Shatner on ‘Star Trek’ Movie: Nimoy Is In, I am Not | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner on ‘Star Trek’ Movie: Nimoy Is In, I am Not July 9, 2007

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

In his latest videoblog on Shatnervision, William Shatner discusses the recent rumors about tension between himself and Leonard Nimoy over roles in the new ‘Star Trek’ movie. The Shat makes a joke about the tensions, but also says that Nimoy has a part and he does not.

Transcript (of relevant bit):

Shatner: There is a Star Trek movie and I called Leonard. I said "have you heard" and he said "yes I have," I said "what do you mean?" and he said "I have read the script." I said "Is it a good script?" and he said "ya." I said "am I in it?" and then there was a pause, he said "no" and then he began to laugh. I went through the…I grabbed him by the throat. He’s in it and I’m not in it!

[question: Why didn't Leonard say 'if Bill's not in it I am not going to be in it']

Shatner: Because we are not that good friends [laughs]. I mean the man needs the money. Leonard loves to benefit the whole stargazing thing at the planetarium. He’s got the whole bit…it’s the Susan and Leonard Nimoy Planetarium…

I had heard the same rumors reported in the New York tabloids and I knew the ‘Shatner is angry’ part was not true (but it seemed that there may be a kernel of truth to the Nimoy role part). Last week I contacted Nimoy’s reps and was told it is ‘premature’ for any comment at this time. Paramount of course ‘do not comment on rumors’ (even when they are from Shatner). I do believe that there is truth to what Shatner is saying, but that there is currently no final signed deal for Nimoy.

What role is for Nimoy?
If Nimoy is in, then there seems to be only two possibilities. One would be an older Spock (likely post-Star Trek Generations) in some form of flashforward (Abrams just loves those). The other possibility would be another character, maybe Spock’s father Sarek. Nimoy himself has said to be open to playing Spock again if the role were substantial and also appeared open to playing Sarek.

No Shat?
As for Shatner having no role it is a bit hard to reconcile with the recent comment by the film’s writers that they were still hoping that Shatner would have a role in the film. Perhaps Orci’s comment "we’re certainly hoping to include him in the shoot" could be taken differently and meant that they hoped Shatner would be there but not in front of the camera. Shatner himself often discussed the dilemma that the writers had in trying to resurrect Kirk post-Generations (something that they do not have to do with Spock).

Shooting is still over four months away so there is still time and the Shat himself may be hoping the attention this gets changes some minds over at Paramount. The Shatner/new Star Trek movie saga has been going on for almost a year now and this is probably not the last chapter.    

Bonus video: Shat on Trek conventions and co-stars

Here is the Shat discussing his fellow Trek costars at a recent radio appearance.


Shatner Talks Trek On The KABC Morning Show

Comments

1. Charlie X - July 9, 2007

I’ve been suggesting this possibilty since I heard BOTH Shatner & Nimoy were to be involved: a New Generations-era Spock ‘reading’ Kirk’s memoirs. That way, Shatner could easily do voice-overs without any evidence of his aging, or conflict with Generations.

2. Light~Year Models - July 9, 2007

I always thought a Q TNG movie would be good…..his TNG episodes were always great…..

Then again, I always thought that a Romulan Movie, involving unification would be cool too…

3. Brian - July 9, 2007

It would be….disappointing to have Nimoy there without Shatner, the same way it was odd not to have Nimoy and De Kelley alongside him in Generations.

4. Smike van Dyke - July 9, 2007

Kirk’s dead, Spock isn’t…it’s as simple as that. JJ is not gonna undo the Generations incident. But we might see Spock again. I can live with that. Spock is my favourite TOS character, so I’m all up for a reprise…

5. Sleeper Agent X - July 9, 2007

Interesting…I always thought putting Shatner in the movie could be difficult, and not necessarily the best move. But it’ll be interesting to see what Nimoy does in the new movie. We don’t know for sure he’s playing Spock, either, do we?

6. Xai - July 9, 2007

As the article says… this won’t be the last we hear of this on-going saga. In my opinion, Shat priced himself out of the movie. But we’ll see.

7. OR Coast Trekkie - July 9, 2007

I always thought that Shatner was satisfied that Kirk was dead so that he could retire that character. But hey, I guess a lot could change in 13 years…. wow, where does the time go?

#2 Light Years – A Q movie would’ve been GREAT! In my opinion, Q is the greatest Star Trek villian of all time.

8. Marvin the Martian - July 9, 2007

Sounds like Nimoy might be playing Sarek, not Spock? Nice tip of the hat to the old series without doing something so obvious.

However, based on the script for Transformers, I don’t have a lot of hope for this film. I’m expecting the obvious and the stupid. And the confusing. Unless, of course, JJ does a major rewrite, and since he’s directing, there’s hope.

9. Harry Ballz - July 9, 2007

Nimoy, but no Shatner? Grrrrrr…………………..ooan!!

10. Anthony Pascale - July 9, 2007

in case anyone was wondering, this was the ‘big news’ i was referring to last week.

11. Penhall - July 9, 2007

What the hell? If they’re gonna have Nimoy, then thats great. But why the hell wouldnt they put Shatner in there? I dont care if its just for 5 minutes. Jesus, this is really idiotic.

12. Penhall - July 9, 2007

What the hell? If they’re gonna have Nimoy, then thats great. But why the hell wouldnt they put Shatner in there? I dont care if its just for 5 minutes. Jesus, this is really idiotic.

13. trektacular - July 9, 2007

I wish Shatner had cared more about Kirk dying in Generations in the first place, he really didnt seem to care much at the time

14. Robert Bernardo - July 10, 2007

trektacular wrote:

> I wish Shatner had cared more about Kirk dying in Generations in the
> first place, he really didnt seem to care much at the time

Yes, he did. Read the 1994 book, “Star Trek: Movie Memories”, by William Shatner and Chris Kreski.

15. dalek - July 10, 2007

No Shatner: no popcorn for me.

Oh well, maybe I’ll give it a look in a few years when it comes out on terrestrial.

Meanwhile I’ll be watching Doctor Who. Russell T Davies knows what he’s doing if these guys dont.

16. Kevin - July 10, 2007

erm… could you give us a brief synopsis of what it said? I know he’s been trying to resurrect the character since Generations, but I’ve never actually heard his feelings on the matter and at the time of filming.

He actually appears to have dropped a few pounds. Looks pretty damn good for a man of 76 years old.

17. Light~Year Models - July 10, 2007

Hey, maybe if it’s only Nimoy we are looking at a TNG era movie…..

I mean, the writing team did not say which Enterprise will be in the movie.

And since Captain Kirk is not in it…..

18. dalek - July 10, 2007

Orci needs to explain why he gave us false hope in regards to Shatner appearing after he insinuated the original report was bull. In effect he threw Shatner fans a red herring and i’m not happy that he kept the hope alive when its now obvious Shatner won’t be in the movie.

Explain yourself Orci. Massive shame on you!

19. Josh T. ( The undiscovered Capitalist mentality ) Kirk Esquire' - July 10, 2007

This is a quasi-surprising turn of events.

Evidently reconciling a return for Kirk was beyond the skill and imagination level of the writers perhaps?

Amazing, considering we are dealing with a subject matter in which basically well, anything goes. It’s science fiction.

I think the issue was overthought and overbaked, put Kirk in the movie, then do what everyone else is doing, do some viral marketing addressing HOW he came to be in the film, and a prequel comic book.

Damn, that was really hard.

20. Sci-Fi Bri - July 10, 2007

kirk is dead

shatner is a drunk

deal with it.

21. Jawinka Smith - July 10, 2007

I have a feeling the Shat will be in it. I think he’s just trying to make fans think otherwise so it’s this big surprise when he’s on screen.

22. Admiraldeem - July 10, 2007

Would Shat play with our minds? Nawwwww….

Wait and see. Wait and see…..

23. jon1701 - July 10, 2007

I dont think playing Sarek would work.

Looks like it may be a Spock-framing device. The more I think about it – I like the idea of a “let me tell you about my friend Captain Kirk” wonder years story.

That said, you can only do that for one movie. Sequels cant have that.

24. snake - July 10, 2007

Makes sense i guess – after all Kirk is missing presumed dead on the Ent B in the 23rd century and dosnt show up again until the 24th…for 5 minutes before he falls off a bridge after helping to stop Picard get his ass handed to him on a plate.

Spock however is alive and well..

I know they could do that X3 de-aging thing and have a pre Gen Kirk but to be honest – it looked abit werid…it didnt look right….plus fans would be like ‘um…Wasnt Kirk like killed in Star Trek 7?’

Anyway in the real world The Shat had his send off to Star Trek in Generations…without Nimoy…

now maybe Nimoy will do the same in this one.

Plus The Shat is a sorta parody of himself these days (“Whooooooo” on talk shows, Denny Crane, priceline & kellogs adverts, singing etc)

Nimoy is like a Vulcan eldar…

25. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

I just lost all interest in this movie.

26. snake - July 10, 2007

however saying that – Shatner should still be in it somehow

27. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Who cares what Nimoy plays? The character of Kirk, being dead, now has little relevance because there is no hope. We know Damon or whatever wannabe plays the part will live, and we know exactly the circumstances are toward his death.

Unless The Return is made canon, we know that the heroic James T. Kirk dies a stupid death for no reason or importance, all because some wimp couldn’t fight his own battles and then couldn’t figure out that he could just leave the nexus a few minutes earlier and slap the cuffs on the villain BEFORE he put everyone in peril.

There is really no reason to do a prequel for a character that has no future.

No hope.

It really doesn’t matter how great the script is now. It doesn’t matter if it follows canon or not. The movie won’t accomplish anything.

Let them make Sulu a girl for all I care. At best, I’ll download it.

No Shatner, no interest.

28. trektacular - July 10, 2007

#14 I did read the book, still doesn’t explain exactly why he comitted to it though

29. Flake - July 10, 2007

Maybe Spock is at Kirks 24th Century Funeral? Who knows, personally I don’t mind if Shatner is in it or not.

Plus if Nimoy liked the script then the script must be good.

30. Flake - July 10, 2007

I just had a fangasm with a particular thought;

If it is Kirks 24th century funeral then there is an opportunity for lots of cameos. Picard, Sisko, Janeway etc etc could all be there!

On the other hand the idea of Kirks funeral isn’t the nicest thought, but we’ve seen him die already so why not!

31. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

#8>>However, based on the script for Transformers, I don’t have a lot of hope for this film. I’m expecting the obvious and the stupid. And the confusing. Unless, of course, JJ does a major rewrite, and since he’s directing, there’s hope.

32. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

It doesn’t matter if the script is good or not. These people toyed with us for over a year, teasing us on the possibility of Shatner being in the movie.

Just last week AFTER THE POST ARTICLE, they had the nerve to say that they want Shatner in the movie, knowing full well they didn’t offer him a part.

That’s terrible.

That blows all the goodwill they’ve established.

Kirk as a character has no hope now. Another poster here had an idea of a comic prequel to explain Kirk’s presence. Or just an canonization of THE RETURN would do it.

Getting Kirk back among the living wasn’t that tough.

They made a STUPID choice.

I’m clearly not the only person pissed off right now. And they lost business as a result of this video.

Good. Let Paramount throw hundreds of millions at this film. I hope it grosses less than Nemesis.

33. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

Until I hear something from the guy who matters in this thing, JJ Abrams, I could care less what K&O, [i.e., the Hollywod Kidz] have to say about anything, and I’ll reserve judgment regarding the substance or immateriality of this movie until then.

I’m praying to God, given what I’ve heard heretofore, that he’ll butcher that script into something general audiences will flock to see, and not pander to a dwindling sect of zealots who behave as if Trek’s not only their personal property, but some kind of half-baked religion with Gene Roddenberry as their deity.

The only way for this thing [yes, I said thing] to survive is to shed that image of Trek generated over the last 20 or so years and appeal to folks who flock to see crap like Spiderman and Pirates of the Carribbean, and who watch shows like Lost and American Idol.

There aren’t enough “Thralls” left, [no matter how vociferous, world-weary and self-deluding they may be] in the “Gamesters of Trek” to do that, and they’re just gonna have to get used to the reality that both time and public convention have passed them by, and Trek looks to new frontiers and lifeforms. About damned time, too.

Rewrite the book, JJ. Start all over from scratch. Make your mark. Create new horizons and all the possibilities they represent, and I’m with you all the way, man.

KEEP ON TREKKING!!!!

34. non-fanatic - July 10, 2007

#4
“Kirk’s dead, Spock isn’t…it’s as simple as that.”
Spock was dead once as I recall.

35. jon1701 - July 10, 2007

Re #33 Shadow6283

Dude, I agree with everything you just said.

36. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - July 10, 2007

Gotta be honest… if it’s true… I am more than a little bummed. Kirk’s ill-fated ending in Generations notwithstanding, I had really hoped that J.J. & Company would find a way to include The Shat in the new movie.
:(

Regardless, I’ll still gladly offer my Quatloos to Paramount.

Btw, #20. Sci-Fi Bri… Kirk is NOT dead! Shatner is NOT a… hmmmm, well… I’m pretty sure abut the first part. :)

37. snake - July 10, 2007

re 30 – “If it is Kirks 24th century funeral then there is an opportunity for lots of cameos. Picard, Sisko, Janeway etc etc could all be there!”

Yuk! No thanks – that lot should he consigned to dvd and never let out

38. Lao3D - July 10, 2007

Sounds like Shatner may be a little miffed and is playing a game of Hollywood one-up-manship. Abrams and Co. can’t be happy about having a plot detail like that leaked this early.

I’d personally prefer no holdovers from the show, but as this board proves, it’s impossible to do something everyone is going to be happy with. However, if you’re going to do it, using Nimoy would seem to be the easiest and most graceful way to do it without a convoluted set of plans to resurrect anybody.

39. Cervantes - July 10, 2007

If Bill Shatner is absolutely, definately not in this in an acting capacity, then I admit I am disappointed. I didn’t like this iconic fantasy heroic character being “killed off”, and hoped there could be some ” sidestepping” writing to help Kirk cheat the odds one more time for this TOS era Movie. Whether as a quick “catch-up” introductory prologue intro. or some kind of “bookend”, or somekind of “flashback” o”flashforward”, either way with Leonard Nimoy involved. If Bill is not in this it will be interesting to confirm WHY not, whether it is because the writers or director wouldn’t or couldn’t resurrect his character, or whether it’s some issue to do with Bill himself. Either way, it will be a disappointing missed opportunity to have the character “living on” in imagination. And as far as Leonard goes, I truly hope we will see him as his OWN character in some older capacity, however brief, rather than some tacked on cameo as Spock’s father!

40. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

It doesn’t really matter how they use Nimoy. There was no demand nor call for Spock’s return. There has been a demand and call for Kirk’s return since Generations.

Kirk has unfinished business. Spock does not.

The producers really dropped the ball here. First major decision on this movie is a collosal mistake.

What REALLY makes me mad is that the writers flat out said they wanted Shatner in the movie when they knew full well they didn’t write him a part.

The lie pisses me off almost as much as the mistake.

41. snake - July 10, 2007

If u had to pick THE MOST Iconic Star Trek character…..I think most would choose Spock over Kirk – plus the fact that Nimoy as Spock can be intergrated into the film quite seemlessly (unlike Shatner as Kirk)…well there ya go i guess….

still who knows.

42. chris LaRoche - July 10, 2007

Can’t wait to see the movie hopefully shatner will play a role. But if not oh well.I will enjoy it either because Mr Nimoys in the film.

43. Hon. David Kulessa - July 10, 2007

Man, those Priceline ads are turning into a reality.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HTqrFrEwee8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8wDM_g0aHN4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dTn2KYkoYlw&NR=1

-TGP-

44. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

I’m a “Star Trek” fan; I don’t do the actor-fandom thing. Shatner or not, makes no difference. This movie sounds like a winner so far.

#6: “As the article says… this won’t be the last we hear of this on-going saga. In my opinion, Shat priced himself out of the movie. But we’ll see.”

Exactly so. We’ll see what we’ll see. ;)

45. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

The fact that you can say “Shatner or not, makes no difference,” means you really don’t get it. Shatner IS Star Trek. Shatner just isn’t an actor–he is the franchise.

Star Trek without Shatner is bland. Yes, the hope is that the characters will bring back the wonder of the franchise, but the producers denying their biggest draw a role in the movie shows stupidity.

Any producer that doesn’t even have the guts to tell Shatner directly, doesn’t get Star Trek. The video says Shatner found out because Nimoy told him on the phone.

The producers flat out lied about wanting Shatner in the movie. That’s NOT a good way to run Star Trek.

Some people will buy anything that says Star Trek in the title. Most won’t.

46. Chris - July 10, 2007

All I want is a good movie. One that is fun to watch and doesn’t take itself too seriously. (that’s what made TOS good) And I don’t want to see Matt Damon or actors of his ilk in the film. I honestly don’t care if Shatner or Nemoy are in it or not, provided they don’t have them do some stupid, sappy retrospective. Give ‘em a cameo if need be. Please don’t allow them to make fools of themselves. (Shatner already does that enough on his own.)

47. dalek - July 10, 2007

I agree that the lying about Shatner is just as worse as him not being in it. They toyed with people’s feelings and hopes there. A lot of people have deep feelings about Shatner being in the film that it didnt help one of the writers giving us hope to the contrary after a report (now correct) told us he wasn’t going to be in it.

These are meant to be the best writers in the world. That they couldn’t come up with a plot that would work with Shatner involved I don’t buy for one second. Every time a major character died on Voyager, the crew sometimes changed years worth of timelines to bring their friends back… Every Berman era major character that was permanently killed off got a second chance: Yar, Dax, hell even Trip was put in cryo storage. Seeing a new Captain Kirk story but knowing the characters fate still exists at the hands of Rick Berman’s Generations… Not my cuppa Trek.

Shatner time for you to swallow your pride and call New Voyages up. Meanwhile I’ll be watching the Sulu one and hoping Farscape comes back.

I’d like to hear back from Orci after his comments. He has some serious explaining to do.

48. snake - July 10, 2007

47 – “New Voyages”??

FWOK THAT!

49. dalek - July 10, 2007

Snake. These people love Star Trek and the Kirk character. If Paramount don’t want Shatner returning as Kirk you can bet these people do. I’d take his return on that medium over nothing. But as much as I love the man Shatner also has a big ego and likes his money. It will never happen.

50. snake - July 10, 2007

anyone know what Berman wanted him to do in Enterprise? wasnt it something in the mirror universe or as a chef or something?

51. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

They lied to us for OVER A YEAR. More important, they lied to us a WEEK AGO AFTER THE POST ARTICLE.

They responded directly to the Post article and said that they would love Shatner in the movie.

To GET Shatner in the movie, you might consider writing a part for him in the script.

They kept us waiting FOR OVER A YEAR, teasing, talking about Shatner like they really revere the man. And now this? What are they going to do, bring him in as an advisor? Who gives a crap?

The lie and the disappointment overshadow the fact that Nimoy is actually returning. That would be a nice story, but for the fact that they ripped out the heart of the film.

Shatner and Nimoy are a package deal.

It may be a good script, but it’s soured.

52. snake - July 10, 2007

49 – hey I love ST and Kirk too but theres no way id want Shatner to appear in any of that NV stuff… >:(

the guy who runs it (and plays Kirk) should go back to being an Elvis impersonator or whatever it was he did before

53. Xai - July 10, 2007

Know what PISSES me off?

You all assume.
You assume the writers are hacks and can’t write Trek based on Transformers. You also assume they lie. Do we know yet?

You assume that Shatner’s giving a whole story, while he may just be still in negotiations.

Deal with facts when they arrive, then whine or rejoice.

54. ObiWanCon - July 10, 2007

Message to ANTHONY PASCALE I’m sorry my friend but the petty and whining child like reactions in this comment section means I won’t be returning to your wonderful site I’m sick of all this petty overreactions that’s why I stopped going to the Star Trek.com forums and it’s why I’m going to stop coming here, Thanks to you Anthony Pascale it was a great site but I can’t take it anymore GOODBYE.

55. John - July 10, 2007

Even if these writers bound themselves to the TNG canon’s idiotic premise that there is a nexus that retains the “echo” (Guinan’s word) of all those who have been inside, so it follows that Kirk is still in there, Soran is still in there, Picard too; and because these residuals of conciousness are consistent with the Katra, and Spock has melded with both Kirk and Picard, access should not be a major plot impasse, just a little creative contrivance. If they really want the original Kirk, they can get him, this all may be posturing on Shatner’s part. Having said that, I wish the Shat would just think of the fans and take the leap, at 76 there really isn’t anything to be gained by some major payday demand.

56. billg - July 10, 2007

The fact that Kirk died isn’t a problem. It’s a movie.

What is a problem is that Shatner can’t play the same Kirk convincingly. They’d have to age the character, which is a problem because Kirk died in middle age.

When we left Spock, on the other hand, he was already noticably aging. So, as has been suggested, a movie framed by appearences of an edlerly Spock would work, and really resonate with fans. (Probably bringing them to tears.) He could be readng Kirk’s memoirs, or addressing a StarFleet graduation, or just reminiscing with young Vulcans, but the segue to Shatner’s voice providing narration to scenes of the young Kirk and Spock that would comprise the primary action would be simple and obvious.

57. billg - July 10, 2007

Oh, one more thing: Think of the impact if you’re sitting in a dark theater watching the new movie begin and the first character to appear on screen is Nimoy as Spock.

58. snake - July 10, 2007

55 – Will we be moved to tears? I hope so….I want to see (through my own tear filled eyes.) hoards of fanboys WEEPING IN THE AISLES at the sheer emotionial POWER of this movie

all together now – Uh huh huh huh huh huh…..WHHHHAAAAAAAAA HUH – HUH HUH HUH UH HUH uh HUH…etc

59. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

53, Shatner flat out said there is no part for him in the movie. Can that change? Yes. But as of now, he’s not in the movie.

Regarding the use of the nexus, it’s even simpler than that.

The original Kirk is in there in one of two theories:

1. In the nexus, you exist at all points in time, including before you enter the nexus and after you leave. It’s the very nature of the thing. So the original Kirk is still in there (as is Picard). But if you leave the nexus at a point where you are still alive, you would replace the version of you that’s out of the nexus. That happened to Picard, since obviously there weren’t two of them fighting Soran. So Spock can go in there, grab Kirk, say, let’s roll, and they move on.

2. Picard is a wimp. Soran beat the snot out of him. Because of that, Soran won, and Picard and Soran both entered the nexus.

Once in the nexus, Picard dialed 1-800 GET KIRK. Kirk proceeded to fight Picard’s battle for him, though due to Picard’s negligence in choosing the most dangerous point in history for the confrontation, Kirk died a meaningless death. However, Soran was stopped.

By stopping Soran, Picard never enters the nexus.

So original Kirk is still in there.

From a plot standpoint, the nexus could still be used to bring Kirk back.

Of course, the writers aren’t bound to use the nexus. They could come up with something completely different.

However, they instead chose to lie to us for a year, including last week, and NOT WRITE SHATNER IN AT ALL.

60. Flake - July 10, 2007

When I mentionned Picard, Janeway, TNG Crew cameos earlier, I only meant a glimpse of them listening to Spocks speech :)

61. billg - July 10, 2007

Who is this “us” that some say is beling lied to?

Paramount owes Trek fans: zero. From their perspective, those are the fans that ignored Nemesis.

Paramount’s obligation is to make a movie that makes money. They have ample reason to believe a Trek movie won’t make money if it is tailored solely to satisfy the whims of hardcore fans.

62. Mark Lynch - July 10, 2007

These days I’m not sure whether we can believe everything Mr. Shatner says… I don’t recall the last time he sounded serious in any interview I have seen or heard him in.

I think that until the casting announcements are made, we should quite honestly take this with an appropriately sized pinch of salt. That’s not to say I do not want to see (the original) Kirk in this new Trek movie, because I do.

