a mere T.V. episode. THAT should have been the first feature film at the theatres, having Kirk and crew meet up with Picard’s group in that very dramatic storyline. When Kirk’s Enterprise went back into the rift to restore history in the original timeline, there wouldn’t have been a dry eye in the house! It would have been a wonderful farewell to the original crew, without having to see them actually perish in the battle with the Romulans! They would have had their “swan song” by once again saving the universe, while sacrificing themselves for a purposeful cause!

23. Michael Appleton - May 7, 2007

Oh, and when I say “first feature film” I, of course, mean for TNG!

24. Stanky McFibberich - May 7, 2007

re: 21
Well, they aren’t getting as much as Roger Clemens. :)

I really get the impression that money is not the main motivating force for them to be in this particular movie, it is whether or not their presence in the movie makes sense to them . Of course, there is a certain amount of money that could swing just about anyone, but I’m sure Paramount is not really that interested in paying them all that much to be in it, if they are even considering having them in it at all.

I personally thought that SNL skit was brilliant and was not offended in the least by the “Get a Life” statement. Heck, I SHOULD get a life instead of spending hours on this site every week.

If Shatner did indeed have these clauses in his contract, I guess it is because he could. Who among us would not want a little leverage if we could get it?

It has been awhile since I read “I am Not Spock” but the title was the most negative thing about it. I don’t remember Nimoy really doing a lot of complaining within the book. To the contrary. It was just a catchy title to sell some books.

Those guys have for the most part been smart enough to realize that Star Trek has been a goldmine for them, and I guess if I were in their positions, I would take advantage of that as well. :)

25. Sleeper Agent X - May 7, 2007

Re 22:

You know, of all the suggestions I’ve heard for the way Generations _should_ have gone, that one is the only one that sounds like it could have made a great movie. Too bad they already used it in Yesterday’s Enterprise–but then, I’m sure back during the third season they weren’t even sure they were going to make seven seasons, let alone get a feature.

26. Duane Boda - May 7, 2007

#24 : Thats true….I have no right to say anything about Mr. Nimoys book since I never read it – let alone picked it up. These guys had everything passed on to them on a silver platter….now its time for them to enjoy their golden years.
#22: Yeah…’re 110% right. That would have been a good episode for them to pass the torch. Actually….those at Paramount IF they really tried and developed a good series (like a monthly or 6 week) episode could have both Kirk and Spock serving (working) for Starfleet in capacity where they could serve (and shuttle) among the planets – nearby galaxies as Ambassadors and Advisors.
Earth or some Science Based StarBase could serve as their homebase maybe even using the moon or Mars? Nothing is too far fetched. All they need is the positive cash flow. Will it ever get done….No…

27. Tim - May 7, 2007

25. Sleeper Agent X – May 7, 2007
Re 22: – I agree fully. Yesterday’s Enterprise would have been fantastic but agree they may not have planned for TNG to be such a sucess.

As for Shat and Nimmoy been in it? I am not keen, though I love the pair of them in Character, them been in it would lead to either time travel or flash backs………that equals predictable Star Trek. This new movie needs to be edhy and fresh and make people go wow, I remember after the Premiere of ST: Ent – Broken Bow alot of people went wow, anf 14million people or so watched it, just ashame the first season realy fisled and the show did not pick up until Season 4. The movie needs the wow factor again, and needs to hold the audience captivated and on the edge of their seats.

28. Josh T. ( This shit gets old ) Kirk Esquire' - May 7, 2007

All Shatner needs to do is rub the script all over his ass to bless it and the film will be fruitful and multiply.

Stanky isn’t going to get his original cast reunion,

I’m not going to get my two hour film of Shatners face close-up staring until at the two hour mark Shatner utters Sp-ooooooooooock,

Xai isn’t going to get a TNG continuing adventure,

Michael isn’t going to get, oh hell, I don’t know WHAT Michael is clamouring for hah hah.

We are getting Star Trek- the X generation Baby!

The Starship EMOprise!

29. Jeffrey S. Nelson - May 7, 2007

No ice cream in the rec room tonight unless Shatner and Nimoy are in the film.

30. Demode - May 7, 2007

If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, I will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, my mother will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, my father will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, my grandfather will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, my 8th grade science teacher will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, a large number of baby boomers will not go and see it. If Nimoy and Shatner are not in the film, a large number of Gen X-ers will not go and see it.

This ain’t “James Bond” or “Batman” people. This is “Star Trek: The Original Series.” You want to butts in the theatre, and make alot of money, you make it a proper passing of the torch. Without Nimoy and Shatner, this movie will be lucky if it turns a real profit.

31. johnny - May 8, 2007

It has to look like and feel like TOS, otherwise it can’t be. This is the line I have been stressing for a long time. If will be set in that time period then star trek canon is set and must be respected. As for “Enterprise” I don’t recognise it at all. Major roles for Shatner and Nimoy would make the movie wonderful. Please stay true!!

32. Jon - May 8, 2007

When the new movie comes out shatner/Nimoy fans will probably be able to get thier fix when the two do promos and clip shows etc.

33. Duane Boda - May 8, 2007

Funny ideas here. People just hope that by including 2 of the biggest cast members of TOS that it will put butts (as he said it) in theater seats but that must be 21st Century Math or something as it makes no sense at all.
How so? Well….look at all of the previous films that had the TOS cast. How well did it do? More accurately….just look at the receipts at the end of the day. They never did any good. Its the STORY and not the old cast that will make or break the future of Star Trek as we now know it. Bringing back the two main Stars with a decent picture would be ideal but I’ll gladly settle for a well balanced and thought out story instead. Time to brush out the old and bring in the new.