But if it is his ego or monetary greed which has precluded him from appearing then I for one think that this is a sad day for Star Trek fans.
I believe that Mr. Shatner has most likely made a pretty large sum of money over the entirety of the original cast series of ST movies (yes I am aware he had lean years after the show was cancelled) and it would not hurt for him to think more of the fans at this particular point rather than the bulge of a wallet. Of course I am speculating based on what I have read and am not privy to any information of any relevance.

As the saying goes, this is just my two pence worth…
If I am proven to be incorrect over any of my assumptions I will eat my own hat and put the spectacle onto YouTube……

But do feel free to personally insult me, I could do with a chuckle ;)

63. Brian - July 10, 2007

Guys….methinks you’ll be waiting a long time if you want to see anyone from the TNG era shows….for better or worse, their day seems to have passed.

64. snake - July 10, 2007

61 – about Shatners ‘lean years’

I think that was disgraceful – he should have been a millionarie many times over due to TOS but apparently didnt get any royalties (none of them did) so when it took off big time in the 70s and sold everywhere they didnt get anything – I dont even think they got anything for the merchadice.

They were so lucky that Trek came back and even more so as big budget movies…

I feel that Shatner and Nimoy pretty much Star Trek as much as Roddenberry did and Gene L Coon did etc etc

It was partly down to their performances

65. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

#55–who are YOU to decide that Shatner can’t play Kirk? The guy can play Kirk convincingly just fine. That’s just a ridiculous comment. As for the impact of Nimoy playing Spock being the first scene, now that Shatner is not there, who cares? Nimoy without Shatner is not good enough.

Shatner’s lack of participation overshadows the news of Nimoy being in the movie. There won’t be any impact, just disappointment.

And to say Paramount owes the fans zero, that is probably an even dumber statement than saying that Shatner can’t play a convincing Kirk.

Paramount owes the fans EVERYTHING. Without them, there is no franchise for them to butcher. The fans have pumped money into this franchise and kept it going, even when Rick Berman was around.

Paramount has flushed Trek down the toilet for years. They have not shown they have known what they are doing since before Roddenberry died. They kept Berman employed for 10 years too long. They have kept out the biggest name in Star Trek.

And yes, they lied to the fans. They said they were interested in Shatner appearing in the movie. JUST LAST WEEK.

66. snake - July 10, 2007

62 – yeah -and good riddence – those DS9/Voyager days still give me shivers

dark days those were.

67. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#45: “The fact that you can say “Shatner or not, makes no difference,” means you really don’t get it. Shatner IS Star Trek. Shatner just isn’t an actor–he is the franchise.”

No, it means that I’m less narrowminded than you are. I “get it” just fine – what you don’t get is that Trek is a lot bigger than your tastes allow you to appreciate.

“Trek without Shatner is bland?” That’s your *opinion.* What is not opinion, but *fact* is that Trek has prospered in several incarnations over the last two decades entirely without Shatner and to the delight of many millions of fans the world over.

68. snake - July 10, 2007

oh and Insurrection around the same time as well – Christ I’m suprised Trek has survived in any form after all that…let alone getting a big budget movie soon

just goes to show the solidness of the concept – and especially TOS

69. billg - July 10, 2007

61,63: I’d guess that Shatner’s Boston Legal paycheck is significantly larger than anything he was paid for the movies. As for making money off TOS, well, I assume they all got residuals fom the reruns, but residuals from a 1960’s TV show can’t be enormous. As for merchandising money, I’m sure they didn’t imagine it when the contracted for TOS.

70. Cervantes - July 10, 2007

#55 billg

The fans may be moved to tears at an elderly Leonard Nimoy as Spock, but will it be tears of laughter at the actor that has to put on the ears as a young ‘un? ;)

71. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

Residuals in the 1960s were not nearly as renumerative as they are now. I don’t know what others were paid, but Shatner has said that he sold his residual rights back to the studio for a relatively small cash amount at the time that TOS ended.

Probably seemed like the smart idea at the time – a three-year show that was canceled, after all, was likely to disappear without a trace. I don’t know if that kind of buyout is even allowed under current SAG rules.

72. snake - July 10, 2007

68 – ya think?

.I heard Shatner was paid $2 million for The Voyage Home and that was in 86…so thats gotta be more in todays money (maybe $6 million??) and $5 million for Generations in 1994 and he was only in that for about 25 mins

73. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

You are not narrowminded if you think Shatner belongs in this movie. But you are also not broadminded if you accept anything with Star Trek in the title. That makes you empty minded. Those few fans that remained with Enterprise and the Berman/Braga era fall into that category. They will swallow anything so it doesn’t matter what they think.

Trek without Shatner IS bland. And yes, that’s my opinion, and one that was shared by the millions of people that stopped watching Star Trek since 1994. Shared by the millions of people that decided not to bother to see Kirk-less Trek in the movies.

Trek has NOT prospered without Shatner. It tumbled dramatically.

74. snake - July 10, 2007

this Nimoy In/Shats Out story is appearing on all the big movie news websites now – First ST new movie news they have bothered to report in a while:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33270

http://movies.ign.com/articles/802/802672p1.html

And that AICN article is way off saying it’s a total reboot when Abrams and the writers have said its more a prequel

75. snake - July 10, 2007

oh wait – its saying it SHOULD be a total reboot….not its gonna be.

yeah right pal lets just throw out TOS and Movies and make Kirk a woman and Spock gay shall we..

76. snake - July 10, 2007

oh and one of the the Star Trek II writers has just died

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33269ed

77. Hon. David Kulessa - July 10, 2007

#72

It didn’t tumble. Some of Voyager and DS9 are the best episodes of Star Trek I’ve seen. If anything, it simply turned to a different audience. They are no less “Trek” than any of TOS is.

Although I do admit that ENT is largely boring, and the franchise DID fail after Voyager finished (Nemesis and ENT). Hopefully after this new movie (hopefully) reawakens Trek’s potential, that they’ll make another series set after VOY. Frankly, I enjoy most of the TNG era shows a lot more than some TOS episodes.

They’re all Trek.
-TGP-

78. snake - July 10, 2007

LOL@Kulessa

man o man….get thee to a Voyager/DS9/TNG site asap.

bet this new movie being set in TOS pisses you off eh?? Bet u cant understand why its not set post Nemesis on board the Titan under Captain Frakes with Harry Kim as 1st officer and having them trying to locate Sisko by means of Quark

79. Pr011 - July 10, 2007

#64 “who are YOU to decide that Shatner can’t play Kirk”

He’s a fan. As am I, as are you. We are all entitled to our opinions, so there is no need to have a go at someone for expressing what they think. You have, so let everyone else.

IMO: William Shatner is 76. He hasn’t appeared in any form of Trek since 1994, when he was 63, and even then he had to play his character in a retired position. Aside from a possible flashback plot, I do not believe he will appear in the film because he has aged where his character has not. His character is dead, for a start.

I for one am looking forward to this film. I hope it will allow trek to continue for a very long time, even if it involves changes. Remember, Kirk himself said that people can be frightened of change.

Let the film makers have a chance – they haven’t even started filming it yet, before people feel the need to dismiss their abilities or quality of work. I for one will be reserving judgment until I have seen the film, not before, no matter who says what.

Keep up the excellent work trekmovie.com!

Regards.

80. Hon. David Kulessa - July 10, 2007

#77

You’re trying way too hard to start an argument. I don’t really care that it’s set in TOS, and I don’t really care for the movie that you just described. And frankly, I don’t care for you.

If you want to start an argument, good for you. I don’t see the point.
-TGP-

81. snake - July 10, 2007

thats ok – i knew you wouldnt

not trying to start anything

I do think that DS9 and Voyager helped kill star trek though..am am really looking foward to the new movie Shatner or not

82. stspringfield - July 10, 2007

wasn’t there talk about Spock finding Kirk’s grave after Generations and then a flashback to their early days from that point in time from Spock’s point of view and memories…?

sounds like a good idea to me…kind of a parallel story line off on Generations

83. snake - July 10, 2007

Bap bap bap bahhhhhh..bahhhhh bap bap bahhhhhhh…bap bap bap bahhhhhhhbah…bahhhh bap bap bah bahhhh

thats me singing the DS9 theme – hope you like it Hulessa

84. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

#76, it tumbled dramatically, both in quality and in ratings. Opinions can vary, but ratings are gold. The decline in numbers from Season 1 of Voyager through Season 7 of Voyager, combined with the decline from Season 1 of Enterprise to the end were insane. Most shows get canceled with ratings like Voyager and Enterprise.

Fact: The ratings declined every single year since Generations.

These filmmakers don’t deserve a chance. They dropped the ball the first chance they got. They pretended to have interest in Shatner for OVER A YEAR, and just LAST week DENIED the Post article and flat out said they were still interested.

That’s called lying folks.

They are making a dumb mistake.

85. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

>

Re #33 Shadow6283

Dude, I agree with everything you just said.

Thanks, man. Just good old boy, Kansas Prairie Common Sense, as they say where I hail from originally. Abrams had better listen while there’s still something left to salvage.

Hey, you the same jon1701 over at the TrekBBS?

86. Chris - July 10, 2007

Generations should be ignored at all costs. Firstly, it came out 13 years ago and most of the general audience has probably forgotten about it anyway. I think that fun tingling feeling that Star Trek fans get when they see the original Kirk and Spock up on the big screen for one last go will outweigh any concerns about ‘canon’.

Hoping against hope that they change their minds about Shatner.

87. snake - July 10, 2007

yeah but Generations had Whoppi Goldberg in it….WHOPPI FUCKING GOLDBERG damnit!!

a bone fide *A* lister!!! You can’t just throw it in the trash when it has someone of that acting stature in it!

God I hope she pops up in the new movie

88. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

#76 Hon. David Kulessa:

It didn’t tumble. Some of Voyager and DS9 are the best episodes of Star Trek I’ve seen. If anything, it simply turned to a different audience. They are no less “Trek” than any of TOS is.

Although I do admit that ENT is largely boring, and the franchise DID fail after Voyager finished (Nemesis and ENT). Hopefully after this new movie (hopefully) reawakens Trek’s potential, that they’ll make another series set after VOY. Frankly, I enjoy most of the TNG era shows a lot more than some TOS episodes.

They’re all Trek.

There’s a big difference between A Star Trek and THE Star Trek. “TOS” is “THE” Star Trek, while TNG, DS9, VOY and [choke] ENT are “A” Star Trek. The PTB know this. That’s why we’re getting a movie set in that classical, epic era. To paraphrase Ron Moore: “Sorry, I’m afraid the 23rd Century’s [not 24th-?] is the future of Star Trek.” Get used to it, for at least another 20+ years or more.

As far as Trek’s potential, it’s limitless. But, I guarantee you this, if you’re counting on more post 23rd Century “Trek” following this movie, you’d better think again. That ain’t gonna happen. Any show will remain [where it belongs] in the 23rd Century, the same era where the movie takes place.

89. Kev - July 10, 2007

It’s too bad they think Generations has to be honored in any way; that movie did more to fracture Trek than any other event. I do think Shatner is kind of tough to follow, though, and they may not want to overshadow the new actor; or this is all bogus or it’s about salary. But if the script is done, this might be all she wrote. Too bad. Nimoy and no Shatner? Killing off Kirk for no reason was just nonsensical, and it will put a cloud on the “new” character, too, who we all know has that bridge to nowhere in his fictional future. Oh well. Still have the DVDs, VHS too.

90. TNG never happened - July 10, 2007

All this whiny crap about the Nexus and TNG and Generations. WHO CARES? Just act like it never happened. The Motion Picture was better than any TNG movie because it had the REAL Star Trek characters, and actors in it, and they ignored that whole movie when they made Wrath of Khan. Just ignore the whole Generations storyline. THAT would be ballsy!

Bottom line: Star Trek was always Kirk/Shatner Nimoy/Spock et al. All the goodwill and interest in the “franchise” is based on that foundation. The evidence is in the box office of the TNG movies, and the ratings of the spin off series. Money talks, fanboy “canon” walks. (I hate the use of the word “canon” in this context btw/this ain’t church!) So you piss off the TNG geekos; you’ll make it up in box office cultural curiosity crossover business as non-ST fans tune in for the big comeback.

Shatner is burning hot and bright in his old age. Nemesis blew. To not include Shatner is a stupid BUSINESS move. He will sell tickets. The return of Capt Kirk is worth triple whatever they pay the Shat in opening week box office.

91. Ivory - July 10, 2007

I no longer care about this film.

92. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Unfortunately, you can’t solve a problem by pretending it never happened. They never ignored TWOK.

If there is a line in Trek XI establishing Kirk being alive post Generations, that’s another story, but without Shatner, there is no reason to believe they will do that.

Money DOES talk. But canon matters. Ignoring canon actually pisses people off, and causes them to walk.

By LYING to us just a week ago, and NOT going with Shatner, they simply cost themselves a LOT of money.

No Shatner? No interest.

93. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#83: “it tumbled dramatically, both in quality and in ratings. Opinions can vary, but ratings are gold. ”

Yep – and TNG was *enormously* successful for seven years. Paramount made more money off of TNG and the associated merchandising than any other version of Trek; at its zenith, more people were watching that show than could be lured into the theaters to pay for Star Trek 5 or Star Trek 6.

All that success, without even a whiff of the “essential” William Shatner. Imagine that.

In any event, by the time the dust settles the Shat will have a walk-on somewhere in this movie, and if the film is successful the Shatner fetishists will declare that the only reason it did well was because he hoisted himself through a short scene at the beginning.

And la-de-da, life will go on. :lol:

94. snake - July 10, 2007

No shatner in it for 5 seconds? no need to explain post/pre Generations bollocks

95. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

TNG was successful BEFORE they killed off Kirk. The TNG movies tanked. Even First Contact has a high budget and is only in the middle of the pack when it comes to profits.

Paramount did NOT make more money off TNG than TOS. You’re kidding yourself if you believe that.

TNG was a successful syndicated show that did not air against network TV. It was a complete failure in the theatre. The second TNG was off the air, it was out of sight, out of mind.

Shatner MADE Star Trek, and to this day, IS Star Trek.

Like I said, they cost themselves a LOT of money. And more important, their lying cost them a LOT of goodwill. There is NO downside to having Shatner in the movie.

Big mistake.

96. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Could it be a money issue with Shatner?

Wasn’t it only last week that tptb said they wanted to include Shatner in the film?

97. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Could it be a money issue with Shatner?

Wasn’t it only last week that tptb said they wanted to include Shatner in the film?

98. snake - July 10, 2007

“TNG was a successful syndicated show that did not air against network TV. It was a complete failure in the theatre. The second TNG was off the air, it was out of sight, out of mind. ”

I have to agree there – I know FC did decent BO but it was a great film (basically the ALIENS storyline done as Trek) plus TNG had only recently finished..

The other 2 films BOMBED because they wer shit and also NO ONE CARED

rewatching TNG today is quite embaressing – especially season 1 and 2 lol

99. TNG never happened - July 10, 2007

#90 Unfortunately, you can’t solve a problem by pretending it never happened. They never ignored TWOK.

Me: I said they ignored TMP, not TWOK. They did ignore TMP, except for the new Enterprise. “Problems don’t age well” is another good phrase. To be precise, I am more interested in fixing the error of Kirk’s death. I am not concerned about Generations, and would “ignore” its entire plotline to fix the error. To be clear.

# 91 Yep – and TNG was *enormously* successful for seven years. Paramount made more money off of TNG and the associated merchandising than any other version of Trek; at its zenith, more people were watching that show than could be lured into the theaters to pay for Star Trek 5 or Star Trek 6.

All that success, without even a whiff of the “essential” William Shatner. Imagine that.

In any event, by the time the dust settles the Shat will have a walk-on somewhere in this movie, and if the film is successful the Shatner fetishists will declare that the only reason it did well was because he hoisted himself through a short scene at the beginning.

Me: That has more to do with the realities of modern syndication vs. 1960’s finances than anything else. Also, for all the high-minded “quality” of TNG, it was made possible in the wake (pun definitely intended) of the cute whale movie; ST 4, which probably makes sci-fi purists heads explode.

100. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#93: “TNG was successful BEFORE they killed off Kirk. The TNG movies tanked. ”

Wrong. Only two Trek movies have come close to “tanking:” the one Shatner directed and the last one, “Nemesis.”

In fact, the most successful and popular TNG film was the one made *after* they killed Kirk. Shatner’s involvement was immaterial to the success or failure of “Star Trek” by that time.

As to where Paramount’s made the most money – go look it up.

Shatner *probably* won’t be in the next “Star Trek” film – wouldn’t count him out, because he’s lobbying in public now – but he *probably* won’t.

Doesn’t matter, because James T. Kirk *will* be. :)

101. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Why would the writers not want Kirk + Spock to walk off into the sunset together?

Paramont really blew it again in regards to Star Trek.

This is just going to be another lame prequel/money grab. That’s too bad because it could have really been very special to have Kirk + Spock back one more time.

It’s not too late to get Shatner involved.

102. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Wrong. Insurrection tanked.

$58 million budget, $70 million box domestic office, in 1998 dollars. That’s pathetic. It was the lowest ranked Trek movie in a year until Nemesis. Remember that half the money goes to theaters. They lost money on Insurrection.

That was a dud. It was the first Trek movie not to even be number one in its opening weekend.

Star Trek V only had a $27 million budget and made $55 million domestically. It actually made more money for the studio, and that was the biggest TOS dud.

One out of six.

TNG failed 3 out of 4 times.

Yeah, Shatner probably won’t be in this movie. And neither will a good chunk of the audience.

After teasing it for over a year, Abrams is slapping fans in the face by doing that.

You may accept anything with Star Trek in the title, but most people aren’t like that.

#97, they didn’t ignore TMP–the movie was set over a decade later, and they went in a different direction. There were no contradictions.

103. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#101: “$58 million budget, $70 million box domestic office, in 1998 dollars.”

Cute game playing. Go look up real totals instead of first-run domestic, and get back to me.

Anyway, the fethists should chill. The Shat may yet get his little walk-on, and you can declare “victory. :lol:

104. Xai (Don't be a Lemming..) - July 10, 2007

# numbers to numerous to type…

All these arguments and assumptions over nothing. Shatner spoke and you all kneeled…oh please. Where are the facts? Because he said so? He helped kill Kirk, irregardless of what he said after Generations.

This is all just a bunch of meaningless BS and spamming until it’s actually confirmed. Let’s find out what really is going to happen then you can all have your collective “I told you so”.

105. snake - July 10, 2007

OK seriously now i do think we are ignoring 2 BIG factors with this news

I’ve not read one posative thing about NIMOY being in it – as i said before back at 41 “If u had to pick THE MOST Iconic Star Trek character…..I think most would choose Spock over Kirk – plus the fact that Nimoy as Spock can be intergrated into the film quite seemlessly (unlike Shatner as Kirk)…well there ya go i guess….”

Another thing – the script MUST BE quite good if Nimoy is involved….He’s known for being rather choosy with Trek and wouldnt do Generations because of the script…

Ok so Shats says he’s not in it – That may change – or he might he joking around

106. Sleeper Agent X - July 10, 2007

StillKirok, I know you’re angry, but you don’t have any cause to make false accusations against the screenwriters. They’ve never lied, that I can see–all they’ve said was they hoped Shatner would play some role in the movie. They didn’t say he was coming back as Kirk or that they were going to bring him back to life.

You’ve really got no one but yourself to blame for getting your hopes up so high, based on little to no evidence. I’ve tried warning you before you were setting yourself up for a fall…but the truth has ALWAYS been making this movie about Kirk’s return back to life in the TNG era was mere speculation on your and other Shatner lovers’ parts.

You did this to yourself. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

107. Xai (Don't be a Lemming..) - July 10, 2007

And does this sound like a real conversation or two friends joking around? (Note Nimoy laughing)
“Shatner: There is a Star Trek movie and I called Leonard. I said “have you heard” and he said “yes I have,” I said “what do you mean?” and he said “I have read the script.” I said “Is it a good script?” and he said “ya.” I said “am I in it?” and then there was a pause, he said “no” and then he began to laugh.

In my opinion… two things to note.
one…. Nimoy says it’s a good script
two… Nimoy laughing.

form your own opinions, just don’t call them facts.

108. dalek - July 10, 2007

The screen writers did lie. They said they were surprised at the report that Nimoy was in but Shatner wasnt and said they wanted him in the film because they have nothing but awe for him,

Speil.

They didnt write him in the movie. They knew that he wasn’t in but Nimoy was.

They lied. And brought hope to many Shatner fans that the new york times piece was a fabrication.

The next time they are interviewed someone should bring that up. But given their track record an honest answer isn’t something i’d expect.

109. Anthony Pascale - July 10, 2007

boy this is getting heated. There can be a million reasons for this turn of events, but to start saying the writers are liars is jumping to conclusions. I believe they are sincere, but Shatner himself has specific demands and who knows if they can meet them. I am sure there is more to this story than what i have been told and what has been made public

110. snake - July 10, 2007

btw Bill in the 2nd interview video…talking about his OS cast members

‘They didnt know they loved me’ LOL

btw i just listened to the first video again and i really do think that Shatner is telling the gods honest truth…he really believes he’s not in it.

111. Xai (Don't be a Lemming..) - July 10, 2007

#108 Dalek,

Perhaps it could be read as they wrote both in and expected Nimoy to say no and Shatner say yes. It could well be that Shatner is in negotiations and you are relying exclusively on very little unconfirmed information.
In effect, you don’t know if anyone is lying until more actual FACTS are known.

112. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Cute game playing. Go look up real totals instead of first-run domestic, and get back to me.
================

First run domestic. That’s what is the standard for measuring a film’s success. Either way, it was a HUGE disappointment. The film did $20 million LESS than FC, with a $13 million greater budget. You can delude yourself all you want, but Insurrection was a HUGE failure.

Xai–yes, Shatner helped kill Kirk. He screwed up–13 years ago. He’s admitted it, apologized for it, and done everything he could to rectify it, from writing the most successful fiction books in Trek history, to making numerous attempts over the years to have the character returned. He made a mistake, but shouldn’t be forced to pay for it forever. Not in this franchise.

Snake–yes, Nimoy being in it means it’s a good script, but it also is well overshadowed by the lack of Shatner. Spock alone means nothing. There is no NEED for Nimoy to return. There IS a need for Shatner because of Generations.

106, you are simply wrong. They lied. From Orci, “We’re certainly hoping to include him in the shoot, because we have nothing but reverence and awe for the man.”

How could they be hoping to include him in the shoot by not including him in the script?

Hence, a flat out lie.

So yeah, I’m angry, and I’m not alone. This was a year long tease with an obnoxious ending. That’s not going to win them back the fans they’ve lost.

113. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Dennis:

While the exact numbers (inflation..etc) may not be 100% correct (it is not an exact science) I think it is fair to say that the TNG crew was simply not as iconic as the TOS crew.

Don’t get me wrong I love TNG, but they are not as popular as TOS. If they were Abrams would be trying to figure out a way to revisit those characters instead of Kirk and Spock.

I for one am very upset that Shatner will not be in this film (although I have learned to take what Shatner says with a grain of salt) and my interest at the moment has been decimated.

114. snake - July 10, 2007

Maybe Nimoy was just jerkin around with Shats…cause he knows Shats in in negioiations with the studio about his fee etc so said ‘hey your not in it’ to make The Shats blood run cold and make him make a decision about his fee?

I DUNNO DO I I JUST GUESSING!

115. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

boy this is getting heated. There can be a million reasons for this turn of events, but to start saying the writers are liars is jumping to conclusions. I believe they are sincere, but Shatner himself has specific demands and who knows if they can meet them. I am sure there is more to this story than what i have been told and what has been made public
==================

Anthony–they didn’t write him in the script. Worse, they’ve been playing this stupid silence game for over a year. It’s one thing to keep a plot secret. It’s quite another to give starving fans hope and then to lie about it.

The worst part is they likely won’t comment on it until ComicCon.

But the fact is, they made their comments about wanting Shatner in the movie AFTER the Post article came out.

They need to speak out on this issue or go behind the scenes and make something happen with Shatner.

If not, they simply blew all the goodwill they had, and lost a good chunk of money.

The presence of Nimoy doesn’t even come close to the absence of Shatner.

Had this been reversed, with Shatner in and Nimoy not, you would not see the anger you are seeing today.

116. Xai (Don't be a Lemming..) - July 10, 2007

#112 StillKirok

you said….”106, you are simply wrong. They lied. From Orci, “We’re certainly hoping to include him in the shoot, because we have nothing but reverence and awe for the man.”
How could they be hoping to include him in the shoot by not including him in the script?”

Two questions….
1. Have YOU read the script?
2. If I told you the world was flat… would you believe me?

I’ll make it easy and answer the second. You’d say “no”… I’d say “why”. You’d say because there is overwelming evidence that the world is round”

Apply that logic to question one, and have some actual patience please.

117. snake - July 10, 2007

ok this discussion thread is offically doing my head in now..

till the next piece of news people! (hopefully the revilation of the cast and that Shats is gonna be in it too)

bye

118. THX-1138 - July 10, 2007

Wow.
I think some people need to get over their Shatner crushes. I think he’s great, and brought something quite unique in his portrayal of Kirk. But by the same token, I don’t deify him. The way some of you all talk, I think Shatner himself would call security if he saw you loitering around his front gate. And if you are such big fans of his, can’t you even see when he’s f@#king with you? The man loves to bullshit with people. Yeah, right. He and Nimoy are having a big spat over who is in the movie. Give me a break. You act as if this is a personal affront to you. The writers don’t need you, The franchise doesn’t need you. You are owed nothing. You are only being asked if you would like to go along for the ride. Stay home if it’s not your cup. Just try to say less idiotic things.

119. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

116–Nimoy has read the script, and said there is no part for Shatner. Hence, he’s not in it.

Let’s use your logic:

the overwhelming evidence is that he’s NOT in the movie.

I don’t know why some are finding it difficult to take Shatner’s statement at face value.

There’s only one thing that can cool tempers right now–a comment from Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman refuting this.

Right now, they have a LOT of angry people on their hands. Silence isn’t going to change that.

Xai–if you were Abrams, Orci, or Kurtzman, and made the same comments, responding to Shatner’s video, I’d be more patient.

But at this point, the producers have really tried that patience. The big question has been answered. And the answer is not cool.

120. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

#118–what kind of a dumb comment is that? Shatner crushes? Being a fan of one’s work is nothing sexual. Speak for yourself. What’s next, you going to say “Get a Life?”

As for the franchise not needing anyone, you clearly haven’t followed the ratings and box office totals of recent times. People HAVE stayed home. They HAVE abandoned it. The franchise is in TERRIBLE shape. This is a desperate revival attempt.

121. Anthony Pascale - July 10, 2007

Kirok you are spamming and you are flaming….this is your one warning

122. Xai - July 10, 2007

119. StillKirok – July 10, 2007

The point is… you’ve not read it and were not present for ALL of the conversation. You don’t know anything more than this out of context paragraph.

I guess the world is flat.

123. Demode - July 10, 2007

No Shatner as Kirk… but they are bringing back Nimoy??? Man, I hope they are hiding something from us, and Shatner is indeed going to return. His death in generations was awful, and if the are making a prequel franchise, who wants to see when we all know what happens to Kirk?

Oh, and #118… I will never get over my Shatner crush!

124. dalek - July 10, 2007

If I’m honest im upset about it all. I feel that they have lied to us, definitely.

I would like information from them to the contrary. I’d hate to have to wait til comic-con. Passions are running high — let’s here from the source and not the PR machine now.

125. THX-1138 - July 10, 2007

Kirok.

You ask us to use our logic but you make a statement based not on fact, but on hearsay. You are jumping to conclusions. If you have seen a script for this movie, e-mail me with a copy and I will forward you info on how to collect payment. But I’m pretty certain you are speaking out of emotion. And not logic.

126. Great Bird of the Galaxy - July 10, 2007

My, but there is a lot of heated passionate opinion about this subject! First and foremost, what we are talking about is only a movie. If such devotion and energy went to something like, say, the environment, we wouldn’t need to worry about saving it. But I digress, it is a wonderful gift to recognize an opportunity to make many people happy, and it would be nice to believe that William Shatner and J.J. Abrams possess this ability. One more ride with the original Capt. Kirk has the potential for such a moment, and it seems to be as easy as saying “yes”. Star Trek has never been to hung up on how to resurrect people before, (ask Leonard Nimoy) so put egos and paychecks to the side and light this candle! Meantime, I look forward to the return of Indiana Jones. LLAP

127. Penhall - July 10, 2007

I dont understand all the “Shatner wanted too much money” talk. If he was never written into the script in the first place, there wouldnt have been any discussion for payment.

I just think its kinda lame for Abrams and the writers to get our hopes up that Shatner will be in the movie, and then suddenly its revealed that he’s not even in the script.

Maybe there’s more to the story. Maybe Shatner will be in it anyway. I dont know. But right now I’m more than a little annoyed.

128. Big E - July 10, 2007

Shatner’s story doesn’t make sense… We know the producers met with him and Nimoy, it was confirmed by both parties. Either he was talking about something that happened a long time ago, before they met, or he is messing with our heads…..

P.S. Good to hear that Nimoy likes the script.

129. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Anthony, I am doing neither. If that’s flaming, then what about the Shatner crush crack? But fine. Your site, your rules.

THX–the statement is based on fact. Nimoy read the script, told Shatner, who told us. That’s not jumping to a conclusion.

“There is no part for me in the script.” Pretty clear.

I don’t see how you can NOT draw the simplest conclusion from the statement.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to have a producer come online and make a statement in response to this video and renew the hope.

Doesn’t seem likely though.

130. Great Bird of the Galaxy - July 10, 2007

“There is no part for me in the script” is industry code for “I don’t like the part they want me to play

131. Xai - July 10, 2007

Shatner told me the world was flat so it must be true.

132. Xai - July 10, 2007

Shatner told me the world was flat so it must be true.

enough crap for now

133. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Shatner did not tell you the world is flat. Your logic is flawed. Shatner has no reason to lie about it.

Hey look, like I said, I want to see this change. It would be welcome news. Maybe Orci or Kurtzman will actually say something before ComicCon.

134. Kobayashi Maru - July 10, 2007

I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.

135. jonboc - July 10, 2007

..as flippant as Shatner is..about EVERYTHING…I find it amazing that so many people are taking his word at face value. Maybe I’ve just seen way too many interviews with the man, but I would take everything he said with a grain of salt so big the salt vampire could live off of it for a year.

136. Kirky - July 10, 2007

Now the Shat is out of the picture, what’s next cutting Spock’s scene(s) in post.

137. Penhall - July 10, 2007

The more I think of Orci’s comment “We’d like to include him (Shatner) in the shoot” the more I think he meant as a behind the scenes consultant type who visits the set or something. This blows. I’m glad we’ll be getting Spock back on the big screen, but I really wanted to see Kirk by his side one more time….

138. Nathan - July 10, 2007

Huh, huh, huh….
I love watching all the people grousing about how without Shatner, the movie will suck, and threatening to boycott it. I’d be willing to bet, though, that, come 2008, they’ll be in line at the local movie theater wearing their best Spock costumes. Please, everyone; we haven’t had a genuinely exciting Star Trek project in years…..let’s just sit back and enjoy the ride. (And enough Generations bashing, people; it kind of gets old after a while)

-Nathan

139. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#104: “All these arguments and assumptions over nothing. Shatner spoke and you all kneeled…oh please. Where are the facts? Because he said so?”

Exactly so. Based on past history, I’d believe just about anyone else involved before I’d believe Shatner.

If his demands during negotiations were reasonable, that would be a first – what *is* a first is that the studio will make the picture with or without him, so if he wants in this time he’ll have to blink. That is why *he’s* the one carrying this on in public; no one else is budging. And good for them. :)

140. Marvin the Martian - July 10, 2007

You all are just a bunch of nerds.

;-)

141. Agent 47 - July 10, 2007

i totally agree with everything StillKirok has said, just look at the chronology of events……it’s right there!

# news article that says Shatner is angry at Nimoy.
# statement from Orci & Co saying they want Shatner in the shoot.
# Shatner now says Leonard has read script and that he isn’t in it.

my own opinion is that Shatner has no reason to lie about it, nor does Mr Nimoy, seems pretty clear to me that William Shatner never had any intention of being cast in this new movie :(

there’s a small chance he could be added at the last minute but i doubt it.

142. THX-1138 - July 10, 2007

It’s a diversion, folks. If you are willing to believe anything, then believe that.
And Marvin, the term is geeks.

143. Thomas Jensen - July 10, 2007

As another poster has said, it’s certainly workable to bring back Kirk from the Nexus, due to it’s sci-fi nature. It’s possible to bring back Kirk alive and it might be entertaining to do so plausibly. Or they could leave him dead and do the Spock reminiscing thing with only Kirk’s voice to provide the older version.

Personally, I’d just ignore anything after Star Trek VI and take into account the history of the original 79 Star Trek episodes and six movies and go from there. Doing this, they’d adhere to only what was established for the original series characters and not have to worry about the “cannon” of all the other spin-off series and movies. Simple and effective. Just go with the original series events and characters. That should be enough trek history to develop for possible future films.

If both actors are in it, or one or none, it should be interesting to see what develops.

144. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

#135–he’s actually been the only one who is dead honest. It was like that with the Enterprise negotiations. When it was about money, he said it was about money. No need to lie about that.

The problem with ignoring all Trek post-ST6 is that it doesn’t change that post-ST6, there is a hell of a lot of Trek stories that are a part of the official canon.

You can’t fix a problem by ignoring it.

By not addressing Generations at this time, they are still ignoring it. The character still has no future. Anything Kirk does is tainted by his stupid death. And worst of all, now we have the possibility that they may kill Spock too.

145. Penhall - July 10, 2007

Dennis Bailey: I’ve noticed that you always seem to be bagging on Shatner all the time. I guess its safe to say that you dont like the man, huh? Just an observation.

146. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

Speculation aside, I’m waiting to hear the final word from JJ Abrams. I could care less what the Hollywood Kidz have to say about anything in any case, never did, and never will. I can’t believe folks swallowed that spiel of theirs for so long.

Still, it’s Abrams call, not theirs, and I’m certain he’ll correct this in due time, if he doesn’t want to create the biggest firestorm since Project Genesis blew the hell outta the Mutara Nebula.

147. Shadow6283 - July 10, 2007

StillKirok

You ain’t Crambam, are you?

148. CmdrR. - July 10, 2007

OK, I’m Capt. Obvious.
Shatner story… 140-something comments.
If he’s not in this movie… just send him to the theater and sell tickets. Paramount will still get rich (er).

149. Nelson - July 10, 2007

This thread certainly makes it clear that it’s more important to the fans that William Shatner is in the movie then whether the Enterprise design is modified mildly or a lot.

I think this is all spin. We should take a stress pill and chill. The facts will come out soon. It’s obviously some kind of game that is being played out and the fans are the barometer.

150. StillKirok - July 10, 2007

Nelson–seems like the facts are out. There’s really no reason to NOT take it at face value.

151. Gsmarty Pants - July 10, 2007

oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god no shatner in this movie its gunna sock i’m not gonna see it wah wah wah

Just kidding. Who really knows who’s actually gonna be in this? We are so still in the fanning the flames of bullshit stage of publicity. Very little is known for certain, while much is still up for speculation and discussion. It’s difficult to judge when we’re hearing facts, or just manipulation to maintain interest, or an attempt at jockeying for a better position.

Whatever, it makes for a good show before the actual show, all these people with their little leaks here and there, most of which add up to nothing, but still, there’s nothing like rampant fan speculation. Except maybe crack. Or meth. Or crack laced with meth. Or an actual film to watch – I guess that would be better, but entails much waiting. Which brings us back to speculation. Woo hoo!

152. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

I have seen an *amazing* number of great TV shows and movies in the last forty years that have not featured William Shatner in *any part whatever.*

Seriously. Hard to believe, I know, but true. :)

153. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

Not to get your hopes up, but think about it: In TWOK we had Spock get killed off. The fans were upset and when TSFS came out, everyone went to the theatre hoping for his return. Remember, Nimoy’s name wasn’t in the opening credits of TSFS. Why? Because they wanted to keep you wondering right up to the “Jim. Your name is Jim!” moment.
Now, Kirk has been dead since Generations. The new movie comes out in December, 2008. The producers have “hinted” that the original Kirk (Shatner) might be in the movie. Same methods, same ideology. Where’s the fun, or surprise, if they announce NOW that Shatner will reprise the role of Kirk risning from the dead? History may be repeating itself!

154. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

Oh, and on another note, when people talk about how the script MUST be good because Leonard Nimoy “likes it”. Puhlease!! Nimoy’s the one who insisted on the brainfart premise involving the whaleshit story! He couldn’t find a good story if he had a map and flashlight!!!

155. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

Of course, the “whaleshit story” *was* the biggest cross-over-to-the-mainstream hit that the Trek film franchise ever had, and the second-biggest grossing Trek film of all time.

What, it’s not the most popular with Trekkies? Tough, but not for Nimoy or the studio.

156. Sci-Fi Bri - July 10, 2007

shatner is so frikken old that he could only to voiceover work…. if he appears in the film it will be a joke

157. CmdrR. - July 10, 2007

hmmmm….
whaleshit = ambergris
ambergris = perfume
prefume smells sweet… like money
Shatner kinda been lookin’ whale-like
therefore, Shatner equals money

158. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Dennis:

No doubt that you are correct when you say Shatner is not the be all + end all of the universe

But, Shatner’s take on Kirk is special to many people. Shatner/Kirk brings something to the series that simply cannot be measured.

To many people he is the living embodiment of Star Trek. HE IS THE BIGGER THAN LIFE HERO that Star Trek has been sorely lacking since the characters poor ending.

Was there ever a worse ending for a major fictional character?

I mean, here is this icon that is simply thrown off a cliff by the writers of Generations because in their mind their version of ST was better. History has proven they were wrong.

In trying to rid the ST universe of Kirk they unintentially threw millons of fans of Kirk off that cliff as well. The franchise has not been the same since. I am upset because I thought they were going to fix that problem.

When Kirk died so did ST in many people’s eyes. I think many people saw this as the final chance to give the Kirk character (a character that is special to many people) a last chance at life.

Many people want to see that bigger than life hero defeat death just one more time. That’s what movies are for.

It’s still not to late.

JJ if your out there bring Shatner back to ST + allow it’s greatest character the ending he deserves.

159. Ivory - July 10, 2007

Before we kill Abrams + the other writers is there a chance that Shatner is asking for too much money like he did with Enterprise?

Anthony hinted that there may be some “specific demands” that Shatner had that maybe could not be met.

I would be a lot less upset if the writers tried to get Shatner into the film but he was asking too much money + backed out on them.

If they included Nimoy + not Shatner for reasons other than money/demands I’d be very upset.

There is still time to include Shatner as Kirk.

160. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 10, 2007

Lord Garth is pissed off !!! Mute Andorian and mute Tellerite henchman are on their way over to Bad Robot Productions right now

161. johnny - July 10, 2007

I can’t tell you how shattered I am at hearing this news. I feel these new writers had a wonderful opportunity to bring Kirk back and undo the wrongs of that horrible “Generations” movie. Real creative writers could do it. Hell I can do it!! So why can’t they. I am now going back to my TOS books and am forgetting this movie. I am very disappointed. They cruelly led us to believe that there was a chance that Shatner and Nimoy together would be back. Now that looks lost …….. and shame on them.

162. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

#155 “whaleshit story was the biggest cross-over-to-the-mainstream hit”
Only because ALL the fans, who were completely jazzed by TWOK+TSFS, went to the movies expecting more of the same! TVH had a pre-sold audience who were BETRAYED, discovering the letdown only AFTER they had bought a ticket and entered the theatre! That whale storyline reduced Star Trek to The Three Stooges in one fell swoop!!! Disgraceful!

163. Ivory - July 10, 2007

What if Indiana Jones or James Bond just fell off a cliff for no apparent reason to his death?

Wouldn’t fans of those great characters have a right to be pissed off?

Kirk’s death is so lame and must be fixed.

This might be the only chance we get

164. Agent 47 - July 10, 2007

# Ivory………

for me personally, Kirks death at the end of Generations was the contrived piece of cinema i’d ever seen, it was wrong then and it is now.

he should indeed get the death his character deserves, or revival

i hope Shatner does manage to be cast, but i’ll see the movie regardless

look at this way, IMO Berman only killed the character off to give the TNG series of movies a fighting chance at the box office……..and to sever the chance of any TOS movie with that particular cast and crew being made :(

165. Irishtrekkie - July 10, 2007

ARE THEY F**KIN JOKING, someone ring up those two fan boys writing the script and tell them to put Shatner in it , i dont care if tis money he wants , the man is William Shatner ! if they want to make any money on this film actually have people wanted to see it , then pay him whatever he wants ( i dont care how they get it , rob fort knocks or something ) .

PEOPLE MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK AGAIN AT THIS PICTURE FROM THIS VERY SITE

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/kirkawesome.jpg

166. Chris - July 10, 2007

In my opinion, the writers, producers, and director should definitely take the all or nothing approach. Both Kirk and Spock in the movie, or neither one in the movie.

If the situation were reversed and the Shat was in but Nimoy out, I would still be upset. Someone said it earlier. They’re a package deal, and get the best work out of each other.

167. Robert Bernardo - July 10, 2007

Dennis Bailey wrote:

> I have seen an *amazing* number of great TV shows and movies in the
> last forty years that have not featured William Shatner in *any part
> whatever.*

I’ve seen a lot of t.v. shows and movies in the last 52 years, and when William Shatner shows up, those productions are extra special. The Museum of Television & Radio think so, too, and that’s why they inducted William Shatner in their Hall of Fame. The tribute that they gave to him for his career of accomplishments was outstanding. William Shatner — actor, director, producer, writer… and that’s just in the show biz side of his life.

168. CmdrR. - July 10, 2007

brain set on shuffle… so, just some thoughts:

Kirk deserves a better death than he got in Generations. Check.

I, as a fan, don’t really want to see all my heroes die on screen.

IF Kirk is brought back, I, as a fan, do not necessarily need or want an explanation. Sherlock Holmes DIED. Then he wasn’t dead. Conan Doyle offered no explanation and no one complained because they were too busy enjoying his return in ‘Hounds.’

Still, I, as a fan, also do not want to see my heroes age to the point of senility on screen. Shatner is not young. He is good. He is spry. He is not young.

SO… My last, best hope, as a fan is this:
Pay Shat his bucks. Have him do a voice-over from an undisclosed perspective/ point in time and let the audience see him introduce ‘himself’ played by a new actor.

Oh, and I want the E in there all fresh and pretty. Her on screen demise hurt worse than losing Spock or Kirk.

169. THX-1138 - July 10, 2007

This just in:

New Star Trek film by Abrams will not take place in outer space or the future. Also to be filmed in black and white. And it will be a “flapper era” musical starring the corpse of Jimmy Durante.

170. Ivory - July 10, 2007

JJ:

Bring back Shatner as Kirk before it’s too late.

171. norm - July 10, 2007

This sux but Kirk died in Generations. They are keeping Bermans cannon!

172. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#167: “I’ve seen a lot of t.v. shows and movies in the last 52 years, and when William Shatner shows up, those productions are extra special.’

Well, if you want to count *before* “Star Trek” I guess I’d have to say that I’ve seen a lot of TV shows and movies in the last *53* years and not one of the ones I’ve really liked – other than TOS and several of the TOS-based movies – have featured William Shatner. He certainly hasn’t appeared in a single of the really good TV shows or films that I’ve seen in the last twenty.

So, I’m perfectly open to the likelihood that Abrams and company can make a kickass movie without Shatner – it’s done all the time. This one will happen to be “Star Trek.” :)

173. CmdrR. - July 10, 2007

cue of Amok Time theme for Robert and Dennis
anwoon or lirpa, gentlemen?

174. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

Well, the other ridiculous thing is this unfounded notion that if Shatner had a part in the film that it would consist of “undoing” the storyline of “Generations.”

That was a movie made – what, sixteen years ago? Paramount is making a new film for a mass audience *now* and they’re not going to squander resources on making nice over the fact that some fans from those days didn’t like the role that Shatner signed on to play in *that* film.

There’s more than a chance that in the end Shatner will be in the next Trek film somewhere, for a couple of lines, but that won’t make the film into a “Bring Back Kirk” vehicle. Quite clearly they’ve got an approved script, that they like, in which the participation of Shatner and Nimoy is *optional.* That tells you where the focus of the story is, and it ain’t on the Starfleet Retirement Village.

175. Agent 47 - July 10, 2007

i don’t think Dennis Bailey likes William Shatner all that much, as Kirk or anything lol

176. Anthony Pascale - July 10, 2007

Dennis is right that it is not a priority to ‘deal with Generations’…the film is not a swiss army knife…it cannot ‘fix’ every issue for every subset of the fandom.

it has one job and one job alone…to make star trek a large viable franchise again.

177. CmdrR. - July 10, 2007

Dennis, I don’t know why but right now Trekkies remind me of the French.
Specifically, this quote:

“How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese?”
— Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970), French general, president. Quoted in: Newsweek (New York, 1 Oct. 1962)

I agree with you that Shatner is no longer the center of the Trek universe. Sad, that people can’t appreciate his contribution and move on.
Starfleet Retirement Village? Hmm… Kirk and Rand in depends?

178. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#175: “i don’t think Dennis Bailey likes William Shatner all that much, as Kirk or anything”

I just don’t care one way or the other. I liked him as Kirk – better on the TV series than in the movies because I liked Kirk better on the TV series than in the movies.

But someone else is going to be Kirk now, and it’s really past time for that.

I liked George Reeves as Superman when I was a kid, and later I liked Christopher Reeve in the same part. No biggie.

179. VOODOO - July 10, 2007

Dennis + Anthony:

I am not embarrassed to say I was hoping Star Trek XI as a bring back Kirk vehicle.

Post # 163 by Ivory was 100% correct when she/he said

“What if Indiana Jones or James Bond just fell off a cliff for no reason” + that “Kirk’s death was the “worst death of any major fictional character ever” in post 158.

I totally understand that for the franchise to survive they must bring in new fans.

On the other hand I don’t see why they can’t do both. Apparently with the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy Abrams + company feel that they can satisfy the old fans while bringing in new fans at the same time.

My question is why can’t they include Shatner as Kirk? It would make so many people happy.

I am very upset (well as upset as one can be about a film) about this news. My entire attitude towards this project has changed.

I just don’t care if Shatner is not in it as Kirk.

180. VOODOO - July 10, 2007

Ivory:

Your posts at 158 + 163 said it all.

Well done.

181. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#179: “My question is why can’t they include Shatner as Kirk? It would make so many people happy.”

I imagine that they can, if the deal is right. The days when he was driving this train, though, are clearly long past.

They’ve got a movie to make, and he’s either willing to do that movie for a reasonable price or not.

182. Agent 47 - July 10, 2007

#178, Dennis.

i’m open to recasting in this new film, it needs to be done for obvious reasons (time period it’s set in, original actors current ages)

i’m very interested to see what a new cast can bring to the iconic roles, it would just be nice “if” they could work Shatner in to it somehow

i’ll see this film regardless,and hope it’s good :)

183. Xai - July 10, 2007

So I leave for a couple hours and people are STILL believing this load of BS?