34. Dyson Sphere - May 8, 2007

Easy way to do it, not that I advocate this at all:

Opening scene – Kirk & Spock are together, either on the bridge, in Yosemite camping again or better watching something exciting as spectators. Kirk (Shartner) turns to SPock (Nimoy) and says “Remember the time at the Academy that you & I…..) and that’s the last you see of the icons until the very end of the movie.

Either that or another time warp but the Temporal Police are much better organized and won’t let that happen ;-)

35. TK - May 8, 2007

I saw Casino Royal and loved it. I don’t think it would have been as good if it featured Sean Connery as well, as 007’s older self! So I can see that with TrekXI it might work out better to let the new cast have all the screentime. BUT! From a purely selfish point of view, I really would want to see Bill and Leonard, one last time on the screen. And I also wish I didn’t have to spend so much time thinking about this and visiting this website so much! ;) What a tourture this is becoming!!!!

36. Dom - May 8, 2007

The writers have pretty much said this will be a restart in interviews. Being ‘respectful’ to continuity will mean they won’t radically overhaul the status quo. Kirk’s not going to blow up the Enterprise in the film and take command of the Excelsior for the sequels. McCoy’s not going to be shot dead at the start of the film. Spock’s not going to turn into a woman from Earth.

But I perfectly accept this as a Casino Royale or Batman Begins for Star Trek. I like series such as Lost and Alias, which have a certain ‘old school meets new school’ quality about them. If it’s a relaunch that takes Trek back to its basic characters and concepts, I can’t see a problem!

37. StillKirok - May 8, 2007

The new Kirk is going to have a lot to deal with. Having Shatner and Nimoy in the film will only make the transition easier because it would be an onscreen endorsement. More important, it translates to dollars.

It would be a waste if they aren’t involved. But then again, pretty much every frame of film in Star Trek has been a waste since Generations.

38. Bryan - May 8, 2007

Star Trek “Classic” was at its best when the beloved characters reacted to each other in comfortable and familiar ways…we felt at home with these old friends. Once you connect with these stars you are in the piece. Heck even the awful ST5 was saved in part by the friendship and familiarity of the cast members. Friendly banter and cojoling made me feel I was sitting around the campfire singing row-row-your boat.
I for one do hope JJ will respect us old Trekkers who have loved and supported Star Trek (and Paramount) over these 40 years. Yes we can let go and follow a new trek (STNG, Voyager, Enterprise) but please while some of the original cast members are alive and still kicking, lets use them in some capacity. After all had it not been for them and their likeability, all these blogs, marketing and merchandise would be mute.

39. trektacular - May 8, 2007

I wish Trek would just end, I don’t want to see TOS remade, seems sacrilegious and just wrong. Berman already did enough damage.

40. Dom - May 8, 2007

This film shouldn’t need the old school to ‘verify’ the new team on screen. If Shatner and Nimoy give the thumbs up to the new cast in interviews and appearances, that should be enough for the old-timer fans.

The film needs to be good enough to stand on its own! Besides, there’s a whole generation of kids now who’ll say ‘William who?’ The man won’t have played Kirk in a Trek film for almost 15 years by the time this film comes out and there’ll have been no regular new TV episodes for almost four years.

That should be enough time to make a fresh start possible. Remember we fans are an interest group and are already keeping tabs on the casting and production team already. In spite of the occasional stories in tabloid newspapers, this film won’t start registering seriously on casual cinemagoers’ radars until the beginning of next year at the earliest when, possibly, teasers start appearing in the cinema.

41. Stanky McFibberich - May 8, 2007

re: 28 Josh T.
“Stanky isn’t going to get his original cast reunion”

Stanky has not called for a cast reunion in the movie. Stanky has at times suggested the cast decline to participate if asked. Stanky simply prefers that no roles be recast. Stanky reviles “modern” “filmmaking.” Stanky does not support “Fake Trek.” :)

Stanky has left the building. Thankyouverymuuuuch.

42. John Cocktoastin - May 8, 2007


Couldn’t agree more with you brother.

43. Ivory - May 8, 2007

How can Shatner + Nimoy being in this film be a bad thing?

This film will be just another paint by number prequel w/out them in it. With them in it the film takes on a historical note in franchise history.

44. Mark Lynch - May 8, 2007

I think that if (and granted it is a big ‘if’) Star Treks return to the big screen is all that it can be, surely it is worth it.

I for one would love to see more stories with the characters (note I said ‘characters’) that started everything off. As that involves a necessary recasting of all the roles, then I am, reluctantly, prepared for that. As long as the new actors interpretations of the characters are faithful to the original and Trek history is honoured as much as possible, I’ll be eagerly awaiting the results Christmas 2008.

Who knows, we might even end up with an entire ‘new’ TV series.
IMO it will be good to have well written and well acted new Star Trek than to just reminisce about what we have and bemoan the fact there is no more new movies or episodes to look forward to.

For sure I would love to see Shatner and Nimoy reprise their roles once more in a way that is integral to the storyline.

Just my opinion, what’s yours?

45. Hill Billie Mountain dew! - May 8, 2007

I love Star Track!

heres why,

With Shat and Nim it will be a bonus!.. cuz all the old ones will flock back to the theatres for the first time since 1992 and trek6, but also now at long last the new fans will git their wish by having new kirk and spocks and big -e to take over and be da bosses!!!

yeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaw!

46. John Cocktoastin - May 8, 2007

I’m guessing that The Shat and Nimoy have been lead down the garden path and all that was really required from them was their blessing, which they gave under somewhat false pretences.