Don’t believe all you read, especially on the internet. And then please don’t start assuming the worst. We have people that are referring to others as liars or worse.

Let’s be reasonable and believe it AFTER someone confirms it. Until then this is a lot of flaming and spamming.

184. TrekLog » Blog Archive » ShatnerVision: Bill über Trek XI… [5] - July 10, 2007

[...] (Anm.: Auch dieses Interview ist Teil des Gesprächs, das Shatner in der ‘KABC Morning Show’ geführt hat. Siehe hierzu auch seinen Bericht über ehemalige Trek-Kollegen und Trek-Conventions. Dies ist eine Übersetzung des Original-Artikels der sich beim Trek Movie Report finden lässt.) [...]

185. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

#182: “it would just be nice “if” they could work Shatner in to it somehow”

And it may happen yet. Shatner didn’t put this clip up on his website just to entertain his fans – he obviously wants to do it. He wants to do it on his terms. That won’t happen, but that doesn’t mean he won’t do it.

186. Anthony Pascale - July 10, 2007

i see a lot of ire directed at the film makers here. Bear in mind that they have said little about Shatner and Nimoy except to talk about their respect for them. It was Abrams who went out of his way to reach out to both of them. It was the film makers who set up meetings with both of them last fall. As I understand it they always wanted to find a way to involve them and both Shat and Nimoy let them know what it would take. Beyond their monetary needs they also had specific needs of what they wanted in the script for their roles. The writers then went off then to write the script.

To make this all work many stars need to come into alignment. The script needs to please paramount, please nimoy, please shatner, please abrams, please the budget, etc.

Shatner is the one who has stoked the rumors more than anyone. Shatner is the one who told them what he wanted to do the film. It just might be that there is no way to get everything right.

but are you going to fault them for trying. What if they just dismissed Shat and Nimoy from the outset as ‘old news’…what if they dismissed canon and the fans. They havent done that…but they cannot do EVERYTHING to please EVERYONE….that is too much to ask.

If you feel that a Star Trek film can only succeed with a 2 minute scene with Shatner and if that scene is is not in it then the other two hours suddenly become moot then that is a very very narrow view of the universe.

Do I wish they could all figure out a way to make it work…Yes of course. But I want a good movie more than anything…that is the focus.

anyway that is the most I will say, but I do think people need to get some context and perspective here

187. VOODOO - July 10, 2007

Dennis:

Are you suggesting Shatner is trying to shake them down for more money?

I wouldn’t doubt it if he is.

You have more connections than just about anyone here.

If Shatner is in this simply for the money + is giving them a hard time about signing over this then shame on him.

I agree that Shatner seems to have an agenda by putting these clips on the net. He isn’t doing this because he cares about his fans

He also has a track record of doing this. Anyone remember his Enterprise negotiations?

Let’s hope this is Shatner being Shatner + that he will appear in the film.

188. dalek - July 10, 2007

Anthony i can understand and appreciate what you’re saying. Im sure you understand a lot of people are understandably upset that after indications that Shatner might return after so many years of nothing, only to be told he isnt in the script, its a massive let down for people who’d love nothing more than to see him return to the role. A lot of people’s feelings run deep for Shatner as Kirk. And a lot of hopes were crushed when this news story came out today because of the hope given to us by recent events and the production crew.

I’m not ashamed to admit it Shatner as Kirk is my hero and its as synonymous to the actor. Just as Sean Connery as Bond is another hero; but Roger Moore, Tim Dalton, Pierce Brosnan etc as Bond aren’t.

I’d like to hear more from the Abrams camp though. It would be good if we could get them to speak about it.

189. johnny - July 10, 2007

Ivory your posts 158 and 163 sums up wonderfully how I feel as well. Thank you.

190. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

Yeah, I’m suspecting all of that and for all of the reasons that you cite, VOODOO. You clearly are very familiar with the history of his approach to these things – and I’d forgotten about the “Enterprise” thing. There’s another one that didn’t go as he planned, with a lot of tall tales being told in the aftermath.

I’m surely not the person around here with “connections” these days, though. Listen to Anthony. The Anthony is wise in the ways of the Left Coast.

191. Pizza Hotdog - July 10, 2007

StillKirok. For someone who talks a lot, and wants to get the last word. You don’t say much.

For the rest of you “I won’t see the movie unless my Ego-Hero is in it.” Stay home and watch reruns.

The fat boy is not in the movie. His time has come and gone! He made 1 good Trek movie. ONE! The guy is a prima-donna. His character is dead! About time someone told that egotistical lard ass to piss off! You can’t move forward until you let go of this past. The man cannot act, is over weight and looks like $hit. It would take a lot of CGI & makeup and a major suspension of disbelief to believe a really good Serious Trek movie needs him.

If the boys in charge can blow up the franchise and re-(write, cast, launch, or any word) they way Batman was redone, we should be so lucky.

The last 2 movies sucked the biggest A$$. We need a major transfusion.

#33. Really good post. Says it all.

192. Michael Hall - July 10, 2007

No one but a hopeless fanboy could possibly have thought that J.J. Abrams or Paramount would spare as much as five seconds of priceless screen time to ‘fix’ something done in a mediocre film that most regular filmgoers have long-since forgotten. In the spirit of fan comity I tried to warn StillKirok that he was likely in for a huge disappointment, and while I find Shatner’s spilling of the beans at this date to be thoroughly unprofessional, I’m glad ‘Kirok” has been spared any cruel hope that this film will be worth spending the next sixteen months looking forward to, or standing in line for.

For myself, I’ll be there with bells on, if only to see what they’ve come up with.. What I want is a great story featuring the characters, universe and hope for the future brought to life by Gene Roddenberry back in 1966. If Abrams and crew can manage to retain Trek’s essence while updating its dramatic style for modern audiences–a long-shot, I think, but far from impossible–he’ll have a monster hit on his hands, regardless of whether a five-minute cameo with Bill Shatner happens or not.

193. Camaro 09 - July 10, 2007

Today’s news made a long time lurker like myself finally get off the bench + post my thoughts.

I am truly dissapointed that William Shatner will not be in Star Trek.

I am only 17 years old and I never got to experience the “glory days” of TOS and their films.

While I will most likely go and see the film. It is no longer a top priority like Pirates or Transformers.

What a difference a day makes.

194. Camaro 09 - July 10, 2007

I also agee with Johnny in his praise for Ivory’s post’s at numbers 158 and 163.

You said just about everything I was thinking.

195. Sleeper Agent X - July 10, 2007

Re 186:

Well said, Anthony.

It’s good to keep in mind the writers and producers never actually promised Shatner would appear in the film. So nobody lied, here.

Think about it. It would make no sense to promise fans Shatner will appear in the movie…just to pull the rug out from under his fans over A YEAR before the movie actually opens. Where’s the benefit in doing that?

196. Robert Bernardo - July 10, 2007

Dennis Bailey wrote:

> He certainly hasn’t appeared in a single of the really good TV shows or
> films that I’ve seen in the last twenty.

Ah, you’re not a fan of Boston Legal.

197. mikeg - July 10, 2007

I’m still on HOLD with all of this. As a marketing tool, the big ? of whether Shatner and Nimoy, or one or the other, will be in the movie or not is a good way to keep things bubbling. I would certainly LOVE to see these two guys have one last outing as a couple of the greatest fictional characters of all time. On the other hand, if they wind up not being in the film, I will still check it out anyway just cos I love Star Trek….

198. Nathan - July 10, 2007

Holy cow….people sure are getting riled up about this. In my mind, this barely registers as news, but apparently some people are taking things way too seriously. And, people, I hate to break it to you, but more good hours of television and film have been created without Shatner than with him. For Pete’s sake, more good hours of Star Trek have been created without the man than with him. Sure he’s a good actor, but he’s not indispensable.
And as for the writers wishes to ‘include him in the shoot’, I would take this to mean a cameo part or walk-on role. Not something that would be in the script. So, don’t worry, Shatner fans; there’s still hope!

199. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

“Ah, you’re not a fan of Boston Legal.”

Hardly. Kelley’s been repeating himself rather wearily for years now, and watching Spader and Shatner’s comic mugging isn’t really a substitute for characterization.

200. Kevin - July 10, 2007

phew! That took a while to read all these posts. Normally I wouldn’t even bother but I figure this (minus a chair across my back and fist in my face) must be what a soccer riot feels like.

I may not agree with everyone’s ideas here and some people I think are just plain nutz, but I’ll say this, Star Trek fans are certainly passionate.

201. Redshirt - July 10, 2007

Yeah I’m surprised this has gone this far…Theirs no real confirmation besides Shatner’s word taken during this interview. Which could have been done any time. it could have been months and its coming to casting crunch time Even if this is a negotiating ploy.

I’m sure the bring back Kirk only Shatner camp would be just utterly crushed. As probably as those who were crushed for A DS9 movie or another TNG movie. The only thing I see this is as now is “Remember when we first met ?” and take it from there. I’m never thrilled with cameo’s at all.
I don’t point like a brainless lummox and point “Oh theirs so and so… wow…”
At some point you have to grow out of that.

202. VOODOO - July 10, 2007

202 posts in about 12 hours (plus thousands of people who just read the posts + other bogs like this one) are the best example as to why Shatner should be in this film.

It’s the one thing people are passionate about it the ST universe. People love William Shatner as Captain Kirk.

On the other hand. If Shatner is trying to hold tptb hostage to his demands (like he did w/Enterprise) then I would tell him to go to hell if I were them.

This is a business no doubt, and I have no problem with anyone being highly compensated, but this is also his chance to enjoy a last crowning moment to his career and allow his signature character to exit with the grace he deserves. Rather than falling off a cliff.

Surely, he doesn’t need the money at this point + I’m sure they are not offering him $7.50 per hour.

I think there is more to this story than we have heard so far. I am 99% sure Shatner had ulterior motives for this clip(and others like it) that HE leaked to the net.

Some things to think about

1/If they had zero interest in using him why didn’t they just say it months ago?/
2/ Aren’t he and Nimoy close friends? Would NImoy keep knowledge of the next Star Trek film away from Shatner?
3/ Did Shatner really have to call Nimoy to find this out?
4/ Shatner is on record as saying that J.J. Abrams himself wanted Shatner+ Nimoy in the movie.
5/ Didn’t the writers of ST XI within the last week or so publicly say they wanted Shatner?
6/ Isn’t the timing of this (only weeks before casting is made public at comic con) a little fishy?

Something doesn’t smell right here. This could be nothing but a huge negotiating ploy for Shatner.

TPTB could be offering him half of the salary (and role) he wants + he figures if he goes public in the weeks before just before offical casting he could get a push from the Kirk fans out there who desperately want him in the film.

Or tptb could simply have made a huge mistake and not written him into the film.

We will see.

Is Shatner holding out for one last huge pay day? I would think much less of him.

The next few weeks will be interesting.

203. Nelson - July 10, 2007

I can see it now, as was done for Daniel Craig, there will be a http://www.soandsoisnotkirk.com website.

204. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

I think that #202 has it, pretty much on the nose.

205. Kirk: The Jack Bauer Of Space - July 10, 2007

I predict that Shatner will be in the film, and that the clip above, along with all of the Shat’s ramblings about this, is subterfuge.

As for Nimoy–I have a hard time picturing Nimoy as Sarek. He just doesn’t look or sound like him. Except of course for the pointy ears and the eyebrows.

206. Still Kirok - July 10, 2007

Well, with Enterprise, Shatner spoke of the money issue freely. Here, he speaks of the “I’m not in the script” issue. I think if money’s the problem, he’ll say so.

207. jonboc - July 10, 2007

Boston Legal is so damned entertaining, I love that show! The point being, when Denny Crane is treated with a serious storyline the proof is there, on screen, that Shatner could easily pull off an aging77 year old Kirk (hell, a 65 year old Kirk for that matter) and do it with a solid and even moving performance. Not as a major player in the movie, but as a powerful bookend of Kirk’s “young” adventure, thus putting a nice cap on the 40 year plus history of William Shatner as Captain Kirk. And I have to admit, I like Star Trek because I like it’s focus, Kirk. And I like Kirk because I like William SHatner AS Kirk. His charm, and strength and humor is what makes me like this character….not the words on the page.
Having said that, while I think Shatner could deliver a powerful ending to the character of Kirk, I realize that the inevitable comparrisons with Shatner will be the first thing focused on when this movie hits the screens. From film critics to armchair directors on the internet, the new actor’s ability to deliver the goods, just as Shatner did, with his charisma, his strength, his compassion, his sex appeal and and his humor. The new actor’s ability to deliver and convincingly present these traits will make or break this movie.
Shatner, in some capacity, would have lent a much welcome legitimacy to the new Kirk, in essence saying to the audience, “this is me”.

208. CmdrR - July 10, 2007

208th!!!

Wow. Is this a record?

202, I agree with your points. I don’t really have anything new to add… but, this is getting to be such a long thread, I wanted to be a part of the upper end.

209. Woulfe - July 10, 2007

1. The gang (J.J. & Co. ) meet with both Shatner & Nemoy early on, Shatner at this stage might of asked for a lot of money before there was a script written, then again he might of waited ’till the script was done, read it, then asked for more money to be in it, who knows ?

2. Time passes. The writers tell us they’d like for Shatner to be in it (This is short hand for, we’d love to have him but he’s asking for too much for his short scenes ) the studio does a re-write taking Kirk out of the script as Shatner is asking for too much money, again speculation on my part.

3. More time passes. We get close to casting time, Shatner himself informs us in a round-about way that he’s not in it, I’m not surprized one bit, I recall him meeting w/ B&B for Enterprise and he asked for a lot of money to be in that.

4. Fans explode in outrage thinking that Kirk wasn’t going to be in the film all along when the reality might be he was in the script, but Shatner asked for far too much money so he got removed from said script.

You know what, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it actually happened that
way above, as Shatner is so full of himself sometimes that it hurts the fans in the long run because he demands so much money and the studio ultimately says no in these matters.

Paramount may be tossing $100 mill at this, but there’s no way they’ll be talked into going over that amount, no matter what happens.

You may not believe it, nor want to hear it, but Shatner at times is his own worse enemy, he’ll negotiate himself out of things more often then not.

As much as I like the man now that he’s lightened up for fans at cons and able to poke fun at himself, he still thinks more about his pocketbook.

He’s all about the bottom line these days.

– W –
* Who’s not at all surprised by the turn of events *

210. TrekNerd - July 10, 2007

“In my opinion, Shat priced himself out of the movie.”

So, the Priceline Negotiator doesn’t practice what he preaches?

211. Camaro 09 - July 10, 2007

Wow, VOODOO at post number 202 really hit the nail right on the head.

I wasn’t thinking about most of the points he/she brought up .

Mr Shatner may be trying to use us Kirk fans to get himself a big fat Star Trek pay check.

It kind of makes sense when you consider that offical casting is just days away.

I don’t care if I am being used or not. I wan to see William Shatner in the next Star Trek films.

212. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

People are saying Shatner wants too much money. What a shock! The Shat may be spry and full of “piss and vinegar’, but honestly, think in comparison to any other 76 year old man you know. Don’t forget, Shatner was born in 1931 and, as a small boy, lived through the Depression. As far as he’s concerned, when it comes to appearing in a new film for one final hurrah, he has one thing in mind. He wants to look at the cheque Paramount hands him, grin, and opine, “the last time I saw this many zeroes was at a Star Trek convention!!”

213. Camaro 09 - July 10, 2007

Someone above mentioned that frequent posters Dennis Bailey and Anthony Pascale “have connections”

What did they mean by that?

Could those guys actually be writers or cast members?

I always enjoy their well thought out posts.

Just curious.

214. Dennis Bailey - July 10, 2007

I’m actually J.J. Abrams’ pool boy.

215. Anthony Pascale - July 10, 2007

and I am Damon Lindelof’s cousin’s bartender’s little brother’s dog groomer

216. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

So, as Anthony cuts the dog…I said CUTS the dog, we have Dennis furiously fishing the recently shorn pooch’s hair out of the “cement pond”. Meanwhile Abrams lounges in the background, sipping cocktails as he spends many hours “auditioning” bambettes for the critical role of Rand. Is that about right?

217. New Horizon - July 10, 2007

This movie needs neither Shatner or Nimoy. Let go of it people. If Nimoy has been cast, great..but enough of the belly aching.

218. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

Don’t cite James Bond or Superman as an example of how Kirk and Spock can be recast. Those were characters derived on paper, be it novel or comic book. Portraying them on film came AFTER the fact.
Kirk and Spock are indelibly tied to Shatner and Nimoy because they CREATED the persona of these men and EMBODIED their own CHARACTER into the role. The best example is Indiana Jones. No prior history of existing in print prior to Raiders of the Lost Ark. We were first introduced to the character of Dr. Jones via Harrison Ford. He MADE THE ROLE HIS OWN. Case in point; you could neither fathom nor accept another actor playing Indiana Jones, would you?? The singularly unique iconic roles of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock deserve no less.

219. doubledumbassonyou || a colorful metaphor » Blog Archive » Shatner Definitely Won’t Be In Trek - July 10, 2007

[...] Talk about a dagger. I wouldn’t expect Shatner to get a huge part, but at least a nod … give him a cameo as a Starfleet Admiral or such nonsense. Shatner does confirm that Leonard Nimoy has a part in Star Trek, but doesn’t specify what exactly. The guys over at TrekMovie tend to think Nimoy will be playing Spock’s father, Ambassador Sarek. That’s the safe bet, and a fitting thank you to the fans that have supported to the franchise for the past 40 years. Sphere: Related Content [...]

220. Jim J (Denny Crane) - July 10, 2007

Frankly, I’m with some others here who say The Shat may be using us and all of this as a negotiating ploy. Frankly, I think it’s working. LOOK at all the comments. Whether positive or negative, THE SHAT generates what this Star Trek movie needs: interest! Interest=$$$

Frankly, with the original cast and then TNG, people were to the point that they were saying, “oh, another one of those Star Trek movies? Are they EVER gonna retire?” With new actors PLUS The Shat & Nimoy, I DO think interest will come from people of all ages and interest. A TRUE passing of the torch, so to speak. Either that, or some will think that putting “the old actors” in the movie will help create a “train wreck”. We all know that people just have to watch things like that, to see what exactly happens!

Paramount and THE SHAT would both be wise to scratch each others back!

221. Sleeper Agent X - July 10, 2007

Re 218–

Harry, your argument’s a common one but it makes no sense. The vast majority of people who saw Superman or Bond on the big screen had never read the original source material before–to them seeing Christopher Reeves as Superman or Connery as Bond was to see them and create a character. Yet those people made the adjustment when the roles were taken over by others.

Also, many of the younger people out there today just aren’t that familiar with TOS–it’s been a while since Generations. They’ll be able to approach any new interpretation of the characters fresh.

There’s absolutely no legitimate reason–just sad grasping at straws–why recasting couldn’t work.

222. mrregular - July 10, 2007

My G*d…Over 220 posts now…
The Shat needs to be in the new Trek film, with Nimoy. Why? Here are some points to ponder:

1)To amend the death of Kirk in Generations. As many have put forth here, that death was meaningless. Better for him to have died saving the NCC-1701-B then the way he bought the farm.

2) To make up for the atrocious end to Enterprise. As a fan I was let down in so many ways. Using Captain Riker and Counselor Troi to tell the story of the first Enterprise starship was a huge miscalculation. We didn’t even get to see Captain Archer’s speech before the UFP. WHAT DID HE SAY??????

I rest my case.

223. trektacular - July 10, 2007

I’m just glad Nimoy likes the script, thats a good sign.

224. The Saturday Night Live Shatner - July 10, 2007

Yikes McGrikes. People need to settle down a little bit. God throwing little temper-tantrums over conjecture about a movie; no wonder Trek fans don’t reporduce.

So, what are you guys going to do if Shatner and Nimoy both die before the start of filming? It’s entirely possible.

225. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

Nimoy wouldn’t know a good script if it BIT HIM ON THE ASS!!! Every idea he’s come up with for story ideas in the films has STUNK ON ICE!!!

226. Sleeper Agent X - July 10, 2007

Re 225

Man, Harry. You sound like you’re just a Shatner fan only, and not a Star Trek fan at all.

227. Hon. David Kulessa - July 10, 2007

Yeah, I think people are forgetting that if either of them are in this film, it’ll only be for a few minutes. Maybe ten. It doesn’t matter all that much.

On a mildly unrelated note, I wish Sisko and (at least one person) from the DS9 crew were in First Contact. It would’ve been great to see Sisko getting angry at Picard in the ready room instead of Lily. And it would have made sense. Sisko hated Picard because of Wolf 359. His attitude would have translated well into the First Contact scenario, and made an even more wonderful movie.

So yeh?

-TGP-

228. Greg - July 10, 2007

Here’s my take… Number one, Shatner never tells the whole story, and even when he does, it’s often in such a manner that you’re left not exactly sure whether to believe him or not. Number two, given the fan backlash during Enterprise, and poor results of Nemesis, you would think that Paramount wouldn’t want another fan movement against them? Number three, I cannot fathom that the writers left Shatner out because of Generations. From what Orci has been alluding to, they may well get quite muddy in terms of cannon anyway. So in that sense, why not just ignore Generations, and bring Shatner and Nimoy back as old Kirk and Spock? Number four (lastly), I just don’t think people understand the fan movement to get Shatner back as a resurrected Kirk. It’s about more than stupid canon. It is about righting a wrong, in which a beloved character NOT created by him, and frankly not cared for at all, was subsequently killed off the first chance he had. He being Rick the Vermin Berman. This is about restoring the heroic posture to Gene Roddenberry’s character. Paramount has had ample opportunities to do so, but only Rick Berman stood in the way. When he finally was on his way out, during Enterprise, Paramount scuttled the guest appearance because they were canceling the show anyway. Now we finally have Berman out, and still nothing for Shatner??? It’s very distressing, and I feel totally stepped on by Paramount. Also, had this new team said from the get go, we have no place for Nimoy or Shatner, that would have stunk, but acceptable in a sense. Now they open the door and slam it in our faces? Abrams and Paramount should be offering many olive branches to disgruntled Star Trek fans, not acting like we don’t exist.

229. Harry Ballz - July 10, 2007

On the contrary, I love Star Trek in ALL it’s forms!!!!!

230. trektacular - July 10, 2007

Hey Harry you may think Kirk rules, but Scotty was the better man!

231. omf - July 10, 2007

After looking through most of these comments, all I can say is that I hope no one with any real power over the production of the upcoming movie pays too much attention them.

Star Trek is dead! Long live Star Trek!

232. Sleeper Agent X - July 10, 2007

Re: 229

Well then, Harry, you’ll probably like the new movie regardless of whether there’s Shatner or red bridge railings in it!

233. Londo - July 10, 2007

@StillKirok: “They lied to us! They LIED to us!!! ME ANGRY!!! REAGAN SMASH!!!!!” Get over yourself.

Frankly, I’m not really surprised. I didn’t expect Shatner or Nimoy to be in this movie, so it wasn’t really big news for me to find out that Shatner will not, in fact, appear. It is kinda interesting that Nimoy will be in it though – I doubt he’ll play Sarek (he is too different to Mark Lenard), so I’ll bet it’s some kind of bookend narration.

234. Will - July 10, 2007

I remember how moving it was when Leonard Nimoy spoke the “final frontier” lines at the end of Star Trek 2, the lines that were usually spoken by Shatner.

He’s a fine choice to bookend a story. Besides his wonderful voice, Nimoy also has a better aged face — more dramatic. Especially if lit by some Vulcan candles, as Vulcans are wont to do during ceremonies or meditation.

Has anyone suggested (I am sure someone has) that another reason why Spock might be “telling a story” about his youth is because he is dying and is passing his accumulated knowledge and experience on to a son or daughter, as seen in the Next Gen episode when Picard received Sarek’s knowledge due to Spock not being available? As such this film could both introduce characters from the past, and characters in the future.

235. Kevin - July 11, 2007

#227 I’m not sure you saw the conclusion of “The Emissary,” at the end, Sisko doesn’t hate Picard at the conclusion. Still, I always found it odd that Worf was in command of the Defiant during a Borg invasion of Earth.

On the constant remarks of “let’s just ignore Generations” get over it, it happened and the death of Kirk was a bit significant to ignore in cannon. You want to find a way around it, fine. You want to have Shat lose 10-20lbs, bust out his old hairpiece and be digitally de-aged to be in a Star Trek VI era scene fine. But no matter how many q-tips you jam into your brains, you will not be able to forget Generations, and neither will the rest of the fans and general public.

As for all the complaining, let’s just wait until comic-con and see what is revealed. I’m not thrilled with the idea of Shatner not being in this either, but I’m just gonna wait and see before I call for the studio president, writers and JJ’s head’s to be forced onto pikes.

Keep in mind, that if Shatner is to be involved, even resurrected, it would have to be done in a way that wouldn’t confuse people who aren’t familiar w/ Trek, and only know that Kirk is dead.

236. Kevin - July 11, 2007

And one more thing. Who came up w/ the idea that Nimoy would being playing Sarek? What kind of ridiculous idea is that? That didn’t come from any official source.

“Really, Nimoy’s in the script?”
“Yeah well everyone knows that scripts are written with both the character and actor’s name on the same line. It says Nimoy/Sarek.”
“Well then, I guess that makes it concrete. That role couldn’t be played by just anyone.”

Leonard is not going to take a role in Star Trek that anyone can play.

No one working for the studio is stupid enough to even try and pull that move.

Yeah, and to bring in the TNG fans they’re gonna put Johnathan Frakes in the role of Captain Pike.

237. dave Mack - July 11, 2007

You know what? If Shatner or Nimoy want some decent $, good for them.
Do you how much more this film would make Paramount with them in it than not in it between box office and later on video sales? A sh*tload.
You have shatner and nimoy’s mug somewhere on the poster and years from now, people will buy the DVD.
Paramount made a TON of $ off of the original cast (and are about to make more with the upcoming CGI TOS TREK on DVD and HDdvd/Blu Ray. I’ll bet the cast won’t get a dime off of those either.
Paramount, show some class and pay the Shat (and Nimoy too) some decent $ to be in the new film. It’ll be worth it…

238. operations - July 11, 2007

In other news; Nimoy on Shatner: Shatner is always full of shit, I am not.

239. Light~Year Models - July 11, 2007

All good things must come to an end……as much as I like Kirk I just feel Kirk has been done to death…literally.

240. Hawkeye - July 11, 2007

Alright, let me set you all straight.

There was a 3RD significant character in TOS – Dr. McCoy! C’mon, you can’t forget about Bones! The big storyline was the relationship between those 3 characters. Not just Kirk and Spock. But, as we all know, DeForest Kelley has passed on. I don’t think you should have Kirk and Spock without McCoy, unless you digitally insert him in (like Forrest Gump, or Fred Astaire). Remember, “Admiral” McCoy was 137 years old on board 1701-D and has no established date of death in canon, so there’s already a hole to fill about why he would not be around.

As for Shatner and Nimoy: Come on you guys, go ahead and enjoy retirement. Denny Crane is pretty much senile anyway, so it probably isn’t a stretch for acting. And for people calling for Shatner and Nimoy: come on and let the guys retire. I think it’s a little selfish to demand them to go through a motion picture filming schedule. I mean, if they manage to survive for another 20 years into their mid 90’s, will you still be calling for them to return? Or what if one of them croaks before the start of filming, or even during filming? What then?

It really is time to start letting go. Star Trek is changing. Future Trek will be different than the Trek you watched when you were 10, which, in your mind, will always be the best. Just as long as there is respect to Star Trek roots, I look forward to see the possibilities of where it can go.

241. snake - July 11, 2007

Maybe Abrams didn’t want to have to deal with what was sorted out in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHANrzMSlk

After all it’d hardly be a great start to sort out Generations/Nexus bollocks

And i know they could do the X3 thing but maybe that would look abit iffy…

242. Dennis Bailey - July 11, 2007

#222: “To amend the death of Kirk in Generations. As many have put forth here, that death was meaningless. Better for him to have died saving the NCC-1701-B then the way he bought the farm.”

Won’t happen. Life’s too short, and we’re moving on.

243. tadayou - July 11, 2007

I want Uhura in it… Why is nobody thinking of Nichelle Nichols? She’s the only original cast member that hasn’t appeared in any of the Star Trek spin-offs.

Regarding Nimoy and Shatner: If they’re in it, fine. If they’re not, fine. The new movie is NOT about William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, it’s about Star Trek. While some fans seem to believe that those are one and the same, I tend to think of Star Trek a bit more universally… The Franchise produced some very good stories without the original cast and I can see no reason why this shouldn’t work for the new movie.

Also, on a different note, I don’t think that you can totally trust the Shat when he wines about not being in the movie. Just my two cent..

244. Cervantes - July 11, 2007

Let’s hope that ComicCon finally CONFIRMS for us all the answer to this, the biggest question since “will the HD-DVDs have the initial “Enterprise” episodes fixed before release?” conundrum…

Oh, and can someone tell Dennis to stop spamming? ;)

245. Ivory - July 11, 2007

Greg #228

I agree with everything you said.

Just look at the HUGE resposne this Shatner post is getting. They would be fools to not have him in this film if they are going to have Nimoy. Somehow they worked the story around an older version of Spock. I’m sure they could do the same for Kirk.

VOODOO # 202

You also brought up some very interesting points about Shatner’s return. He does have a track record of pulling stunts like this.

I would be very upset if there was no attempt to include Kirk in the story by the writers.

246. Lao3D - July 11, 2007

And how about Bill Blackburn? He was in more episodes than Takei or Koenig, he shot all those way cool behind-the-scenes home movies, he’s still alive… in fact if he’s not in the new movie it will stink on ice.

BRING BACK THE BURN!

247. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

I agree…Star Trek is much more than Shatner and Nimoy and it annoys me when I read posts that make it seem the success of the next film is tied directly to their participation. Hogwash!

The Star Trek universe will continue long after Shatner and Nimoy have passed away, just as it has continued to grow and expand long after the death of it’s creator Gene Rodenberry.

Mike :o

248. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

Sorry, but Star Trek is NOT more than Shatner/Nimoy. They made it great. And they ARE a draw. The Star Trek universe isn’t as strong as some people make it out to be. Star Trek without Shatner/Nimoy has for the most part, failed. Only TNG succeeded, and that was only on TV, and that was a GR creation. The rest of them just lived off TOS’ coattails.

Look at all the emotion this news brought out. Shatner brings people in. Shatner gets people talking. Shatner=money.

People love nostalgia. Shatner brings that. People like last hurrahs. People like happy endings.

13 years since Generations and people are STILL livid over Kirk’s death.

You can dismiss that all you want, but the bottom line is ratings and money. Post-Shatner, not there.

Like Shatner or not, you will pay to see the movie if he’s there. No one else on the planet brings that to the table.

249. german fool - July 11, 2007

A Post-Nemesis Admiral Picard and Ambassador Spock are visiting Kirk’s grave and Spock tells Picard his first adventure with Kirk.

-> that would be amazing!

(there shouldn’t be any other Characters of the 24th Century, just Picard and Spock, cause both know each other from “Unification, Part 1+2″ and Picard knows Kirk because of “Generations”, so there is some kind of relationship)

250. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

Geez Louise! I hope Paramount, Abrams & Co. monitor these blogs. I haven’t seen such activity since STAR WARS speculation, and Lucas could have certainly used some fanvice (at least with JarJar)!
If Shatner is posturing, and I believe he is, he is shrewd because love him or hate him, he creates strong feelings and that generates buzzz!
Nobody cared for INSURRECTION this way, (ANYONE REMEMBER THAT FILM?) and they killed off a major character.
In spite of all this, I hope Shatner doesn’t stonewall, to see him return would be a great ST moment, and it reaffirms Kirk’s disdain for the “No-win scenario”.
By the way, as I may have stated toward the top off this post, Shatner stating that “there is no role for me” is indeed industry code for “I don’t like the part that was written for me” Trust me on this! ; )

251. Ivory - July 11, 2007

There is also canon prove that Kirk is alive after Generations.

I’m sure it was a mistake on the writers part, but the fact is Scotty did say Kirk is still alive.

Some creative writting would allow for Kirk’s return based around this single line from TNG’s “Relics”

252. Ivory - July 11, 2007

There is also canon prove that Kirk is alive after Generations.

I’m sure it was a mistake on the writers part, but the fact is Scotty did say Kirk is still alive.

Some creative writting would allow for Kirk’s return based around this single line from TNG’s “Relics”

253. Ivory - July 11, 2007

Post #250

Data is not anywhere near as iconic as Kirk + they also didn’t really kill him off as his essence was downloaded into an identical robot.

Berman did not give Kirk fans the same respect.

254. Mark Lynch - July 11, 2007

#250 What major character was killed in Insurrection? or do you mean Nemesis….?

#251 I think you will find that the only reason Scotty has that line is because it was made way before Berman had his ‘bright idea’ of killing Kirk off. so I don’t think that any amount of creative writing is going to get around that.
If Kirk is going to make a ‘comeback’ then it is either done by setting the parts with original Kirk and Spock pre-generations or ignore generations altogether. I do not believe that the new Star Trek film will be best served by having to have half of it waffle through undoing Kirk’s demise.

Later…
Hey, do you think we will make it to post 300?!?!

255. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

No disagreement here!
My point was that nobody gave a rat’s a$$!

256. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

#248..so I guess all the success of Trek post TOS, without Shatner and Nimoy, is a figment of my imagination??

It’s true Nimoy and Shatner could add to the movie, but their participation will in no way ensure it’s success, just as their “non participation” will mean it will automatically fail.

Mike :o

257. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

Yes, I meant Nemesis, more fuel for the fire in terms of how irrelevant the TNG movies made STAR TREK.
Thanks Rick!

258. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

What success of post-TOS? You had one show, TNG, that had a good run in syndication and ran its course. Then it ruined the movie franchise. The other shows plummeted in the ratings and never would have lasted more than a season on a real network. The ratings were just too poor.

They are pretty much forgotten by all except the most hardcore Trek fans, if they were ever watched at all.

Just because you put Star Trek in the title doesn’t make it a success.

Without Shatner, this movie is nothing special. And they are losing money.

259. Sleeper Agent X - July 11, 2007

258-

Pfft. All new writers, producers, director, with track records of success, and you’re saying they’re losing money already. Why not wait until the movie comes out and let’s see what happens?

Whatever you think of Trek after TOS, this new movie is going to be it’s own thing, so making comparisons to other Trek series is irrelevant.

260. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

Characters are always key!
The enduring success of TOS episodes and films were it’s characters!
TNG was like a bitchy hair salon.
DS9 was like an intergalactic Breakfast club.
VOY was like a afterschool science club.
ENT came off like a ball team on the road.
We need explorers of the final frontier!

261. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

#258…you are kidding right? Does anyone here even agree with your post? Talk about Shatner and TOS worship!

To say that all post TOS series are “pretty much forgotten” is such a joke and not based on reality. Just scan your cable or satellite tv listings and you will see that ALL the Star Trek series are still on ther air and in syndication.

7 years of TNG, DS9, VOY and four years of Enterprise and you think the franchise had no success after Kirk and Spock?? Give me a break!

Mike :o

262. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

Shatner brings in money. Not bringing in Shatner, loses money. The last Trek movie made $40 million at the box office. It bombed. This movie is likely going to have a big budget behind it. It will have to make $150 million or so to justify it.

The point I was making is that Trek without Shatner and Nimoy has NOT been a success overall.

It was LARGELY due to Shatner and NImoy that Star Trek became the phenomenon it became.

These producers/writers/director with their great track record flat out lied a week ago. Lied. That’s a terrible start and not using Shatner when he WANTS IN, is a sign of terrible judgment.

The sheer volume of posts in this thread alone should give a pretty good indication of how much Shatner brings to the table. Like him or not, you’ll pay to see him.

263. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

The next Trek movie better appeal to alot more than just hardcore TOS Trekkies, if it’s going to be a critical and financial success. I’m sure Abrahms knows this and will make a movie that appeals to both casual Star Trek fans, as well as those not familiar with the franchise.

I think the diehard, hardcore trekkies that frequent this site will only represent a small minority of ticket sales when the next movie opens. It’s the casual ST fan, like myself, that fills theaters, drives DVD sales and brings in the megabucks!

And by the way, the success of TOS and the TOS movies was not just the participation of Shatner and Nimoy. It was the whole TOS ensemble cast, the writers, producers, directors, the great music and the talents of scores of other people that made Star Trek TOS and the TOS movies so successful. Nimoy and Shatner were only PART of that success.

Mike :o

264. Ivory - July 11, 2007

Stillkirok:

You have been taking a lot of heat in this blog, but I must say you are essentially correct.

I believe (as do you) that Shatner + Nimoy were an essential part of the success that Star Trek has enjoyed for decades.

In no way would having these two beloved actors playing these iconic roles hurt the films appeal at the box office.

On the contrary. I think their presence would be a unifying force in ST fandom and would bring in many,many people who see them as ST back to the franchise.

Let’s face it. The majority of people don’t know a thing about the latter day series and the last couple of tng films (that cast/series does not easily lend it self to telling big stories that movies need) bombed at the box office

I also think Kirk has given a very poor ending that should be corrected.

265. Ivory - July 11, 2007

#261

Those series have not had a fraction of the impact the original series has had.

Why do you think they are doing a Kirk era film?

266. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - July 11, 2007

We certainly are a disparate, fractious albeit passionate group… Whew!!!

It is absolutely amazing (and funny) to me that some people have made up their minds about this film before seeing it. There is no “benefit of the doubt”… no quarter… no chance of success (however, one wants to define or measure that word)… that unless it fits into their very narrow viewpoint or expectation… this film is doomed. But I guess that shouldn’t be entirely unexpected since there is a disturbing harmony in those assertions that blends nicely with all the revisionist history being written.

For all the foregoing posts that speak with absolute certitude about what has to happen and who has to be in it… I offer a quote about Hollywood from two-time Academy Award winner and one of the most successful screenwriters and script doctors, William Goldman. To wit, “Nobody knows anything.”

267. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

So let me get this straight..Are you guys saying that the future success of the Trek franchise is dependent on just two characters- Kirk and Spock, and the continuing participation of Nimoy and Shatner? Am I reading that correctly? hmmmmm

All I can say is that I’m glad “my Star Trek universe” is alot larger than those two characters, and those two actors.

TOS will always be my favorite ST series, but I’m glad ST has grown so much larger than the original cast and show.

Long live Spock and Quark!!
Go niners!

Mike :o

268. Hon. David Kulessa - July 11, 2007

#262 said “It was LARGELY due to Shatner and NImoy that Star Trek became the phenomenon it became.”

Obviously. Star Trek became the phenomenon because of TOS. That doesn’t mean that the last four series haven’t been successful (excluding ENT from my argument). Although admittedly, Voyager started to fault near the end, and even I was getting bored with it. But from season 3 of TNG to season 6 of VOY were very good years for the franchise.

#267

Agreed.

269. Ivory - July 11, 2007

MichaelJohn:

The quantity of Star Trek does not equal quality. I would go as far as saying the quantity of Star Trek has played a major part in the franchise falling apart.

The latter day series have not caught on with the general public.

That is why the producers are bringing back the most popular characters in a last ditch effort to save the franchise.

270. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

#263–

Using Shatner and Nimoy would BE the big way to appeal to non-Trekkies, because they TRANSCEND the genre. The world knows Kirk and Spock and know Shatner and Nimoy AS Kirk and Spock. When Shatner and Nimoy were the center of Trek, more people liked it.

I agree that the diehard fans that post here are a small minority. But these are the people that buy tickets no matter what. There are people in this thread who think Enterprise was good. Anyone who would swallow that would accept anything, even Samuel L. Jackson as Kirk. They don’t matter.

But the return of Shatner was a positive idea. It was very well received by most but only the few vocal anti-Shatner crowd, who again, doesn’t really matter because they would see the movie if only to bash the man.

As for the future of Trek depending on Kirk and Spock, that is 100 percent correct. Not necessarily Shatner/Nimoy portraying them, but the characters absolutely.

Star Trek is TOS. That is the ONLY version of Star Trek that survived for decades. That is STILL the mainstream. Kirk and crew are the characters that captured the imaginations.

The spinoffs were copies of copies of copies. TNG was the only spinoff that had a real audience, and it could not survive in the movies because it ran its course. There was never a demand for TNG movies. It wasn’t the same thing. The characters really weren’t of that larger than life quality that makes for good old fashioned fun.

Kirk and crew are.

So yes, there is no Star Trek without Kirk and crew.

As for Shatner/Nimoy, they are equally iconic. Passing the torch to new actors is very tricky. You need them TOGETHER, one more time. Why? Because Generations soured the story.

Generations threw Kirk off a bridge and sent a message to the fans that they were no longer required. The message was received and they left. Unfortunately for Berman and his people, new people didn’t replace the fans they arrogantly discarded.

But the character is STILL dead, and still has the lousy ending. People don’t forget that.

You need the characters to go off on a high note–on to the next adventure–riding off into the sunset. We had that in Shatner’s books, but those books are not official canon.

When I watch an adventure of younger Kirk, I don’t want to be thinking, “yeah, that’s nice, but he has a stupid death.” I don’t want to know how Kirk dies. It’s not important.

Bond is human and will grow old and die. Batman is human and will grow old and die. But that’s not important. We don’t need to know how it happens.

Kirk is in that category. So is Spock.

Star Trek is about optimism among all else. Beating the odds. Doing what’s right. Friendship. Heroism.

What better way to tell that story than to have Spock return the favor Kirk did for him in Trek 3?

Generations soured all of that.

So yes, Star Trek without Kirk and Spock is not going to succeed.

There is an attachment to these characters. You’re not going to get that with some new crew.

271. Helen Hill - July 11, 2007

If Nimoy is in it and Shatner is not, then I will NOT go see the movie.

272. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

If Majel Barrett is not in the next movie, then I will NOT go see this movie either! Are you listening JJ Abrahms??

Mike :o

273. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

Unfortunately, Majel Barrett is not a box office draw. William Shatner is.

274. TK - July 11, 2007

oh what the hell, we might as well reach #300, I’m going to throw in my 2 cents ;)

I was REALLY upset yesterday when I first read this article, but now I am trying to see some hope in the fact that Leonard was “laughing” after he said “no”. Why would he laugh? Fingers crossed…..

275. star trackie - July 11, 2007

#270 there is much truth and wisdom in this post… we hear his words!

276. Martin Pollard - July 11, 2007

#275 – I’d agree if it weren’t for the arrogant, closed-minded fanboy wanking evident in every single one of his posts. I wish I could take him seriously, but he’s making it impossible to do so.

277. Nathan - July 11, 2007

Errr……..I hate to sound bitter, but….enough post-TOS bashing, people! You think TOS is best, great! But do not go out of your way to look down on every other series and please do not feel the need to make big, sweeping statements about their value! I happen to enjoy TNG and DS9, as well as the majority of TNG films (including Generations); they may not be perfect, but I fail to see how they are deserving of the fanatical hatred a good number of TOS-fans are directing at them. And so, yes, StillKirok, Star Trek without Kirk and Spock not only will succeed, it has succeeded!

Okay, rant over. I don’t mean to sound judgemental or anything, but please, people; try to tone down the rhetoric a little….

278. dalek - July 11, 2007

I do agree Still Kirok has taken a bit of heat; but i wouldnt go so far as to say Nimoy and Shatner ARE Star Trek. But I’d agree that Star Trek hasnt been as much of a commercial success in their absence and no Trek draws audiences as much as the original — and for that Shatner and Nimoy have been a large part of the appeal.

To have one without the other when this is probably the final ever chance to get them together on the big screen as Kirk and Spock…. It’s extremely disappointing.

I also agree there is no other subject Trek fans appear to be more passionate about whatever side of the fence you sit on.

279. Harry Ballz - July 11, 2007

Let’s make the following distinction: The new film will make money whether Shatner and Nimoy are in it or not. The new film will make MORE money if they are in it. Also, keep in mind, the producers have a time sensitive opportunity here, in that Shatner and Nimoy will, in the next number of years, be shuffling off this mortal coil. If they’re going to allow the old fans closure, appeal to the masses with the original actors and effectively “pass the torch” to a fresh crew, then they had BETTER DO IT NOW by having Shatner and Nimoy in the film. Let’s not have it be 10 years from now and EVERYONE is looking back with regret at missing out on this “one time” opportunity!

280. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

Are we still working towards 300? What is the record?

281. Oceanhopper - July 11, 2007

If in this movie Weird Al Yankovic is not Spock and Jessica Simpson is not Chapel and Shatner does not say the words “Window”, “Chicken” or “Oregano”, I will NOT go to see this movie!

282. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

Yes there are a couple of people who like post-TOS. But not enough liked it to prevent Trek from being in the sorry state it’s in today. There’s a reason they are going back to the iconic characters.

There is no question more money will be made with Shatner and Nimoy.

Look how much passion this topic generates.

You don’t get that from Enterprise or Voyager.

283. Harry Ballz - July 11, 2007

TOS= The Obvious Solution!

284. snake - July 11, 2007

yeah lets bump this to 300

WHAAAH Shatners not in it! I wont see this!! Grrrrrrrr! No Shatner..No popcorn..no moolah…i wont see it DY’A HEAR ME?! etc etc

Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhha NO SHATNER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its the end….FININTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

285. star trackie - July 11, 2007

Well, my perspective is this. There is Star Trek. THE TV series Star Trek. Then there are all the rest. As far as Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner being Star Trek, this is mostly true. They, along with the look and style of the show,,you know, the colors, the purple gels reflecting on the walls, the dropkicks, the in your face memorable music, the lights across Shatner’s eyes…these are all things that make Star Trek what it is. Their appeal along with imaginative storytelling among other this is what made Star Trek tick. It is far more than those 8 letters. All the other newer has those 8 letters, but that’s where any similarities end. They are different birds of a feather…in their approach to music, to storytelling, to design.

It’s no wonder there are two divided camps as these two types of television production are light years apart. I happen to be a fan of old school Trek, miniskirts, tear your shirt fist fights and omnipotent energy beings at ever turn. I like the loud music, I like the comic banter between Kirk Spock, McCoy..I like lip-locks in every other episode. Fast forward to 1987….a whole different animal appears with NONE of the elements that I liked in the production of 1966 Trek. Is it any wonder myself and countless others turned away from TNG and the numerous clones that came after?

I won’t waste time bashing the spin-offs, just suffice it to say they were not anything CLOSE to resembling the Trek that hooked me. Now I know there are lots of new fans that love the new stuff. There are even old fans that like the new stuff. But the fact remains that it WAS new stuff. It was a whole new approach to Trek, many liked it, many did not. Now the new stuff has fizzled out and whats old is new again and I couldn’t be more happy.

But Nimoy and Shatner really are a HUGE part of Star Trek, they just happened to be absolutely no part of Berman Trek. And that’s ok with me.

286. JC - July 11, 2007

JOSH DUHAMEL WOULD MAKE A GREAT KIRK.

287. JC - July 11, 2007

JOSH DUHAMEL WOULD MAKE A GREAT KIRK.

288. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

#281 very funny…but come on, we all know Majel Barrett is the key to reviving the Trek franchise.

Without her as Nurse Chapel in the next film, there seems no point in even making the movie. I think we can all agree on that…

Star Trek XI without Shatner and Nimoy….well I can live with that..but without Barrett? Forget it!!

Mike :o

289. snake - July 11, 2007

Look if they can get a frickin ape done right in CGI for Peter Jacksons King Kong

WHy cant we have a CGI 1960s SHATNER?