47. Hulk - May 8, 2007

I vote for Manny Coto as the new franchise helmsmen, as the men who really like and know Star Trek, not a few episodes of TOS (like Abrmas, Kurtzman, Orci and Co.)

48. PD18 - May 8, 2007

OK, I know this is slightly off topic, but I must parlay this. I have been touting a certain actor for the role of Spock in Trek XI. I’ve posted about him being the perfect choice for young Spock months and months ago. I even went as far as posting photoshop manips of him as Spock. To be honest, I really haven’t heard his name from anyone else, but he would be PERFECT. He can act, and while he doesn’t look like Leonard Nimoy, there is just something totally Spock about him. His name: Eric Balfour… why do I have to post this today?

Be warned – those of you who watch “24” and didn’t catch last night’s episode, ****SPOILERS**** to follow:

Last night, Eric Balfour, who plays CTU analyst Milo Pressman on fox’s hit show “24” appeared with a slightly different looking hairstyle (I immediately thought how “Spockian” he looked), and was killed off rather abrubtly. I know this doesn’t mean anything for sure, but it seems that Eric Balfour’s work schedule is open for a fall shoot.

I’ve said this before, and I’m saying it again – I’m calling this one well in advance and out of left field – Eric Balfour will be the new Spock. Anthony, feel free to ridicule me if I’m wrong – but be sure to remember who called it when I get it right. What do you think?

Here’s a link to one of the photoshop images I comped:

49. Dom - May 8, 2007

Hi John Cocktoastin.

Bear in mind Shatner and Nimoy have contracts for this film. We don’t know what these entail precisely. Also. any ‘blessings’ will be needed nearer the time of release!

50. Buckaroohawk - May 8, 2007

I think we’re all missing an essential (if subtle) point to this particular post; the individual reactions of Shatner and Nimoy to the question of whether or not they will be be in Trek XI.

Nimoy’s response was described as “subdued,” and he stated he’d only appear if there were a “meaningful role” for him. The man is retired and apparently enjoying it. I don’t really think he gives a damn one way or the other if Trek XI gets made or if he’s in it.

Shatner, on the other hand, has been very vocal about the project since it was announced. At one point is almost seemed as if he were working hand-in-hand with Abrams. Now, as the start of production gets closer, Shatner’s involvement in the film is not as certain, but (by complete coincidence) he does have a new book coming out that deals with subjects that might be similar to the events that may or may not be in Trek XI.

Shatner is a self-publicizing powerhouse, and he will ride any wave that might put a spotlight on his own various projects. The announcement of Trek XI got people banging down his door to get his impressions, which he was more than happy to give. Now, with his actual inclusion in the film more nebulous, he’s using it as a chance to talk about his new book instead.

Now, I’m not knocking Shatner for any of this. He’s a keen, savvy businessperson who knows when to grab an opportunity and milk it for all it’s worth. But I think we all have to take anything he might say about his involvement in Trek XI with a sizeable grain of salt. I’m not saying that he’s deliberately trying to deceive Trek fans, but for him the publicity machine comes first, and if that means he has to “exaggerate” somewhat, then so be it.

My suggestion is to wait for official announcements from Paramount. Until then, anything heard is simply fanning the flames for the sake of publicity.

51. Sean - May 8, 2007

Of course…my dream film would be written by Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens and integrate continuity from all series and films…much in the style of their best novels and Enterprise S4 episodes.

I could go for Shat & Nimoy in Star Trek XI, but it’s not necessary.

And, I agree with the above posters, the style must be TOS, or at least, it should be.

52. John Cocktoastin - May 8, 2007


I’m not aware that they have any contracts at all. If they did they’d know if they were going to be involved or not.

53. StillKirok - May 8, 2007

At this point, it’s time Abrams speak up and say something about Shatner and Nimoy. Enough already.

54. Jon - May 8, 2007

I didn’t see any of the M.I. films.But if peter Graves did some kind of cameo in them that might give you trekkies an indication of whether or not Abrams might do that sort of thing with the old trek stars.

55. Demode - May 8, 2007

If they don’t put them in TREK 11, I truly hope they go the Direct-to-DVD route with Shatner/Nimoy… and even Takie/ Nichols/Koneig and make a good DVD movie featuring them. It’s been discussed making direct-to-DVD trek movies recently by heads at Paramount (along with Top Gun and a few other franchises.) I would be satisfied if they went this route. It frees up the prequels from the burden of “we know Kirk dies in the future… whats the point investing in the character” way of thinking that audiences tend to have.

56. Floydhead Max! - May 8, 2007

The point of relaunching TOS is to reinvigorate the franchise. They have brought in the best action/adventure writer/director currently working in TV/Film (Abrams). Alias, Lost, MI-3, all have his stamp, and except lately on lost the charcters don’t spend alot of time standing around talking about nothing. What they need to do is make a 2 hour movie that embodies the best elements of the best episodes from the first 2 seasons of TOS. A cross between the Navy elements of run silent/run deep and the adventure of Wagon train to the stars. Kirk kicks ass and saves the galaxy.
If they do that, it will be a success. If they try to camp it up, and let it become cartoonish, it will fail.

57. StillKirok - May 8, 2007

They could definitely reach a nice compromise by doing a direct to DVD movie that takes care of Generations–even an animated one–that involved Shatner and Nimoy.

But Abrams completely blowing them off is not a good thing. That’s actually going to cast a negative light on the film to any Shatner/Nimoy fan. Granted, the Berman lovers won’t care, but they are so few and far between that their concerns are the least relevant.

58. Jim Finn - May 8, 2007

Michael Hall I suggest you don’t waste your banwidth on telling fans what they should or should not think. You aren’t important. Nobody cares.

59. Jim Finn - May 8, 2007

It would be cool to see Shatner & Nimoy in the film but sounds like Nimoy wouldn’t do it unless he had a bigger part. Same with Generations.

60. Michael Hall - May 8, 2007

“#11 Michael Hall…

I don’t know you at all, sorry. Your comments seem to indicate you are affiliated with Gene R and Trek.
How so?

X “

No affiliation at all, more’s the pity. I met Roddenberry face-to-face only once in my life, at Fairfax High School (his alma mater) in 1974. The only other times I saw him in person was as a member of the audience for the very popular college lectures that were his primary means of support before Paramount started getting serious about a Trek revival in ’77. All I meant by my posting was that in contrast to the majority of critical and fan reaction hailing The Wrath of Khan as a return to the “true” vision of Star Trek after the general disappointment with The Motion Picture, people like Gene and myself were pretty isolated in our feeling that while there was much in the film to admire, other aspects of it were not in keeping with the fictional universe (and its underlying philosophy) that he’d originally created. I still feel that way, though I have no problem enjoying Khan on its own terms as a fun, swashbuckling adventure. And if that’s all that J.J. Abrams manages to achieve with Trek XI, I suppose I’ll feel that same, strange combination of elation and disappointment that I felt in 1982.

61. Kev - May 8, 2007

I’d see it without them– but with no hurry to do so. What was all that news about Kirk being in the movie that Mr. Abrams announced? I assumed that meant Shatner, or else it was like saying the USS Enterprise will be in the movie. This new movie might work or not , and if it works maybe only in the short term.

62. jonboc - May 8, 2007

My personal dilema is this. I like Star Trek. But the REASON I like Star Trek is because I LIKE Shatner, Nimoy and Deforest. While I love the characters, it’s the acting style of the three stars that makes me grin. It’s the expressions and mannerisms and timing among the three that I enjoy watching again and again. It’s the very life they brought to these characters that makes me look forward to a certain scene. The ships and tech are cool, the music is awesome, the imaginative storytelling is great, the “hope for the future” is ok, but the bottom line is this….I watch Star Trek and like Star Trek because I like Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly. To me THAT is what makes the show incredibly fun to watch and lifts it a notch above any other cool sci-fi show. I like to watch people, and those three tick to perfection like a fine swiss watch. Take that away from me and what do I have? Ships that are cool? Awesome music? Hope for the future? Maybe. Engaging actors who explode with chemistry and and a blast to watch on screen? Maybe. Maybe not. That’s the dilema….for me anyway.

63. Ivory - May 8, 2007

No intrest in Star Trek XI if there is no Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk + Spock.

If they are in it I’m the first in line.

64. billhardin22 - May 8, 2007

#48 PD18

Eric Balfour has the look.

I’m not a fan of “24” and I am not familiar with the actor.

But he looks more the part of Spock than Adrian Brody ever could!

Sign him up!

65. John Cocktoastin - May 8, 2007

What I want to know is how are they going to make this film appeal to non Trek fans.

66. StillKirok - May 8, 2007

By bringing in Shatner and Nimoy, who both have appeal beyond the franchise.

67. Ivory - May 8, 2007

Isn’t it just as important to bring back the legions of Star Trek fans who left the series after Kirk’s death?

Very few people care about the TOS spin offs Voyager,DS9 or Enterprise. That is why we are getting a TOS film.

Now the question is will the public care about TOS if Shatner + Nimoy are not in it?

Doesn’t it make sense to cover all bases + bring theses two legends back?


68. StillKirok - May 8, 2007

Given the amount of people watching Trek BEFORE Generations, compared to the amount who watched Enterprise until the bitter end, it would seem MORE important to bring Trek back into the mainstream–and that would mean bringing in Shatner and Nimoy.

Their presence would simply be a pure passing of the torch and grant a legitimacy to the new cast that they will not get otherwise.

69. Ivory - May 8, 2007

I agree with StillKirok.

Shatner + Nimoy bring a legitimacy to the project that no other actor could.

With them in the film you know you are watching the real thing. Not just another prequel with no soul.

70. Floydhead Max! - May 8, 2007

For sure I would want to see The Shat and Nimoy in the film, however, If it really is going to be a relaunch, If they are in it, their part probably will be fairly minor, as they are going to want to establish the new cast with age appropriate actors for new adventures beyond this particular film.

I can remember when Roger Moore replaced Connery as Bond. (Yes, I’m showing my age now….) People complained loud and long that Moore couldn’t replace Connery. In the end, people came to accept, and even like him in that role. Do I prefer Connery? Yep! Would I rather have Connery? Yep! Were the Bond movies with Moore horrible because Moore was in them? Not really. Once you got over the preconcieved notion that only Connery could play that part, they weren’t bad, some being better than others (as is the case with all movie series). How many actors have now gone on to play Bond? Enough that nobody anymore says I won’t watch that cause Connery isn’t in it. The question becomes how good is the adventure and the writing for that particular movie. And that is where we are now with Trek XI. The problem with several of the Trek movies, has been the writing. Using the Bond example, can you imagine Bond smoking a cig after bedding another beauty, and saying to Q, or M “you know, I just don’t know, maybe this stuff has passed me by, and I feel guilty about having just ravished that girl….” and the like. How many times in ST-1 thru 6 did we have to sit thru Kirk in his quarters talking to Mccoy about how he was too old, and time had passed him by, and how he had regrets about his life decisions? Almost in every one and it get old after a while. OK we can argue about the merits of such feelings, but in terms of the pacing of a movie, all of the sudden it brings the pacing almost to a dead stop, with people just waiting for the action to start again. Rarely did this sort of thing happen on the TV series, and when it did, it didn’t last long. The best episodes didn’t have it at all.
This is what gives me hope for what JJ will do, because anybody that watched Alias knows he never stoped his pacing like that hardly ever.