290. Ivory - July 11, 2007

Mark 254:

No matter the reason why Scotty spoke those lines. The fact is he said them.

It would not take much work to further validate that Kirk is alive.

Scotty clearly stated that he was alive. I also don’t buy into that he was confused theory after being rescued.

Scotty, didn’t seem confused about anything else he spoke about.

291. Ivory - July 11, 2007

MichaelJohn:

My bet is you are a younger fan who was brought up on the latter day series.

You don’t seem to understand what made TOS special.

Do you understand what a big deal Star Trek was one one point in time? It was as big as the modern day X-Men or 007 films.

NASA named it’s first space shuttle after Captain Kirk’s Enterprise. It was/is a cultural cornerstone.

The series that came later were simply copies of copies that very few people care about.

292. snake - July 11, 2007

291 –

I think that Trek was a big deal up untill about 1991 what with the 25th anniverasry/end of TOS and TNG….then it was on a downhill slope from 91 onwards……there was a little interest fired up in 1994/95 what with the curiosity of the 2 new series, the end of TNG & Generations (cause it had Kirk..)

Then (bar First Contact in 96) everyone just sorta tuned out as it was just DS9, Voy, the TNG films and Ent…

293. snake - July 11, 2007

therefore – what i’m saying is that once TOS went bye bye in 1991 that was sorta IT for Trek…

294. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 11, 2007

I agree with StillKirok!

I’d really like to hear the ST XI team’s reasoning for NOT wanting Shatner in this, because I can give an answer for ANY problem they might be having. The character’s dead? SO WHAT. This is Star Trek, and 98% of the general public doesn’t even remember Generations (lucky them). To the few geeks who really do care about how and why Kirk is alive again … whoever said, “prequel comic to the events in this film” – Bingo!

What a HUGE wasted opportunity if this news turns out to be true. Shatner is still with us. No matter what anyone says, he looks GREAT for his age, and would look better still under the direction of a good cinematographer! He’s more popular than ever; the man is downright ubiquitous, you barely go a day without seeing him on tv! Like fellow icons Gary Cooper and John Wayne before him, Shatner still – even in old age – wields a charisma and screen presence that few actors can match. Not using him – even if only to bookend the events of the film – is stupid!

295. Nelson - July 11, 2007

I am keeping an open mind about all this news and I try to see past all the nonsense. I don’t take any of it seriously and I don’t think there are any facts yet about anything, at least not made public.

I think this whole thing is a joke, a typical Shatner type of kidding and joking with the interviewer, as he’s been doing so much recently.

I listened again to Shatner’s comments. The way I heard it, it sounds like he’s making this story up as part of the joke/act. He asked Nimoy, “Am I in it”. And Nimoy says “No” and laughs. By that I interprete it as a joke from Nimoy to Shatner, “Ha, ha you’re not in it and I am……..I’m kidding you!”

That’s how I view this whole thing today. I could be totally wrong, but I think it’s all part of the jokery and a way to raise a rukus for the movie.

296. vochoa0371 - July 11, 2007

In respect to have Kirk or Spock in the new Trek movie is of no concern. The people decide whether to go out and watch a movie no matter who is playing a role in the movie. Movie watchers pick and choose what movies to watch just by who or what actor is in the movie.

I love sci-fi, so I watch movies out in the theather or purchase the movie on DVD. Just depends to what the audience chooses.

Kirk or Spock? Who cares? Just go there and enjoy the movie… Sci-fi movies are interesting movies just giving the public a view of things to come with our technology.

Enjoy the movie when it comes out with or without Shatner. Watch it in the theather or buy the DVD. Either way, you are still supporting the Trek series to be continued. Like a previous poster said “Look at the new Battle Star Galactica story. They changed and it has viewers watching”. The difference is the story teller… Star Trek, The Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise… They are all awsome… Just viewers choose to watch what they want.

297. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

Ahhhhhhh…..you know what they say about making assumptions #291 Ivory…

I grew up in the seventies and was a big fan of TOS even when I was a little kid. I even attended one of the earliest Star Trek conventions in New York City in 1977, where I met William Shatner and Deforest Kelly.

I am, and will always be a big fan of Star Trek TOS, but I also happnen to be a big fan of DS9 too, which I think is the second best ST series after the original. TNG was a good series, but paled in comparison to the original show. Voyager and Enterprise were disappointing to me, but they still had their good episodes too. But in the end they are all Star Trek…and I don’t agree with those that think all things post TOS is crap.

Like most posting here, TOS is by far my favorite flavor of Trek, but Trek in 2007 is so much more now than just TOS. Go to one of the annual Las Vegas Trek conventions and you will see just how diverse Star Trek fandom has become. These fans are not there just to pay homage to TOS, but to enjoy and appreciate all things Trek. I think that’s great!

Star Trek TOS is a bonafide classic, maybe the best science fiction series ever made for television, but the era of Shatner and Nimoy is about to end. No one will be able to duplicate what those two actors did in creating the characters of Kirk and Spock, but that shouldn’t mean Star Trek will end without them. That’s the point I’m trying to make here.

I personally think the main reason the Trek franchise was going downhill for the last ten years was not because Kirk and Spock were not involved in the TV series or the last three movies, but because Voyager, Enterprise and the TNG movies were uninspired and downright mediocre to say the least.

I think the future of Star Trek is bright..with or without Shatner and Nimoy…but I will always appreciate their contributions to Star Trek TOS and they will always be the most famous and recognizable characters in the entire Trek universe.

Mike :o

298. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - July 11, 2007

#297. MichealJohn

“I think the future of Star Trek is bright..with or without Shatner and Nimoy…but I will always appreciate their contributions to Star Trek TOS and they will always be the most famous and recognizable characters in the entire Trek universe.”

Here, here!… My good man!

All in all though, much ado about nothing. Yes?

299. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

Who will it be? Who will make post #300 on this thread?
The fact that Shatner is this much of a buzz-meister must mean something… although I hope he doesn’t sink his own chances at being in this movie.

300. Ivory - July 11, 2007

I’m # 300 and I say bring back Shatner as Kirk

301. Captain Pike - July 11, 2007

Longest Thread Ever?

Much Ado, Indeed, About Nothing.

Lets try and keep it together guys until there is some real news about this movie.

To be honest, I more excited to see that new ship in TOS-R Charlie X than I am about another Shatner in STXI rumor. It’s all PR marketing “spin”.

302. THX-1138 - July 11, 2007

OK. We get it. If you don’t get Shatner in the movie, you will have no way of identifying with it. To you, Star Trek is dead. It died at the end of STVI. TNG was a failure and didn’t exist, even though it was THE HIGHEST RATED SYNDICATED SHOW OF IT’S TIME. Utter dreck. All those people who watched it were doped up or something.

I have something to say to all the people who say they either didn’t watch post TOS Trek or didn’t like it:

Liars.

As far as Shatner is concerned, I mentioned oh, about 3 zillion posts ago that Shatner was probably yanking our chains about all this. That would be consisten with his public MO. Who knows, it wouldn’t be too far fetched to expect this sort of early publicity from Abrams himself, given what we have seen so far from Lost and Cloverfield.

303. Harry Ballz - July 11, 2007

Hey, Abrams! Here are over 300 reasons why Shatner should be in the film!!!

304. Ivory - July 11, 2007

300+ posts and thousands of views on this and other similar sites.

305. JC - July 11, 2007

It has Nimoy .That’s cheesey enough.

306. THX-1138 - July 11, 2007

Seriously, though. None of you expect Shatner to be in this in any more than a limited role, right? For a man nearing his late 70’s to be playing a character in his early 20’s would be just plain dumb. I have heard some folks say that they could use CGI to “de-age” him. I say all the computing power at MIT wouldn’t be able to do the trick. With all due respect. But let’s check ourselves a bit here.

307. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 11, 2007

BRING BACK KIRK!! I am all in favor a young actor being cast as the new Kirk. I want the franchise to have a long life. But for as much as Abrams loves jumping forwards and backwards in time in his storytelling, it makes all the damn sense in the world that WILLIAM SHATNER should play the older Kirk! Yeah, it’d be nice stunt casting to have Nimoy as Sarek, but that couldn’t compare to having Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock!

This is likely the LAST CHANCE to have these icons back on the big screen where they belong, as their classic characters. Abrams/Lindelof, I love Lost. Orci/Kurtzman … I’m willing to give you 2 a shot, even after your juvenile Transformers script. But if you screw this one up, you’re all fools. There’s just no excuse for it. Get in touch with Shatner NOW. And don’t pull some Bermanesque idiocy (Berman wanted Shatner to play a chef on Enterprise – now THAT’S ridiculous!!) … LET THERE BE KIRK!!

308. Xai - July 11, 2007

Random thoughts….
StillKirok, as others have said you have taken heat, but I think you’ve enjoyed every bit and brought it on yourself. You, Ivory and a couple others have done an excellent job of making this unconfirmed piece of gossip into a “passionate discussion”. It will reach 300 posts because you authored about a third of them. In my opinion, most were spam or flame. There’s no confirmed story here yet…. so why all the rukus? And I don’t want to hear again about how Shatner wouldn’t lie, etc, etc.
I have no problem with Shatner in or out….I’ll go see it even though I believe the movie needs no boost from Shatner to get going. Please don’t repeat the “no Shatner, no success” line again. I read it about a dozen times from you on this thread alone. Kirk and Spock are very major charactors in this universe, but not solely responsible for 40 years of entertainment. It’s called Star Trek”, not “Jimmy and Spock’s Most Excellent Adventure”.

Other posters.. when did THIS thread become a pissing match over “my Trek’s better than yours? No one ever wins that because it’s based on opinions and frankly what’s the point? I liked them all and I will admit each series had it’s great moments and it’s godawful episodes. TOS included. TOS will always have a special place in the history of all Trek because of what is was and what sprang forth from it. If you dislike one series or another, that’s your right, but quit stepping on the others to hold your favorite a little higher.

#291 Ivory… you said “The series that came later were simply copies of copies that very few people care about.”
When you start speaking for me or others, that is insulting. Have your opinion but don’t include me.

Other posters..
Just for informational purposes…since I am being anal today…
Cannon. A weapon firing projectiles…see “Pirates of the Carribean”
Canon (Star Trek).. The historical background of the series or Trek Universe. (it’s more than that, but you get the idea)

also…
Why does this movie HAVE to put a band-aid on Generations? This is an adventure story (I hope) Star Trek-style. Why burden it with rescuing Kirk in the later century? Despite what Shatner says or has written about his mistake of allowing Kirk to be killed AND not stopping it. He did it knowingly and I believe had no problem doing it. Apparently the dollar signs were too large and he didn’t realize what he was doing to Trek fans? I suspect at the time he didn’t care and only cares now because he thinks he can still profit in dollars and in his legacy by having his one well-known charactor live on.

Lastly…
I am saddened that some regular posters, quite obviously Star Trek fans, would stoop to calling people, “liars, hacks, stupid” and far worse. Especially when all the information we are talking about is not confirmed.

309. Marvin the Martian - July 11, 2007

I’ll only go see the movie if Shatner is in it without his toupee.

Now *that* would be worth the price of admission.

310. snake - July 11, 2007

309 – the trailer could be The shat talking

“I will win the crowd…..I will give them something they’ve never seen before….”

311. THX-1138 - July 11, 2007

Oh God’s of mercy, do thy bidding and end this thread in all your wisdom. It hast outlasted it’s usefulness and should be laid to rest to nevermore cause us pain. Oh fates! Why art thou so cruel!

312. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

Fade up: A vaguely familiar hilltop on Veridian III. There is a grave, with a Startfleet badge rusting on top. Suddenly, the earth begins to shift. Something unseen is moving in the grave. Then we see it emerge. First one, then another and another… hair. It’s Shatner’s toupee.
Toupee: “Spooock… I’m… back….” (Music stab.)

There, no mega-priced hamasaurus actors. Just a rug and an impression by Kevin Pollack.

313. StillKirok - July 11, 2007

#308–

Good questions– here are some answers.

First, I am taking heat because I am expressing a passion that is shared by a LOT of other people, and I have no problem doing so in a way that isn’t necessarily politically correct. I’m not going to pretend that all Trek is equal. It isn’t.

There is TOS and there are the spinoffs. This is not an opinion. This is fact, based on longevity and demand. There’s a reason they are going back to TOS. It’s the only one that still has any demand.

Second, this is far more than an unconfirmed piece of gossip. William Shatner himself said flat out he is not in the movie because the producers did not write in a part for him. This statement is made after over a year of speculation.

There is NO WAY the producers don’t know about this video now. Plenty of time to make a statement. Plenty of time to change their minds. Plenty of time to even change the script. But as of now, Shatner himself is a first hand source. This isn’t Anthony just writing a story citing “an insider close to the project.” This is CONFIRMED–from William Shatner himself.

There is no other choice–we have to accept this as fact unless and until someone like Abrams himself refutes it. But if he DOES do that, and ends up NOT signing Shatner, there will be an even bigger mess than there has been over the last 2 days.

Moving on… you may not like the “no Shatner, no success” line, but the fact remains that this is true. I will concede that up to this point, “no Kirk/no success” is more accurate, but up until now, they’ve been the same. But even you must concede just how important Shatner still is to the franchise. The reaction of this news alone shows how much this man brings to the table.

And sorry, but Kirk and Spock ARE solely responsible for 40 years of entertainment. Without them, there are no spinoffs and no franchise for Berman to butcher and destroy.

I liked TNG on TV. But it was simply a solid show that ran its course. It wasn’t some legendary show that had so much demand to continue that it could spark a movie franchise. The evidence to that is in the grosses.

It’s not an opinion that the spinoffs were not as popular as the original. It’s a fact. Some people may like a particular spinoff, but they are in a vast minority and will go see anything with Trek in the title, so they are not relevant.

Why should this movie fix Generations?

Because Generations KILLED Captain Kirk. This was the single dumbest move in Trek history. The single most divisive move in Trek history. The turning point of the franchise. This was the point when the writers got so arrogant for a franchise that they didn’t create that they basically told the TOS fans to get lost. So they did.

Rescuing Kirk in a later century is NOT a burden to this story. It’s a testament to EVERYTHING Star Trek is supposed to be about. OPTIMISM. FRIENDSHIP. HEROISM. Humanity at its finest. All of these things can be shown by this friendship that can’t even be stopped by death.

Shatner and Nimoy are the legends that will give this movie a sense of legitimacy that it won’t have without them. And that means BOTH of them.

One final time for Shatner and Nimoy in these roles. Introduce the new actors to take the torch. Take this friendship from the beginning to the point where Spock helps Kirk cheat death one final time and the two go to their next adventure.

THAT is Star Trek.

But we won’t get something like that, because the producers, who LIED last week, did not write him in the script.

314. JC - July 11, 2007

Do a TV movie of the week/clip show with Shatner and Nimoy before Star Trek 2008 comes to promo the video release

315. JC - July 11, 2007

…To promo the video release after the theatrical release

316. Anthony Pascale - July 11, 2007

dont know why I didnt do this yesterday…but i added a poll on shat

317. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

No new postings yet, shall we try for 400?
JJ, Bill, Paramount are you paying attention to this?!

318. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

PS- I still believe Shatner wants his role expanded.
Wait and see…

319. Ivory - July 11, 2007

Xai:

I am not offering my opinion. I am offering hard facts (ratings and box office)

I have no issue with anyone who likes the new Star Trek series, but the fact remains that they have ranged from commerical disappointment (DS9/Voyager) where the ratings started to decline. To colossal flops like Enterprise (public access programs were getting better ratings) and Nemesis (which didn’t make the top 50 at the box office the year it came out)

I’m sorry but as Roger Ebert say’s when referring to modern day Star Trek. The new series are copies of copies of copies. These series (Deep Space Nine,Voyager and Enterprise) enjoy nothing more than a niche following.

320. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 11, 2007

Anthony, no offense, but I think that’s a badly misrepresentative poll. Of course all Trek fans will see the new film. We have to, it wouldn’t be fair not to give the new team a chance.

The question you SHOULD be asking is … “Should this film also include William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk?”

The answer to that is a definite YES.

321. Xai - July 11, 2007

#313 StillKirok.
Opinions, unconfirmed statements made by one man and assumptions are not facts. But in my opinion, you don’t care. I can agree on longevity… 40 years ago, Trek started.

322. JACKIEBOY - July 11, 2007

I love Shatner, but his appearance would be contrived, or just awkward. A voiceover could work, but then why have Nimoy play Spock? Elder Spock with Shatner voiceover? Too many narrators. It wouldnt work. And having Spock play another character along with a Shatner voiceover would not make any sense either.

Face it. Its going to be an older Spock, telling a tale to his half Romulan offspring.

323. Robert April - July 11, 2007

To have Nimoy in this movie without Shatner is just plain crazy.

To have them both in the film in a pre Generations back story would be cool.

However, to have them both in a POST Generations sub-plot would be brilliant!

Are the writers up to such a task? I think so.

————————————————-

Paramount and Shatner went through this when there was talk of Kirk appearing on “Enterprise.” Look how long Enterprise lasted after that.

Some people say Shatner was too greedy and that is why the deal never took place.

Other people say that the “Next Generation” of Paramount suits were so self confident that they believed they didn’t need Shatner (unless he would work for free.) More to the point, they figured “why spend money on Shatner when the series is dead anyway? Let’s just cut our losses.”

Let’s face it. Paramount “suits” have not always been very smart about how they handle their cash cow. UPN failed because of colossal management errors.

—————————————

Could it be that both sides decided to wait for the upcoming movie and create some great buzz in the interim?

Could it be that J.J and company will astound us all and feature Shatner and Nimoy in prominent roles after all?

Imagine watching the whole prequel story unfold with Nimoy narrating and at the end discovering that Spock is on a rescue mission to bring back Kirk from the Nexus? A sub plot like this may take three movies to unfold, but it would keep me coming back to the theaters, that’s for sure.

324. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

322 – 1/2 Romulan. 1/4 Vulcan. 1/4 Human.

Hulculan?
Vomulman?
Space Mutt?

325. Mark T. - July 11, 2007

The amazing thing about this whole Internet thing is that there are no more secrets. So, the only way to safeguard a plot point or a casting decision is to leak out a bunch of crap through various back channels. A few well placed quickie interviews and WHAM! You have a 300-plus posting, Trek forum fist fight. Recall if you will all the flap surrounding the new Battlestar Galactica when news “leaked” about Starbuck’s impending death. Katee Sackhoff was spilling the beans in radio interviews. Fans were up in arms. It was mass hysteria, and all for naught.

Until we get absolute confirmation, in my opinion, this is just more of the same. I still have a great deal of faith in Mr. Abrahms. I’ve said it in the past that M.I.3 showed he had a great feel for blending the best of the past with a new vision. He is obviously passionate about Star Trek. This is why he wants to go back to the beginning. In my opinion, what “killed” Trek in it’s current incarnation is very simple; over-saturation. Any creative team will lose steam after a while and begin to just copy itself. While I do not share the same hatred of Rick Berman and company that others here feel, I do believe they should have handed over the keys to the franchise years ago. I do feel this new team could really make a go of it.

As to Mr. Shatner, please refer to my above comments about Katee Sackhoff. Hey, who knows? Maybe it is true that he isn’t going to be in the movie after all. Why would Abrahms and co. NOT want him and Nimoy together in the film? Well, we have all heard how much of a pain Shatner can be in negotiations. I am reminded of a story. I was once working with an actor who had done a Star Trek film. Being a Trek novice, the actor was given a little advice from one of the more “seasoned” co-stars on how to approach a scene with William Shatner. The exact words were “Just remember, Bill doesn’t come to act, he comes to win.” So, now I envision a sit-down with Shatner and the new kids. They are of course excited to be getting input from the man himself until he starts spouting all sorts of ideas. Then it becomes a scene from “Free Enterprise” as the fan boys are now regretting opening the genie’s bottle. Since Shatner doesn’t need this role, maybe he thinks it should be his way or the highway. I could see where the creative team might think otherwise.

I still think it’s all Internet smoke and mirrors.

326. Harry Ballz - July 11, 2007

That’s Vulculan to you!

327. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

Way too complicated!
At the convention in Secaucus, last November, Shatner intimated that the real trick was to get old dead Kirk together with young Kirk, as if there was some kind of “12 Monkeys” plot structure involved. To me that is far more interesting than keeping the respective Kirks stuck in their respective eras, it is more feasible if you still buy that notion that the Nexus can bring you wherever you want to go. And there’s also a little plot device known as the ‘Gaurdian of Forever’!

328. Robert April - July 11, 2007

#327

I would pick the Guardian over the Nexus any day. . . a TOS plot device to correct the mistake of the Generations plot device!

How cool would that be?

TIME HAS RESUMED ITS SHAPE. ALL IS AS IT WAS BEFORE. MANY SUCH JOURNEYS ARE POSSIBLE. LET ME BE YOUR GATEWAY.

329. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

#328
I couldn’t agree with you more!

330. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

327 & 328 —
Then the alternate timeline Farragut could do barrel rolls through the Guardian’s big brother, and…

C’mon!

331. Pr011 - July 11, 2007

#325

Well said.

332. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

#330
Cut some slack!
Information on this movie is slow in coming and I was merely offering what I heard Shatner tell an audience, apparently this was a direction at that stage of development.
Or…
Kirok could wake up with Miramanee 40 years later and say, “What a weird dream!”

333. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

IMHO… Sci-fi devices should get the characters IN to trouble, not OUT.
They should get out by being human. (or half human)
The more fantastical the method of trying to resurrect Kirk, the less we can relate to it. Keep it simple. Keep it plausible.
I happen to love New Voyages, but to me it’s a different experience, not real hardcore Trek. I’d hope that a major motion picture won’t be written like a fanboy dream ep.
But, again… that’s only this fan’s opinion.

334. Robert April - July 11, 2007

#313

Well said.

Most of my (MANY) friends who like Star Trek feel this way as well. I saw TOS first run, but grew to love it in reruns in the ’70s. I have watched every episode of all of the Trek shows and enjoyed each of them (even Enterprise, Voyager and TAS.)

But only one show still gives me goosebumps after all these years. And there is only one captain of the Enterprise…

“Rescuing Kirk in a later century is NOT a burden to this story. It’s a testament to EVERYTHING Star Trek is supposed to be about. OPTIMISM. FRIENDSHIP. HEROISM. Humanity at its finest. All of these things can be shown by this friendship that can’t even be stopped by death.

Shatner and Nimoy are the legends that will give this movie a sense of legitimacy that it won’t have without them. And that means BOTH of them.

One final time for Shatner and Nimoy in these roles. Introduce the new actors to take the torch. Take this friendship from the beginning to the point where Spock helps Kirk cheat death one final time and the two go to their next adventure.

THAT is Star Trek.”

335. Still Kirok - July 11, 2007

The poll Anthony puts up is not scientific, and should only be considered important in that it represents those that voted. Right now, it’s 70-30 to the question, “would you see it if Nimoy is in but Shatner isn’t.”

It’s interesting. Take this poll at face value. The people responding to this poll are among the hardest of the hardcore Trek fans.

Not including Shatner just blew 30 percent of their audience. Even if it was 90-10, that’s significant.

336. Dennis Bailey - July 11, 2007

#248: “Sorry, but Star Trek is NOT more than Shatner/Nimoy. ”

Maybe on Bizarro world it’s not. Here on Earth, it’s been clear for 20 years that “Star Trek” can be done entirely successfully without either of them.

If it *were* true that Trek was no more than the fetishistic fascination those two actors have from some, then Trek would certainly be worthless and ought to be finished and forgotten as quickly as possible. ;)

337. Robert April - July 11, 2007

I would see the new movie even if Nimoy was in and Shatner was not, but I would not be happy about it. And I would boycott any non trek projects JJ and Co. were involved in.