The strength of TOS was the relationship between Kirk/Spock/McCoy, they were the 3 MAIN charictors, and everyone else revolved around them.
This is where the spinoffs made fatal mistakes. Too many main players.

In conclusion, I hope to see Shatner and Nimoy one last time, I love those guys. But more than anything else give me a exciting adventure where Kirk kicks ass and takes names, and saves the Galaxy. Again.
Until Next Time,

71. JCF - May 8, 2007

i haven’t rad all the Blogs abouve. But what about the crews of Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise?! When are their movies going to be made. Why not go forward with ‘their’ stories and not back to the past again? Carl

72. VOODOO - May 8, 2007

I want Kirk alive and well post nexus.

73. Michael Appleton - May 8, 2007

Everyone keeps harping about “passing the torch”. Wasn’t this already addressed quite nicely in ST:VI+VII? Shatner and Nimoy are starting to remind me of the aging rock group who keep coming back for one final farewell tour while declaring, “and this time we MEAN it!!” Jeez, this “torch” has been passed more times than a doobie at a frat party! Enough!

74. Shaye - May 8, 2007


I was reading some fanatic’s post on the trek blog at scifi dot com just the other day, and guess what!? they ( the poster and his/her/its “friend”s) are THREATENING to have “taken out”, somebody in charge of the star trek 11 production if Shatner and Nimoy are not in the film!, and in a quote “meaningful way” ..unquote. this is bizzare!!!

And futhermore…..THIS IS SICK!

Hey as much as I would love to see the Shat and Nim back on board…I do NOT want to see anyone threatened over a stupid tv show or a movie!, NOT ONE LIFE IS WORTH ALL OF STAR TREK EVER FILMED COMBINED!….how dare they make a threat against anyone!?!?

I suggest that there are hospitals for such mental cases and I suggest that such poster(s) be placed there untill this film is done!, we dont need another Mark David Chapmans, or Lee Harvey Oswald to be allowed to have their sick and twisted ways.

a word to the wise out there…look out for these kooks.

live long all and prosper Star Trek and it’s people past present and future, whoever you are, and to the sicko poster?, knock off the crap!


75. mrregular - May 8, 2007

#74 Shaye:

These individuals you mentioned have crossed into criminal territory and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are a threat to society and need to be treated as such.

There is no way to explain away this behavior. Once you cross the line of threats, you’ve crossed the line. Period.

76. VOODOO - May 8, 2007


Is that true?

Even if it was meant as a joke it’s in poor taste and must be taken seriously in these uncertain times.

I for one want Shat + Nimoy back more than anyone, but to make a threat about it is over the line.

77. Shaye - May 8, 2007

3:44p.m. wed

Yes… and I told on them to the sites administrator w/the offending thread and guess what!…by this late morning, early afternoon it was already removed and happily SCIFI took down those clowns remarks from earlier today or last night,(whenever) and that was before i even posted about it here as it turns out, but it was there for a day im sure, why the hell is anyone angry about a new Trek movie …even I an old Trek and TNG fan want to see it fly high,

(btw I liked Tommorow is Yesterday remastered…alot! 3 out of 4 stars this week!)

Anyway….wished i had hard copied the nasty blog chat crap as written exactly ….but by the timeI moved to do something the administrator
already did his job and removed the trash from spiniless/mindless punks, it was there though and hope they put them in jail, i know they can track the perps ips!, and there were at least three of them all together saying bad stuff against trek w/out Shatner and Nimoy, yet nobody said outright they were going to kill anyone, it was more like an implied thing …like
“they better put them in…or else..”….just to jazz us real and civil fan’s I know think I overeacted myself, in this post 9/11 crazy mixed up world we all see to jump to wild conclusions more than ever before….still though I would feel better knowing they have top notch security on the Paramount lot!

best to all but the loons


78. Buckaroohawk - May 8, 2007


Threats such as the one you mentioned above have happened before. Harve Bennett has said numerous times that he received death threats when word leaked about Spock’s death in Star Trek II. Also, several members of the TNG cast and crew receivied threatening messages as they put the first season of that series together.

It astonishes me that there are people out there who call themselves Star Trek fans, but they’re willing to stoop to terrorism and threats of violence against others for MAKING A DAMN MOVIE. I agree with mrregular, these people should be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They’re obviously unbalanced and a potential threat to themselves and/or others. Get them out of the damn gene pool before they propogate.

I don’t care if they think they’re joking and they aren’t really serious. They should still be locked up. Making threats against another person’s life is a serious crime. And for what? Making a TOS Trek film without the original cast? How can anyone rationalize that. I hope these people are discovered and taken into custody as soon as possible. Considering the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech I can’t understand how anyone with an ounce of sanity would make such threats and not expect to be punished for them.

It’s sad that there are people out there like this. They call themselves fans, but they have absolutely no inkling about the message Star Trek always tried to convey: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination. How could they be missing something so simple and profound?


79. Cervantes - May 8, 2007

#62 jonboc

That EXACTLY sums up my own predicament where this proposed TOS-era Movie featuring these characters is concerned… To the newcomers this won’t matter a jot, as they will not be so familiar with the original ACTORS, but to me also, they were, and STILL are, one of the best reasons to rewatch the show, and it will be hard for me to adjust to new actors. A hopefully great script, design ethic, and direction aside, I think that CASTING is going to be of the highest priority from my own viewpoint, and the main difficulty for J.J., as it will be all too easy to see the characters as just another of the numerous PARODIES over the years if the chosen actors don’t “seem” right. I do NOT envy J.J. in this task, nor the guy that eventually has to wear the “ears”… However, I hope that actors with great commanding VOICES, as the originals had, are found, as this will help somewhat.

80. Shaye - May 8, 2007

yes Buckaroo exactly…to me Star Trek was and is about love, and overcoming prejudice and impossible odds!

Not what some obvious Kirk/Spock fan boys twistedly think!?
Star Trek will go on with or without Shatner and Nimoy, it would I think be better with them but NOT at risks to them or others!!!

I am crushed about this…I never thought “Trek fans” would never act this way…well they are not true fans…. just jerks like you said…Jerks.

I pray they wont let some dirt bags interfear with this production!

81. Michael Appleton - May 8, 2007

Don’t let psychos rain on our parade! Trek on, babe!

82. TrekRider - May 8, 2007

I want to pay $$ to see Shatner Kirk and Leonard Spock on the screen. Why waste $ on remaking Star Trek, give us a keen episode with the original boyz.


83. Michael Appleton - May 8, 2007

#74 “Lee Harvey Oswald”
Now, let’s see, I’ve done, by my estimation, no less than 15,000 hours of research on the Kennedy assassination and all I can say is…let’s not bring Oswald into this!

84. trektacular - May 9, 2007

#70. Shatner Nimoy and Kelley have been linked to those characters for over 40 years, its a lot different than the Connery example

85. Doug L. - May 9, 2007

Wow! Lots of takes on this!

My personal take is Shat & Nimoy in the film or not, won’t have much impact. Trek fans will go see it most likely anyway, dont you think? Non Trek diehards won’t really care if Shat & Nimoy are in it…

Personally, I’d like to see them reprise there roles in a cameo, but it wouldn’t affect overall movie for me. The movie will be good or bad on its own merits.

Regarding whether we need another passing of the torch? Well, some movie wrongs could be righted with a clever comment (ie Generations) but it’s not a necessity. Also nice this would be a different torch so to speak with the classic characters being recast.

And finally a personal peeve whic I absolutely can’t stand is when people take stances based on one piece of information. Saying the movie will be good or bad based simply on the presence of Shat or Nimoy, is like basing your opinion of a politician soley on whether they have “faith” or believe in a woman’s right to choose. It’s very one track, shows no imagination or depth of thinking. It’s simply single minded and stubborn.

I like to think of Trek fans as being a little more open minded than that.

Doug L.

86. StillKirok - May 9, 2007

Hardcore Trek fans may or may not go see the film without Shatner and Nimoy. Keep in mind how dejected Trek fans have been and how few of the hardcore fans are left. Berman really cleaned house by driving away about 80 percent of the fan base.

There are people that will see anything with the words Star Trek in them.

The reason for that is that Star Trek built up so much good will before Generations that it took a LONG time to exhaust it. It had to suck for a decade to before it finally became ridiculous.

Now, the goodwill is gone, and there just isn’t any demand for new Trek. That’s where Shatner and Nimoy come in. They are a reminder of Trek when it was actually worth watching.

They are the ones that made Trek move beyond a few hardcore fans and into the mainstream. Star Trek lasted four decades in large part due to those two brilliant actors.

Someone who hasn’t given Trek a shot in a long time may give it a chance if they see Shatner and Nimoy involved. Nostalgia sells.

87. jonboc - May 9, 2007

Nostalgia as well as their chemistry. The priceline commercial where Nimoy takes over Bill’s position as spokesman was great, even my mother laughed and enjoyed it,…and she can’t stand either one of them. When I reminded her of how much she loathes them both she simply said “bur they were really good in Star Trek” and continued on her merry way. She is just a casual fan….wouldn’t know a tribble if it dropped in her lap, just a TV watcher who tuned in every week. SHatner and Nimoy, even in cameos, would bring in most hard core fans, but they would also bring in people like my mom…and THAT is the magic of Shatner, Nimoy and their chemistry onscreen.

88. Michael Appleton - May 9, 2007

Hey, if the chemistry of Shatner and Nimoy is so profound, why don’t we refer to them as one entity, such as Shamoy? Interesting, with both men being of Jewish extraction, it almost sounds like a Yiddish greeting; e.g. Two old friends who haven’t seen each other for several years: “Irving, how long has it been? Shamoy!” Hmmm, has a nice ring to it!

89. Ivory - May 9, 2007

Bottom line Shatner + Nimoy put more people in the seats and make this legit .

90. Xai - May 9, 2007

#86 StillKirok
Berman drove away 80% of the fanbase? No demand for new Trek?
Where’d that come from?
I know you didn’t like the other series… and that’s your opinion and you’ve a right to it.
I don’t agree and I do like most of the 4 series.
You said “There are people that will see anything with the words Star Trek in them. ” That’s sounds like you are judging other people’s opinions..true?
You made some broad statements…
Read Doug L back on #85… I think he said his opinion pretty well

91. Josh T. ( The one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - May 9, 2007

Are we now reduced to prosecution for thought crimes? What ever happened to the sanctity of individual and personal thought, tragedy or not?

If everytime I say to myself “such and such makes me so GD mad I can’t see straight,” are the thought crime police going to show up?

Some of you are advocating such a notorious policy.

The interNETS are still the one true last vestige of “free speech”, some moron expressing their feelings on a blog, whether you like it or not, is their right, to make such a claim, and to actually carry out such a claim, are two ENTIRELY different things.