Perhaps the poll should say “Would you pay money to see any non trek J.J. Abrams projects if Nimoy is in the new movie and Shatner is not?”

338. Still Kirok - July 11, 2007

#336– Actually the ratings and box office totals prove that Star Trek can NOT be done successfully without them.

And for the most part, the non-TOS shows HAVE been forgotten. Well, in the case of Enterprise, never watched.

339. Demode - July 11, 2007

I do think this is all a ploy, and Shatner is in the film. This is all about publicity, and as Abbrams has just proved with Cloverfield, he is good at generating publicity!

People have been screaming “BRING BACK KIRK!” for years now. I think they are all messing with us. Just look at this forum right now. 337 posts in just a day! Fans want Kirk, and the public wants Kirk. And when I say Kirk, what I really am saying is SHATNER!

340. Robert April - July 11, 2007

It may be that readers here at trekmovie are more “hard core” than the average Trek fan, but a lot of people OUTSIDE of this forum share the opinion that Shatner should be included in this film.

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/07/10/the-kirk-snub-straight-from-shatners-mouth/

341. Robert April - July 11, 2007

and here as well

http://www.mania.com/55337.html

342. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 11, 2007

#336: “Here on Earth, it’s been clear for 20 years that ‘Star Trek’ can be done entirely successfully without either of them.”

Has it? It seems to me that “success” you speak of began dwindling a decade ago, and kept declining until the franchise spit its last breath in 2005. Do I feel that Shatner and Nimoy are the end-all/be-all of the franchise? No. But are they and TOS the biggest success stories of the franchise as a whole? Unquestionably!

I noted with great satisfaction recently that TOS was airing on TV Land, G4, and in Remastered form in syndication! A 40 year old tv show, yet every one of these channels was promoting it with a lot of fanfare, as if it were something new. Hell, for a time it was even G4’s highest rated program! Within the last year or so, TOS has risen to the highest level of visibility I’ve seen it at in my lifetime! That’s because people began to miss it. It never goes out of style.

Paramount is already capitalizing on that by going back to the Kirk/TOS era. Now they just need to go all the way and bring back Shatner as Kirk! It doesn’t take Zefram Cochrane to figure it out. That would be the smart thing to do!

343. THX-1138 - July 11, 2007

Oh for cryin’ out loud!!! Geez!! I keep reading points that I brought up hundreds of posts ago. Not to be repetitive, but this is getting reiteritive. And it keeps saying the same thing over and over.

This thread has lasted longer than the original network run of TOS.

344. Kcat - July 11, 2007

William Shatner carries a potent magic that helped make Star Trek the phenomenon it still is, and if the movie makers genuinely want real success, i.e., to make big bucks, it’s simple really; they may have Leonard Nimoy, but they gotta have Bill, too.

Bill ultimately created the archetypal hero of Kirk, who has become a powerful part of our collective mythos. He is, to this day, our symbolic Hero.

Bill actually is a hero. For real. That’s why his performance of Kirk rings so true every time you watch him. He is a brilliant actor in every role he plays, but the point is, he is a tremendous part of why Star Trek is great, and he must be included in this movie.

No one, no other actor, will ever be able to capture what Bill brings. No one. Bill is original, unique, and a Light in our lifetimes. He breathes life into the heart and soul of Star Trek. Without him, it isn’t Star Trek.
Bill IS Star Trek. Are you listening, movie makers?

Sincerely,

Kcat

345. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

Anthony, haven’t you got any new threads? Maybe a short animation of seals barking the Trek theme?

346. Robert April - July 11, 2007

Who cares about other threads?

347. Robert April - July 11, 2007

#343

The fact that the same thing is being said over and over again should mean something.

348. CmdrR. - July 11, 2007

The bottom line is this: Paramount has signed off on a film they seriously believe will make money. The studio heads may or may not know anything about Trek, but they do know audience trends.
What the fans in this thread want is Shatner back as Kirk. OK.
But, will a 76 year old primarily TV actor bring in an audience?
Paramount will put the focus on the young cast and the Trek ideal.
It’s realistic to hope that all the posturing and BS will yield a cameo of some sort from Shatner, but not a starrer. Shatner could still ruin the deal because it’s simply not essential for a three or four picture project to include him.

349. Keith Richards.. - July 11, 2007

Even the people who don’t care for Shatner must be impressed with the huge response this topic is getting.

I have been to every Star Trek site on the net today and they are all buzzing about this topic.

This is exactly the type of response the producers of the film should want.

I will go and see the film either way, but if you are going through the trouble of having Nimoy in the film why not go all the way + bring Shatner along for the ride and keep everyone happy?

350. Shatner on Saturday Night Live - July 11, 2007

You know, before I answer any more questions there’s something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I’ve spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled… y’know… hundreds of miles to be here, I’d just like to say… GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you’re dressed! You’ve turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! I mean, how old are you people? What have you done with yourselves?

You, you must be almost 30… have you ever kissed a girl?

I didn’t think so! There’s a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn’t watch television! I LIVED! So… move out of your parent’s basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it’s just a TV show dammit, IT’S JUST A TV SHOW!

351. Sleeper Agent X - July 11, 2007

Re 308:

As usual, very well said, Xai.

I have to shake my head at some people here. Bashing other Star Trek series beyond TOS is NOT going to help anyone win points, or prove that Shatner needs to be in this movie. This isn’t a TNG or DS9 or Voyager or Enterprise movie, people! But clearly, bashing everything not TOS is the reflex fallback position for many in the Shatner brigade, when their brains just kind of short out (which happens frequently, from what I can see).

And I agree about canon/cannon, too–why is it the people who seem to care about “canon” the most are the ones least likely to spell it correctly?

I suppose there are a few bad apples amongst any group of fans, but it does seem to me the worst of the lot usually are TOS purists or part of the Shatner brigade. It’s sad, really.

352. THEETrekMaster - July 11, 2007

I think this is a joke by Shatner AND Nimoy…

I’ll go out on a limb and say either both will be in it, or neither will be in it…

TTM

353. trekmaster - July 11, 2007

The fans are being tested. What’s our reaction in case of a movie without Shatner, but with Nimoy? I guess that`s an indirect poll…the producers are not stupid!

354. THX-1138 - July 11, 2007

Yes capt. April, it means many things. It means that my belief that many Trek fans have a Shatner crush (see 334) is true. It means that some of us are a little myopic. It means that some of us would rather not watch the new movie if one old actor is not present than possibly enjoying something new. It means that the last few thousand posters on this thread aren’t so much reading what’s been written as they are saying the same things over and over. It also means that I, apparently don’t know when to give up on this, so with that I shall leave you all to your own devices.

355. VOODOO - July 11, 2007

Why hasn’t anyone from the Star Trek camp commented about this today one way or the other?

Does that mean anything?

356. Xai - July 11, 2007

Anthony,
It’s your site, but in my opinion this has gome well beyond flames and spam.

357. VOODOO - July 11, 2007

Xai:

No offense but, what do you care?

This is a hot button topic that people want to talk about. I don’t think anyone has gotten out of hand.

The discussion was been pretty civil as far as I can tell.

358. VOODOO - July 11, 2007

Anthony:

Isn’t that poll kind of unfair?

The reason why we are all here and love the site so much is because we are all Star Trek fans. Of coarse we all want more Star Trek.

Shouldn’t the poll say something like:

a) Should William Shatner portray Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek movie.
b) I don’t want Shatner anywhere near this film.

Or something along those lines.

359. Sleeper Agent X - July 11, 2007

RE 357:

Well, I just think we’re seeing some pretty sad behavior on the part of some fans over this. I figured it was always coming (I wonder what will happen when we get the first sketches of what the new Enterprise will look like?) but still, it’s not pleasant to see.

There’s a lot of denial (it’s a trick! Shatner’s really in the movie and he’s pulling our leg!), anger (Grrrr! Orci and Kurtzman lied to us! Nimoy’s a hack! Everything not TOS sucks!), and bargaining (please JJ, just tell us it isn’t so and I might still go see this movie!) so looks like we’re early in the Kubler Ross grieving process. With this crowd, it’ll be a while before we actually get to acceptance.

I do also find it wierd that people can’t separate the CHARACTER Kirk from the PERSON Shatner. Kcat’s comment about how Shatner is a hero in “real life”…have I missed somethiing? What did Shatner do (besides act) to earn that distinction, as opposed to say, countless firefighters, soldiers, police officers, etc. etc. who risk their lives every day?

There’s a lot of funky fandom -ness that’s being aired out these past few days. It actually makes me hope if we get this out of the way and the new movie proceeds without Shatner, maybe fandom as a whole can get to a better place. Yeah, we’ll lose some people over Shatner not being in the movie, but that’s the way it goes…

360. Captain Pike - July 11, 2007

Can’t someone please compare Paramount to the Nazi’s so we can declare this topic done?

(see: Godwin’s Law)

Really this is not news. It’s silly gossip. It’s Bill S. farting around.

361. Greg - July 11, 2007

I am also still feeling this is some kind of work or gag by Shatner. Remember the joke he played on that town in Iowa (where he is now unofficially banned from I believe)? Although he when he finally confirmed that Paramount wouldn’t come to terms on his appearance on Enterprise, his wording was quite strange.

Bottom line is, if you’re Paramount or JJ Abrams, and you don’t at least offer Shatner the same kind of role as Nimoy, you are kissing off a lot of fans and casual viewers, who will think, “Wait, you pulled Nimoy out of the abyss but no Shatner?” There will be a lot of people, who know who the first Captain Kirk was, and know he’s still around (and on television), and not in the movie, and not likely promoting the movie, and that will take away credibility of the film. And if Shatner gets offered a small part and won’t do it, well then that’s his problem and his supporters, including me, will have to accept that. They may not go see the movie, but at least they won’t protest it.

362. Thomas - July 11, 2007

When I first saw the headline, I have to admit that I was quite surprised. Then as I read through the article, the surprise gradually dissipated. By the end, I just figured that Shatner was up to something. I think he will ultimately be in the film, but probably in a relatively small role.

Also, I don’t think (whether you like it or not) that this movie will be used to “fix” Generations. Abrams and company are walking a precarious tightrope trying to create something that will appeal to current fans as well as bring in new ones. Having to establish a Kirk resurrection would likely prove confusing to those who are new to Trek. I would like to see Shatner and Nimoy in this film, but I don’t consider it essential to my enjoyment of the film.

363. Xai - July 11, 2007

#319 Ivory,
You said… “that very few people care about.” That’s really assuming alot even if you try to wedge box office and ratings numbers in here. You don’t speak for others or me.
You want some more stuff to play with, fine. I believe that TNG was the most highly rated syndicated TV show in it’s time. DS9 was up their as well which was surprising due to it’s serial-type story lines that don’t normally rate as high (someone must have been watching consistantly..hmmm?). VOY and ENT didn’t do as well because of creative fall-off and the fact that they were tied to UPN, a network that really only was available in 40 to 50% of the US market and then often buried late at night. It’s harder to care when you don’t see the dam show. ENT’s final season was creative and fun to watch.
Frankly, television viewership has changed dramatically since the 60’s and even between the 80’s and now. No shows get the share numbers once enjoyed years ago. TV viewership overall is down and where the 60’s had 3 networks, we now have hundreds of channels fragmenting the total market. I point this out to show that numbers can be made to show dam near any viewpoint.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy TOS, but the other series also have more Emmys than the original series and all had longer runs. I believe JJ and Paramount chose to go with TOS because it is well-liked and well-known. 40 years of re-runs help alot too. I believe my information is correct, but I’m open-minded enough to be corrected with accurate information.
But my post wasn’t about the other series…
Let me nutshell it again and risk spamming (God forbid THAT would happen on this thread.)
Shatner made a statement that we all know very well by now. As of 6:30 central time USA July 12, I see no one but Shatner has said this is true. Why hasn’t Nimoy chimed in? He still laughing?
My POINT on this is until it is confirmed by Paramount, JJ or Jesus Christ Himself… we know nothing for certain. Several bodies in here have jumped all over this rumor and attempted to make it fact. We have posters denouncing JJ, the writers and others. Heck, I’ve seen Berman’s name in here and they are trying to blame him.
To be clear… I am going either way, Shat or no Shat.
To be clear… I don’t dislike Shat, but I do think this movie needs a clean break from the old cast, one Kirk only… the younger one. Can Shat advise?.. Please do.
To be clear… I think this is Shat negotiating through public channels and using the fan-base (shame on him) or his idea of a joke at fans expense.
To be clear… I think you should all be patient and wait for real information before someone blows a vein over a dam movie.

This is my opinion, X

364. Xai - July 11, 2007

#357 VOODOO

What do I care?
Do you need definitions of Flaming and Spamming?

365. OR Coast Trekkie - July 11, 2007

Holy Cow! What the heck? This is probably one of the most insane things I have ever seen. From what I can tell, if Shatner isn’t in the movie, then a number of you people in here will only go see it once. Let’s just quit with the conjecture and see what is come up with. The movie is a year and a half from release and already, people are writing it off, because the stars they want in it aren’t in it. Sheesh…

366. Anthony Pascale - July 11, 2007

i have created a new poll for this to capture every nook and crany

I do think people are getting out of hand and I might close this down

I do not want to see any more attacks on other posters or personal attacks on shatner or the film makers….this is not that kind of site.

also there is no need to post the same thing over and over…we get it what ever your opinion is….and it is never warranted to reply to your own posts

all in all i think poeple need to take some chill pills

367. Michael Hall - July 11, 2007

“#336– Actually the ratings and box office totals prove that Star Trek can NOT be done successfully without them. “

Apparently your teachers didn’t bother to educate you about post hoc ergo proctor hoc and other logical fallicies. Now if you’ll please excuse me while I choose between the giant “T.J. Hooker” and “In Search Of. . .” conventions set for San Diego this weekend. Or, I might just stay at home and listen to “Mr. Tambourine Man” again. The nice thing is, whichever I choose, I apparently can’t go wrong.

368. Greg - July 11, 2007

Generations really isn’t a big deal, because I think they want to kind of start their own continuity anyway, and not have Mike Okuda on set checking ever line of the script out for continuity. (I think Mike is great by the way!) The issue, until we hear more, is that they’ve put a lot of egg on their face by teasing possible parts for Nimoy and Shatner, then giving one to Nimoy and offering nothing at all to Shatner….

Anthony, where is this poll?

369. Kevin - July 11, 2007

Well, I voted on the new poll (it would be nice….). But it doesn’t still cover my feelings. There’s more to the movie than Nimoy and Shatner. I’m really only at the maybe stage right now. There’s still so much more to reveal.

If it’s a reboot- I’d rather rip my eyes from my sockets than shell out 10 or 11 bucks to see it, let alone more than once.

If the Enterprise gets a radical overhaul or has flames painted on the side of it- forget it.

If Matt Damon is playing Kirk- I’m leaning more towards nah. Nothing against him as an actor, but I don’t think he’s a fit for Kirk.

If the story is no good- What’s the point?

370. jonboc - July 11, 2007

It’s not hard to get behind the idea that bringing back Shatner, as Kirk, will generate the kinda of buzz that, on top of the normal “trek” buzz, will make this movie THE holiday movie to see in 2008. Shatner would be on every talk show form Larry King to Jimmy Kimmel and Conan hyping this thing. He would be on Stern and Regis and Shatnervision hyping this thing. Shatner would turn on his emmy winning charm and humor, that so many love, (and not quite as any hate!) and sell this movie like nobody’s business.

Shatner is the smart choice, and whether you like him or not, he would increase the audience. People love Shatner, he just has that “it” that people like. If some people can’t see that, then I certainly can’t explain it. If you can’t see WHY Shatner, as Kirk has become Iconic, and think Janeway, or Sisko should be the lead in this movie, you just don’t get it. Nothing is going to help you understand.

You see, Star Trek and all the spin-offs are nothing, and I mean NOTHING alike. They aren’t even close to being cut from the same cloth. Not even close! That’s why it amazes me when people say, well it’s all Star Trek. No, it isn’t. You can like it all, that’s no problem. I love pies, but the apple pie in my fridge is nowhere close to being the same as the bluberry fried pie I had for lunch. They are both pies, but different flavors. TOS will not EVER be confused with Berman Trek…ever. TNG forward, will NEVER be confused with TOS. Maybe they share the same fictional universe but as a TV SHOW, the original Star Trek is as similar to it’s spin-offs as it is to Lost in Space. The spin offs aren’t bad TV, they just are completely different from Star Trek.

Now, after the Trek assembly line has shut down due to lack of interest, the powers that be are wiping the slate clean and going back to where it all began. It’s a smart move that can only be made smarter by the inclusion of the captain that the world recognizes as Captain James Kirk and the man that brought him to life on screen. It’s a no brainer.

Can Star Trek 2008 succeed without Shatner? Sure it can. But just like Kirk joing the Enterprise in TMP, if Shatner does come aboard, the chances of the movie’s sucess will have improved dramatically.

371. Shadow6283 - July 11, 2007

I want my Captain back, damnit. No bloody A, B, C, or D. Abrams’ playing with hellfire here if he goes about this the wrong way. I’ve Trekked for more than 40 years, and in that time, there’s only one man who captures the essence of what Star Trek’s all about: James T. Kirk. Swaggering, vain, butt-kicking, in yo face, craving power and glory, chick-bedding, hard-living, and who’ll go to Hell and back for ship and crew. Hell, you can’t get any better than that. Sign me up, baby.

TPTB feel pretty much the same way because I guess that’s why you’re getting a Kirk Origin Story, and not a [FILL IN THE BLANK] Origin Story. They know where the action is, and always will be, no matter how much water’s passed under the “Franchise Bridge” since 1987. The general public doesn’t give a Rigellian Rat’s butt about the rest of it, no matter what its success, or else we’d probably be discussing something else, now wouldn’t we be? Get over it already. It ain’t coming back for a very long, long, long, long time, if ever. It’s time has come and gone. Once more, it’s Our time, and we’re gonna make it count. Big time, and God help Abrams if he screws it up by ticking us off by not including Shatner in some capacity in the new film.

I’m not here to convert anyone concerning ultimate truth, nor am I here to be converted. Whatever you like, you like. Fine by me. I’ve always been an exclusive Classic Trek Fan, and never cared at all whatsoever for well, what came after 1987. You like it, okay. Don’t like CT? Hey, to each their own. That aside, things change. Win or lose, Trek’s staying in the 23rd Century. Period. I guarantee it. You may not like it, but you ain’t gonna stop it or change it.

Abrams had better remember that, or else that movie will get the same treatment, times ten by us Old Trekkers, that the abominable Nemesis and Enterprise received and basically cooked the golden turkey that was Modern Trek in the process.

Solid.

372. Dennis Bailey - July 11, 2007

#338: “Actually the ratings and box office totals prove that Star Trek can NOT be done successfully without them.”

:lol:

You really don’t have a clue how much money the studio has made off of non-Shatner “modern Trek,” how many people have watched it over the last twenty years, how many DVDs sold, etc.

Your reasoning is that because it ran down after two decades, it wasn’t a success. Here’s some news: TOS starring Shatner ran down in the early 1990s. That’s why they stopped making those movies. Or did you figure they did it to just to frustrate trufans?

Oh never mind – you’ve got some unprovable, anecdotal story that explains why Paramount kicked the old cast to the curb. :lol:

373. Tim Handrahan - July 11, 2007

The cameras have not started to roll yet. Let us all wait until that happens.

374. Dennis Bailey - July 11, 2007

#371: “Abrams had better remember that, or else that movie will get the same treatment, times ten by us Old Trekkers…”

So? There aren’t enough “Old Trekkers” out there to negatively impact “Nemesis,” “Enterprise” or Abrams’ movie.

The idea that “Nemesis” failed because Trekkies didn’t go see it is a fantasy that some fans have whipped up. In fact, the fans showed up for the movie in the usual Pavlovian fashion; it’s just that no one else did.

“Well, the fans *didn’t* show up because me and my friends didn’t go so I know that’s why it failed.”

375. Shadow6283 - July 11, 2007

#374

It failed because THEY DID show up, not the other way around.

Everyone else had better sense.

376. Shadow6283 - July 11, 2007

And it’ll be even easier the second time around, folks…

377. Xai - July 11, 2007

#371 Shadow
You and the Old Trekkers “cooked” modern Trek…. and you’re threatening Abrams now too, if you don’t get your way.

Did I get that right?

Did someone say this was a non-TOS film now?

This thread has finally gotten to me. I finally feel “informed”.

378. Dennis Bailey - July 11, 2007

#375: “It failed because THEY DID show up, not the other way around.”

Well, there’s a non-sequitor for you. You didn’t get the point of the quotation marks, did you?

“Old Trekkers” have just about no influence on the marketplace – too few, for the most part too old to be of an interest to the folks selling things. If they *had* any substantial influence, TNG would have failed in its first season while all the “Old Trekkers” were ranting about the fact that it wasn’t about Captain Kirk.

These folks and their spoilt negativity will have no more impact on the fortunes of Abrams’ movie than they did on TNG.

379. Hon. David Kulessa - July 11, 2007

As long as they cast the young Kirk and Spock better than they did with Picard.

That academy photo is ridiculous. He had hair in the academy! And he looked completely different! What the hell?!

-TGP-

380. Xai - July 11, 2007

after all the battles… we need a giggle….

wheeling in the comic relief…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkTpUxh8Vxc

381. Kevin - July 11, 2007

I should also add to the TOS vs. Every other Trek incarnation argument, that TOS’s ratings tanked from pretty much the get go. They were cancelled after only two seasons and given one more b/c of a letter writing campaign. TNG, DS9 and VOY all lasted seven seasons. None of those shows ended b/c of ratings, they ended b/c after TNG, seven became the standard for Trek shows and people like to be able to move on and do other things.

Now I love TOS, but I love TNG, DS9, VOY and even a few episodes (mostly from the last season) of ENT too.

To say Shatner is necessary is not entirely true. Personally, I would like it, if they could make it work. I also feel that it would be less risky, b/c this is something that has never been tried before. Re-casting famous characters in Trek and then starting that cast out w/ a movie rather than a TV show that has time for veiwers to warm up to. That’s a pretty big risk. All the other crews had TV shows and all of those TV shows had rocky starts. When TNG premired, people weren’t ready to except them and it took two seasons before it really started to catch on.

Another thing to look at would be both “Relics” and “Unification.” The two times that TOS crew members guest starred in TNG (minus Kelly’s cameo in the pilot). The ratings shot up, and I believe “Unification” was, if not the highest it was very close to the highest rated episode of Trek ever.

382. Michael Hall - July 11, 2007

“TOS will not EVER be confused with Berman Trek…ever. TNG forward, will NEVER be confused with TOS.”

Uh, no. Actually, TNG, whatever else you may think about its strengths or weaknesses compared to its predecessor (and any fair-minded evaluation of it would note plenty of both) was not ‘Berman Trek.’ It was Gene Roddenberry Trek. The other spinoffs, of course, all had Berman in common, but also featured the talents of such people as Michael Piller, Jeri Taylor, and Ira Behr. Oh, and some guy named Ron Moore. Fine writers all, and I would repectfully suggest that it was more likely the absence of that level of talent and energy during the franchise’s last decade, rather than a pair of aging actors, that was responsible for the audience deciding enough was enough. And if the decision has finally been made that the future of Star Trek entails going back to the basics–well, I wouldn’t necessarily read too much into that either. J.J. Abrams likes those characters best, in their larger-than-life way, and has thusly elected to make his film about their first adventures together. Bully for him; I happen to like them best myself. But as the Golden Boy of the moment the choice was his to make, and it could have just as easily gone another way. Which also would have proved exactly nothing about what the general audience, as opposed a bunch of diehards camped out at a specialty fan website, actually wants.

383. Robert April - July 11, 2007

#378
The silent majority of TOS fans DID have an influence on TNG. That is precisely WHY it did so well, in spite of a more vocal TOS minority who were upset. Most of the TOS fans I know did not want to see Kirk back on the small screen at that point anyway.