What you should be discussing is responsibility for conduct and actions, not having people arrested for expressing their juvanile selves.
Not everyone who has ever had a violent thought or tendency carried it out, nor has everyone who has ever vocalized such thoughts carried it out.
It’s entirely possible to be rhetorically violent, it frankly amazes me I have to point that out.

Let’s not give anymore “freedoms” away in the name of security hm?

92. jonboc - May 9, 2007

88- I like it, but it needs to be more of an adjective than a greeting…describing something undeniably cool and irresistable.

“Dawg, that car is shaMOY!!”

“That girl was WAY shamoy”

..and, of course, the ultimate insult..

“You are SO shamoy…..NOT!” many applications, someone get webster on the phone.

93. Michael Appleton - May 9, 2007

That’s it!! A new word added to the lexicon of our language! Every time a person takes decisive action based on a logical assumption, we’ll call it a SHAMOY! I can hear the women whispering to each other now as a guy they like walks by: “Gawd, that dude is so shamoy!”

94. Ivory - May 9, 2007


Demand for new Star Trek was so low that the once mighty Star Trek franchise could not even attract 2 million people per week to watch Enterprise for free.

What makes you think that they would pay to see a non Kirk + Spock version of Star Trek?

99% of the public think of Kirk + Spock when they think of Star Trek. Clearly very few people care about it’s spinoff’s.

TOS is the cultural phenomenon not it’s watered down spinoff’s.

The only reason why you are getting a TOS film is because Paramont understands it is the only commercially viable aspect of the franchise.

Don’t you think Paramont would love to do a cheap version of Voy,Ds9 or Ent?

They don’t do it because they know nobody would go and see it. If the last TNG film didn’t gross $50 million in the US. Those other far less popular series would have no chance.

That is why Paramont is bringing the big guns back in hopes of saving the franchise.

Love him or hate him, James T Kirk is coming back to save Star Trek!!!!!

95. StillKirok - May 9, 2007

“Berman drove away 80% of the fanbase? No demand for new Trek?”

The ratings drop from the last season of TNG to the last season of Enterprise. Only about 20 percent of that audience remained. It has nothing to do with opinion. It’s cold hard fact.

96. Doug L. - May 9, 2007

re 95

But what you are saying is that it took something like 20 years to kill the franchise, which was perfectly successful for many of those 20 years. Tell me how many franchises could survive the milking Paramount gave Trek.

Trek didn’t fail at the very end (and really still hasn’t since it’s still alive) because Shatner and Nimoy weren’t in it… It failed because it became trite with a capital T.

And while I grew up with TOS reruns in the 70’s, I was also a huge TNG fan, and still love it, and the characters. Some of you grossly underestimate the generations that followed you and how TNG era Trek impacted them.

Like everything else that endures decades in the public eye, there are highs and lows. Let’s not attribute all the success in one place. It’s again not looking at the whole picture objectively IMO.

Shamoy all! Doug L

97. Doug L. - May 9, 2007

re 91:

Josh, curious what you’re referring back to cuz it’s unclear to me. dl

98. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - May 9, 2007

Shatner as Kirk’s pappy in a poingant scene congragulating his son James on being given the captaincy of the Enterprise. Kind of a heartwarming passing of the torch. James T, comes home to earth to see his family before he embarks on the E’s five year mission. He comes home to the family farm cut to pappy kirk out on the praire standing tall in the saddle and young James T rides out to him and then we get all teary eyed as pappyShat gives him fatherly advice/ sage wisdom and tells him how proud he is of his son and how he always knew his destiny was the stars.

10,000 quatlunes that it will play out similarly to this

99. mrregular - May 9, 2007

Re 91:Josh T. ( The one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire’

“..What you should be discussing is responsibility for conduct and actions”
THOUGHTS are different from the WRITTEN word. The written word is an ACTION. What I am saying is that threats in writing can be considered criminal threat to harm. Just a few weeks ago some idiot spray painted “bomb” on the side of a high school in Omaha. The school was evacuated. Fortunately the threat did not materialize.(It was another of the “copycat” threats in the wake of Virgina Tech..the worst behavior imaginable to copycat, in my opinion!)
Threatening people in writing is crossing the line. Period.

100. Michael Appleton - May 9, 2007

#98 “Shatner as Kirk’s pappy”
Er, you DO mean grandpappy don’t you? With the way Shat is looking on Boston Legal these days, I think portraying him as the father of a 30 year old is stretching our believability to the breaking point! Don’t get me wrong, he looks reasonably good for a 76 year old, but C’MON!!

101. Floydhead Max! - May 9, 2007

The problems wityh the spinoffs, was that each one got more progressively watered down.

If (and I say that it would be a big IF) they were to do another TNG movie, the only way to have one be successful, would be to incorporate TNG/DS9/and Voyager, in one large galactic movie. A final battle between the federation and the borg, requireing Capt Sisko to come back from the wormhole (since he exists in non-linear time existance, he could) to lead the DS9 camp, and Picard and Janeway to lead their seperate parts.
Adventure on the grand scale. Oh, and find a way to integrate Q into it. You would need the fans of all 3 shows to show up to see their favorite trek spinoff to be successful. None on their own can do that anymore. Short of that, going back to TOS is the only way to go.

By the way, I’m not really sure just how far back they really will go with Trek XI. The rumours I read seemed to indicate a possible flashback to when Kirk was a Lt fighting the cloud vampire, and was one of the few survivors. A rumoured possible scene with a command handover with Capt Pike, Spock was already on the big E, (didn’t the Menegerie 2 parter say he served with pike for 11 years?) In WNMHGB, didn’t Gary Mitchell allude to several adventures previously where he had saved Kirk? There is a lot of ground that could be covered. Whose to say it couldn’t pick up between WNMHGB, and the first episode of the regulat series? I think we all “know” the charicters, put them on the ship, and lets go have a great adventure, let Kirk kick some ass and bag another beauty, (he always does…) let Spock logically figure an answer to the problem, and let McCoy say “He’s DEAD Jim!!….” Scotty will whine about his ” poor barins”, Uhura, will say “hailing frequencies open, sir”, Chekov or Sulu will say “phasers locked on target” and a few redshirts will get shot and so on. We already know with out even seeing the movie who the people are and how they are supposed to react.
As long as they keep the charicters in charicter everything will be fine as long as they have a good concept, and do a decent job of recasting.

As much as I love the original actors, they are all too old to carry the movie.
Camoes is the best we can expect, to think otherwise is to delude yourself. A 10 minute scene with the Shat and Nimoy, which I think would be a nice nod to the original cast, by itself is hardly worth the price of admission. Lets face it, the movie will be carried by the new cast, whomever they will be, and it had better be a good one, if there are to be anymore.

102. VOODOO - May 9, 2007

None of the series with the exception of TOS and it’s iconic characters (and actors) can succeed commercially.


103. Xai - May 9, 2007

#94 Ivory, #95 SillKirok

You said…
“Demand for new Star Trek was so low that the once mighty Star Trek franchise could not even attract 2 million people per week to watch Enterprise for free.”
ENT was finding itself under Coto in it’s final season and was producing very good eps during it. Unfortunately it had stikes against it. Poor stories at the start and being shown on a fledgling network that barely was available to half the US TV market. And in many of those markets it was buried in late night or poor spots.

You said…
“What makes you think that they would pay to see a non Kirk + Spock version of Star Trek?
99% of the public think of Kirk + Spock when they think of Star Trek. Clearly very few people care about it’s spinoff’s.”
I have no problem with Kirk and Spock and a TOS film… I have never said otherwise. I grew up up TOS and like it. You mention that most people think of K&S as Trek…of course they do. It’s been on continously for 40 years in reruns and 6 TOS movies. I won’t change your mind, but you highly underestimate the last 4 series for popularity, especially TNG and DS9.
I DO have a problem with a TOS film going back to the well one more time. Namely Shatner and Nimoy. If they are there…fine… if not, I won’t cry.
Why? Because even though they were the first actors in the characters and likely to remembered the most as K&S, they can no longer play the parts that those characters NEED to be. Not elderly, but vibrant action heroes. And why not feature them in the famous “bookends” that the pro-Shat people want? Because the whole film will suffer because people will compare the TWO actors protraying the same part…especially those movie-goers that are not hardcore Trek fans. (“Isn’t the old guy Captain Kirk?….who’s the other guy?”) This does nothing to move the story along, it just confuses the viewers. Let’s have a straightforward story with no contrived plots just to get the old (and likely to be expensive) guard into just one more movie.

You said…
“The only reason why you are getting a TOS film is because Paramont understands it is the only commercially viable aspect of the franchise.”
I don’t completely disagree with the statement, only because it’s the only one that they have not driven into the ground with poor stories and direction. Berman, Paramount and Shatner are all to blame for Captain Kirk’s death in Generations. Yes, I said Shatner too. He saw $$$ all over the movie and couldn’t resist one last Trek Check and his name in a starring role. He could have said, “no, I won’t kill Kirk” or not in this manner and stood up for what should have been done. He saw the script before the fact… he had a chance.

Let them do the Trek Universe right and have one Kirk and Spock per movie.


104. Xai - May 9, 2007

… and we must fix Generations and we must have Shatner and we must have Nimoy and Meyer should direct and we cannot change the ship and the nacelles must spin counter-clockwise to the galactic plane and phasers must be red, blue, green and McCoy must have bags under his eyes….

Must, must, must…


All opinions or demands?

It’s MY opinion that Abrams and co will do it their way and all we can do is watch.


105. VOODOO - May 9, 2007

– The last TNG film took in less than $50 million in the US.

– Star Trek’s tv ratings decline clearly started with DS9.

If Paramont could make a DS9 film they thought would be popular we would not be having this conversation.

Clearly Shatner + Nimoy are not the future of ST. I hope nobody is suggesting that.

What I (along with many others) want is a better ending for Kirk. ST XI is the perfect chance for that to happen.

People’s passion about the subject speaks volumes as to why Shatner + Nimoy should appear in ST XI as well as why Kirk + Spock are coming back in whatever form they are coming back.

106. Buckaroohawk - May 9, 2007

StillKirok, Ivory and Voodoo…still listlessly pining for a retcon that won’t be coming, just like Linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for The Great Pumpkin.

Josh T….give me a break with your “thought police” crack. Your comparison is insipid. Your example, “If everytime I say to myself ‘such and such makes me so GD mad I can’t see straight,’ “is light years away from someone suggesting, in print on a public forum, that harm should come to people involved with the making of a Star Trek film because they’ll be recasting classic roles.

Threatening violence in writing is not FREE SPEECH. Thinking something is one thing, writing about it implies INTENT. No one’s rights will be infringed if these individuals are prosecuted. In point of fact, they were, by the nature of their words, attempting to infringe upon the rights of others by implying “if you do this thing that I don’t want you to do, you may get hurt.”

Leave the threadbare Orwellian conspiracy theories at the door. “Thought Police” indeed. How freakin’ lame.

107. Xai - May 10, 2007

Not sure if you were addressing me or who.. however…

I wasn’t advocating DS9 for the next film. It’s TOS and I’ve no problem with that. I already stated my only concerns with a TOS film back on #103. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.