I watched TOS first run in the 60’s but really was not old enough until the reruns in the 70’s to really get hooked on it.

When TNG came out I (and all of my friends) was totally rooting for it and saw it as a compliment to the TOS movies. We “Old Trekkers” had our TOS and Shatner fix in the theatrical releases and we had TNG as well. (I will never forget how cool it was seeing Riker go head to head with the Borg to return Picard!)

Anyway,

As for our influence in the marketplace, I am sure that I am not the only “Old Timer” who has enough spare time and pocket change to lay down hundreds of dollars to buy the DVD’s, books and computer games. And I don’t have to ask my mom permission to spend all my money on this stuff either (OK, the wife might be a different story ;-)

I will say this. I have been a fan of bringing Kirk back since reading Shatner’s “The Return.”

Now that TOS Remastered is out I am more sure than EVER that the new movie needs Shatner and Nimoy in some way.

Yes I will see the film no matter WHO is in it but I cannot imagine seeing it more than once in theaters without Shatner and Nimoy AND superb storytelling

While they are at it, why not release the DVD at the same time as the movie so I can buy it (and the novelization) at the same time!

384. VOODOO - July 11, 2007

I guess there isn’t that much left to say.

I will be very upset if Shatner isn’t in ST XI because he wasn’t written in.

The next few days are going to be very interesting.

Until then I’m out.

385. Harry Ballz - July 11, 2007

Fact: Shatner will not be around forever. Please use him SOON, if even for the last time.

386. Queefer Bukkake - July 11, 2007

They have a point. How do you explain that Kirk is alive again and not make it part of the storyline? It would involve too much explanation for roles that certainly not planned to be large. I would, however, gladly forget his death in Generations and not ask any questions if they put him in.

387. Xai - July 11, 2007

We’ll hear more on this. Shatner will likely stir the pot again once more before ComicCon or someone (that matters) will break the silence and either confirm or deny.

Until then…. all this is a rumor.

388. Greg - July 11, 2007

Queefer, if the story involves time travel of some kind anyway, then it wouldn’t be a big stretch. Unless they wrote Nimoy in only to be the narrator. I like J.J. Abrams, and thank him all the time for creating Lost. Plus, while I would have preferred new characters than recasting old, I can stomach it if this truly is young Kirk, and not some kind of rehash of the 5 year mission. That would mean a young Actor, not a Matt Damon. In that case, I want it to succeed, so that they can branch out with other new characters from there, maybe even returning to television (which is Star Trek’s proper home). For that to happen, I really really do suggest to these guys to bring Shatner aboard, as Kirk, and Nimoy, as Spock. Even if it’s just for 10 or 15 minutes total. I just don’t want the whole effort to be spoiled because they basically gave Shatner the cold shoulder. And trust me, there will be a backlash. Maybe not as big as Enterprise, which was fueled by Anti-Bermanism, but it would be a bruise on the film for sure among a lot of fans.

And Queefer, great point, because I too would “gladly forget his death in Generations and not ask any questions if they put him in.”

389. Dave - July 11, 2007

Controversy, Controversy, Controversy.

Let’s think people! When was the lst time a Star Trek Movie was leaked onto the net with ALL the details? Security on this is tighter than the grip of a Tiberian Bat.

First of all, Shatner has always loved stirring things up. REmember when he was asked about the plot of Star Trek V? “Well there’s a little boy & a little girl…” He has a quirky sense of humor.

Second. Shatner returning as Kirk would be the biggest news in Trek history. Why would they reveal it a year and a half before the film is released? What’s left to hype then?

We don’t know the circumstances. Could be any of the above mentioned reasons: negotiations etc. or it could also be the biggest twist at the end of the film… who in their right mind would reveal that now. Perhaps the Nimoy announcement was a predecessor to bigger news.

Finally. nobody lied. The only thing we’ve ever known for a fact was that this is a TOS era movie. and only recently that Kirk and Spock’s characters would be in it.

Be patient… wait and see what develops. Great to see there’s so much feeling behind this.

To quote a Vulcan: “Really Doctor McCoy, you must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing.”

I for one would love to see them both in the movie… but I”ll reserve judgement on this untill a later date.

390. MichaelJohn - July 11, 2007

#308 Xai…”Kirk and Spock are very major charactors in this universe, but not solely responsible for 40 years of entertainment. It’s called Star Trek”, not “Jimmy and Spock’s Most Excellent Adventure”.

Not that line made me laugh! Gosh so funny! Great post!

Mike :o

391. Kobayashi Maru - July 11, 2007

C’mon! I thought there’d be 400 by now! We want Bill Shatner to return as Kirk!

392. Josh T. ( There shall be no peace, until Kirk lives) Esquire' - July 11, 2007

Insert Shatner in the film, do not even address how and why he is IN the film, do viral marketing, a comic book, graphic novel, ANYTHING to serve as a means to explain how Kirk is in the film.

The issue is overbaked. It isn’t difficult to remedy. The people that remember or even care about Generations and Kirks death will be the ones to buy the comic, etc, to go in depth into the secret . The people that wont or dont, could care less about Generations or how Kirk is in the film, it will only matter that he is and that the film is good.

It isn’t rocket science, it’s science fiction.

Just put the man in there and give him a dozen lines damn.

393. Sleeper Agent X - July 11, 2007

Re 371–

Oh c’mon, now. Old Trekkers cooked modern Trek? Took you long enough, didn’t it? Four series, four movies, and two decades too late.

Really, you’re just embarrassing yourself, trying to puff yourself up like that and intimidate Abrams. But I bet he could take you in a fight! You haven’t been to the gym in a while, have you? ;)

394. snake - July 12, 2007

nearly 400

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

THEY KNOW!! THEIR ON TO SOMETHING!!!

395. Hawkeye - July 12, 2007

Ok, I sort of hinted at this before but…
I don’t think you can bring Shatner and Nimoy back without the ability to bring in DeForest Kelley. After all, TOS was about that TRIO (Kirk, Spock, McCoy), not a Kirk/Spock duo. If canon has established McCoy still alive in the 24th century, how would one be able to justify Spock rescuing Kirk without McCoy?

If you want to argue the point with me that McCoy is not as significant, you then are also arguing Shatner himself, who, if you listen to the commentary track of Star Trek V, said he felt one of the key ingriedients of Star Trek was the relationship between the 3 of them. So are you going to say that Shatner is wrong? The person who knows the Kirk character the best? Are you going to call someone who I’ve seen described posted as “larger than life” wrong? Funny how someone “larger than life” also happened to be the director of what was considered the worst TOS movie made,

I see people also saying “To heck with anything in Generations” when talking about saving Kirk. These comments coming from people who scrutinize EVERYTHING Trek with a fine-toothed comb for continuity. Yet, they are willing to throw continuity out the window to save Kirk.

People just need a consistent line of thinking.

396. StillKirok - July 12, 2007

No one is willing to throw continuity out the window to save Kirk. People want to save Kirk WITHIN continuity.

And again, Dennis, you really don’t have a clue how low the ratings got. How much MORE money would the studio have made had they actually had an audience that liked the product? They lost over 80 percent of the audience from 1994 to the end of Enterprise. No show would have remained on the air.

Nemesis FLOPPED.

No one is buying their product.

Being on the air is not a sign of success if no one is watching the show.

There are idiots out there that will pay for a lousy product because it has Star Trek in the title. They can jack up the price and those few morons will continue to overpay. But that doesn’t make the show a success.

Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise are forgotten by all but the few diehard fans that are left.

TNG has a little more staying power, but there was never a demand for TNG movies. That’s why they killed the franchise.

The only viable product they have is TOS.

And they NEED Shatner to relaunch it. The movie may make money without him, but it will make less money. Shatner is a draw whether some people accept it or not.

LOOK AT THE REACTION AND EMOTION IN THIS THREAD ALONE.

The producers dropped the ball big time.

397. Hon. David Kulessa - July 12, 2007

#395

McCoy looked like this (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:BonesMcCoy2364.jpg) eight years before Generations. Suffice to say, he was probably dead by that time.

-TGP-

398. Jim J (Denny Crane!) - July 12, 2007

#389-I tend to agree with your analysis of all this. Perhaps Nimoy’s name is a “carrot” being dangled to start the hype…get the “PR” momentum going. Then, when things kinda die down after the shock, horror, and disbelief of the NEW cast announcements…and the movie is getting started in early filming…THEN they’ll drop the bomb of THE SHAT on us. That oughta create a total media circus!!

My sincere hope is that they do it this way AND that THE SHAT and Nimoy stay in good health well beyond filming and for many years to come. If the new hot-shots are as great at writing, producing, and directing as some people “hail them” to be (J.J. and company)…they’ll find a simple, easy, and legit way to bring back Spocko and Kirok!!!! LOL

399. Pr011 - July 12, 2007

#398

“There are idiots out there that will pay for a lousy product because it has Star Trek in the title. They can jack up the price and those few morons will continue to overpay.”

In terms of films I prefer the TOS ones, but in terms of series I prefer DS9 and TNG. Does that make me an ‘idiot’ or a ‘moron’ because I like what you don’t like?

Please, you’ve made your views clear. Let others have chance to express their views too without insulting them. Stop talking as if you are expressing the opinions of Trek fandom as a whole – you’re just expressing your opinions at the end of the day. You have a right to do that, but please don’t force them upon me.

Guys, where on Earth has this “I was there when it started so I’m a better judge on Trek” concept come from? I wasn’t even alive when Star Trek was first aired, so does that make my opinions on Trek worthless? I became a trek fan by watching TOS on a repeat many years after it was made, and then onto TNG and DS9, which I think are great. That’s the glory of trek – it can spread its message by picking up new fans. It certainly wouldn’t have survived 40 years on just the original fan base.

Again, I’m just going to wait to see the film before I decide if I like it or not. Not before, and certainly not based on what is said before even casting is announced. Attacking the producers of this film before it is even made is awful, and threatening them directly is even worse. All I’m saying is let them have a chance.

Regards.

400. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - July 12, 2007

Too bad we can’t harness all this energy about THE SHAT… Who’d need nuclear, solar or any other source?

NEWS FLASH!!! William Shatner powers the world! :)

401. star trackie - July 12, 2007

..I will add this 2 cents. I want Shatner in this, and I can’t believe, for a minute that the writers didn’t have at least two scenarios while constructing the script. One with the participation of Leonard and Bill in mind…and one without. And possibly one with just Leonard, and one with just Shatner. I also bet the roles were bookends that could be easily adjusted and or removed entirely without affecting the final product. So, in the end, I don’t think the story will suffer if they are not in it, but it can certainly benefit if they are. Just my theory, straight from my parent’s basement.

402. Cervantes - July 12, 2007

M..UST..MA…KE… 400TH…

403. Cervantes - July 12, 2007

TOO…LA…TE…

404. Ivory - July 12, 2007

I cannot believe how this topic dwarfs anything else in the Star Trek universe.

They would be crazy not to bring Shatner back. Just look at the response.

405. snake - July 12, 2007

this has to be the longest talkback on TM.com now

Bill really let the shat out the bag on that radio interview

406. Pr011 - July 12, 2007

re #399.

Sorry I meant to reference #396, not #398.

407. Pr011 - July 12, 2007

re #399.

Sorry I meant to reference #396, not #398.

408. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 12, 2007

#395 … no one said McCoy is not important. Everyone loves the character. But De Kelley is dead … Shatner isn’t. Far from it. Here is a man who, at 75, is arguably at the PEAK of his career! He defines LIVING LEGEND and he should be allowed to play Kirk again! Like #370 said, the man is a 1-person publicity machine. He’s just the extra shot in the arm this film needs.

As for your concerns about continuity, #392 and many others have already answered that. The question of Kirk’s resurrection can be addressed in a comic book, for the 2% of the population who’ll care. It’s really no tribble at all.

John Wayne was in his 60’s when he won an Oscar for True Grit (and even at 75, Shatner looks younger than Wayne did then). Clint Eastwood was in his 60’s when he made Unforgiven. John Glenn was still flying missions aboard the Discovery well into his late 70’s!

It’s time to end the debate. PUT A KIRK IN IT, DAMMIT!!

409. snake - July 12, 2007

HOW can Shatner be in it though??

a preGenerations CGI Shat??

anyway What if Spock is reminising about the old days around the time of Kirks death? (K death dosnt have to be specified when)

410. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

I’ll say it again: Give me my captain back or that movie’s goose is gonna be cooked worser than Modern Drek’s deader n’ depleted uranium. As for the latter, if certain folks love it so much–THEN GO WATCH IT AND LEAVE US CLASSICAL TREK FANATICS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ALONE to create mayhem in the marketplace, because you ain’t gonna get no more on tv on in movies for a long, long , time.

You had 20 years of that crap, and if you think you’re gonna horn in on CT turf, or dictate any terms and/or policy regarding it, think again. Berman ain’t coming back. Roddenberry ain’t coming back. Piller, Behr, Moore, Braga+ ain’t coming back ever. Your Trek ain’t coming back, except in your heads. Get used to them reruns, kiddies. You’re gonna be watching ‘em for a long time.

Get over it and move on.

411. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

And it’ll be even easier the second time around, folks.

MUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

412. Chris Pike - July 12, 2007

it is truly awe inspiring the power that His Shatness has to evoke such a resonse to His few words of infinite wisdom…..

413. Mark Lynch - July 12, 2007

I can’t believe this has gone to over 400 posts. Something which is entirely based on one statement from Shatner that has not even been confirmed/denied by the people that actually know what is going on, namely the writers and the director.

I still stand by what I said in my previous post here (I can’t remember the number :) ) That Shatner is most likely telling a porky….!

But notice just who is keeping what I consider a ‘dignifed’ silence on this and he who is going on about things that cannot be confirmed nor denied at this time.

I still fevently hope that Nimoy and Shatner get to be in the new film in an interesting and meaningful way.

Until then, come on guys lets get a grip!

Later….

414. Mark Lynch - July 12, 2007

Sorry, should of said ‘dignified’ Oooops…..

415. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

Actually, “dignifed” applies to people who like to eat too much, but do it with a quiet dignity!

416. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

These posts will go on forever, Webwide and worldwide until Abrams gets the message: There will be no peace or box office bonanzas unless Shatner’s in that movie. If Nimoy’s in it, Shatner had damned well better be there, too.

Reality check. Nobody’s expecting the man to reprise his role as JTK. But, a meaningful cameo in some part is demanded and we’d better get it or Abrams’ sitting on a powderkeg called “Box Office Disaster.” Believe it. Nobody can cause an uproar, or whip folks into angry mobs like Classic Trekkers if we really want to. There are more than enough of us left to do just that, and Abrams will get the point if he does the unthinkable, I kid you not, people.

417. snake - July 12, 2007

i wanna see this thread up to 1000 by the weekend

418. Greg - July 12, 2007

My personal belief is that Shatner and Nimoy, and other TOS cast members could have made a few highly successful TV movies over the last several years. They would have been relatively inexpensive, and would have relied much more on comedy, a la ST IV. Then again, rather than this film or Enterprise, they could have done some more DS9 as TV movies. That would have been nice.

419. Jim J (Kirk...James T. Kirk) - July 12, 2007

Somehow I get the feeling that THE SHAT is a lightning rod-over 400 posts and many more pouring in? Fascinating…

420. Xai - July 12, 2007

It’s the same handful of people saying the same thing over and over, throwing gas on this one big flaming Spam-b-que.

Repetition doesn’t make it reality. Call someone and say “I told ya so” if anyone confirms this golden turkey of a rumor. Until then… take some time away from the comp and rest your eyes.

421. MichaelJohn - July 12, 2007

Before this thread began, I was neutral about Shatner and Nimoy being in the next Trek movie. It really didn’t matter to me either way. I was just hoping that the next movie would be a critical and financial success, as well as a new and exciting chapter in the Trek franchise.

But now after reading this thread from beginning to end, part of me is really, really hoping that Shatner WILL NOT be offered a part in the next movie! This way I can come back to Trekmovie.com, sometime in the near future, and read all the posts from the disappointed, angry and inconsolable Shatner worshipers!

I can just imagine what those posts would be like….comments full of bile and fury, anger and self righteous indignation, sadness and loathing! Oh the horror!!! Shatner worshipers will be demanding a boycott of the next film and predicting the end of the franchise!

Will the world really come to an end if Shatner is not in Star Trek XI? Will the legions of Die Hard TOS fans and Shatner worshipers combine armies and picket in front of Paramount? Will they organize and march on Washington DC to demand a change in casting and script to ST XI?

God only knows!!

Mike :o

422. Xai - July 12, 2007

#421 MichaelJohn

Well said.
Some of the swagger and threats in here are almost comical.

423. Doug L. - July 12, 2007

Dennis Bailey, Xai, … I haven’t posted in months, but find you both hit points I would have made nicely.

Some of you Trek fans out their are really disappointing. You can’t move past the one thing that prevents you from enjoying a much larger tapestry. I’ve always believed Trek impacted my belief system to the point that I accept diversity and positivism, but many of you “lean” towards hating something because of a single issue. It’s not unlike judging a political candidate on one issue alone, such as religion, sexual preference, or choice/life. It’s a blind way to approach any topic.

And to all of you who think Trek has failed without Shatner/Kirk, please define success so we can have a legitimate discussion. How many (much) TV shows, movies and merchandising, and critical and fan acclaim defines success.

We all know Trek lost steam and tanked in the end, but there are 40 years of Trek, not just the last 5. And to be fair, I just finished watching all of season 4 of Enterprise, and while I still think many of the actors were awful, I thought the stories were really pretty good.

Ps… i decided that Trip, T’pol and Phlox, were the only redeemable actors worth watching.

Doug L.

424. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

Shatners not in the new movie? When did this happen? Anthony, you ought to start a thread about this.

Mike and Xai, I am so in your corner on this. I have half a mind to derail this thread excepr that I respect Anthony too much.

And no cracks about my half a mind problem.
BTW, I notice that Stanky is conspicuously absent from this foolishness.

425. Doug L. - July 12, 2007

re Michael John,

You also make good points. Kudos -d

426. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

corrections:

should read “except”

And DougL is spot on too.

427. Hawkeye - July 12, 2007

What if Shatner only appearance is a dream sequence at the end of the movie? What would people do then?

428. Ryan Joyce - July 12, 2007

I think this would be a complete non issue if Kirk did not have such a poor ending.

His ending seems to have really upset a lot of folks.

429. MichaelJohn - July 12, 2007

Surprisingly, this long thread has been one of the more civlilized ones to date here on trekmovie.com. Fun and lively debate is always a good thing, and I’m glad to see that most here are playing “nice” when it comes to discussing this subject.

In the past, so many threads have broken down into childish rants when posters began attacking each other personally, but luckily that isn’t the case this time.

I guess there is hope for the future of “Trek fandom” after all!

Mike :o

430. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

If y’all wanna leave, [and you know who you are] — don’t waste time speechifying, hit the road, as they say, and take hyper, people. We mean business here. There shall be no peace until this purported insult is rectified.

Come on, guys…1000+ posts. Let’s make history!!!!

YEAH!

431. Zazzo - July 12, 2007

Kirk is the key figure in the history of Star Trek and William Shatner is a vital part of Kirk’s appeal.

Would we be having this same discussion about Kate Mulgrew or Avery Brooks?

Shatner’s presence would be special.

That said,.I will be going opening night with or without him, but I do hope to see him on screen.

432. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 12, 2007

#423: “please define success so we can have a legitimate discussion”

In this context, I would define success as something that captures the attention – and the money – of a large audience. Isn’t that why movies are made? To a lesser extent, it might also be defined as something that makes an impact on the popular culture, and holds up well over time. TOS meets all of those criteria, and Shatner is an integral part of what made TOS work. The other Trek incarnations … not so much. The Next Gen movies tanked and movies based on any of the other series would only fare even worse.

I too enjoyed some of the latter-day Trek, including the aforementioned season 4 of Enterprise – mainly because Manny Coto was going back to so many of the great ideas originated in TOS. But let’s face facts, how many people on the street would even know Scott Bakula was in Star Trek? Almost none. But show just about anyone a picture of William Shatner and they’ll say, ‘THAT’S CAPTAIN KIRK!’

When you combine the enduring appeal of TOS with the fact that Shatner is HOT right now (even without the help of the franchise), it becomes a no-brainer. Let’s hope JJ and co. have brains.

-An Unapologetic Shatner Worshipper!

433. Kobayashi Maru - July 12, 2007

I’ve said it before Star Trek is about characters and Kirk is an extraordinary character, and although they are bringing the character back anyway, it would be fitting if the man who first breathed life into Kirk give his gestural blessing by being in the movie that will in all likelihood continue the legacy of James T. Kirk, in future films or TV beyond William Shatner’s further involvement. Money and role size are pretty paltry excuses if Abrams and Shatner see that there is no feasible way to include him. C’mon guys! Consider the big picture!

434. THEETrekMaster - July 12, 2007

Wow…433 posts dedicated to this topic. Is this some kind of record? LMAO!!!

435. Robert April - July 12, 2007

Shatner really has stirred up a hornet’s nest with his comments. I can’t wait to hear what J.J & Co. have to say about it. When is ComicCon again?????

I bet it is crunch time with contract negotiations and Shatner is pulling out the big guns to get the papers signed.

436. german fool - July 12, 2007

“I’m sure it was a mistake on the writers part, but the fact is Scotty did say Kirk is still alive.”

-> he was drunk and did not know what he’s saying!

437. Demode - July 12, 2007

SHATNER = $$$$$ – MOVIE SUCCESS!!!! – $$$$$$

438. Kobayashi Maru - July 12, 2007

Paramount take note:
There hasn’t been as much buzz about a Star Trek movie since the Generations script got out, and the possibility of Kirk dying reached the fans back in ’94.
If you want to nurture this tent pole, it would be wise to be open to Shatner’s considerations: He knows he’s a draw, we are certainly making it known that he’s still a draw, and the bottom line is always about revenue.
As Spock might say, Yield to the logic of the situation.

439. Herbert Eyes Wide Open - July 12, 2007

I am really curious as to how accurate the poll is as a total sampling of those who visit this site and post here…

Because the fanatic multiple, repetitive ad infinitum ad nauseam postings notwithstanding… it looks like the majority of folks will see this new film regardless of Shatner and Nimoy’s participation…

I urge all those who have not voted to vote…. here… and in the next general election. :)

As important as this topic is I’m hopeful that all here approach our country’s needs and future with the same zeal and fervor.

This political announcement has been made possible and is fully endorsed by the James T. Kirk For President Foundation – Our motto… “Once you’ve bagged an Orion Babe, you’ll vote whatever way she wants you to.”

440. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#438

Would that be the new and improved Paramount that has faith in J.J. Abrams? Or the Paramount that let UPN crash and burn and gave up on “Enterprise” in spite of Manny Coto?

TPTB are not always logical…

“Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.”

441. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

According to the poll, although it’s not scientific, shows that there is 17% of the fans here that want Shat in the movie in one form or another. There’s your logic.

442. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#439

The thing about the poll that is STILL missing is that it does not reflect the silent majority of TOS fans who really want Shatner and Nimoy in but will still see the movie regardless of their appearance.

(No Anthony, please do not change the poll again. :-) )

The real point is, what happens to the revenue stream after we see it one time in the theaters? Will we fork out another $10 to see it more than once? Will we see the sequels? (Oh course we will ;-) ) Will we buy the DVDs? Will our kids buy the toys? Will we encourage our kids to buy the toys?

Will we remember J.J and Co. as having rocked on Star Trek (and thus go to see any/all other projects he is involved with) or will we think “Hmm, that movie was OK but why didn’t they have the REAL Kirk and Spock in it as well?”

This film could do well without Shatner and Nimoy and still tap into alternative revenue streams. But with the built in buzz of Shatner AND Nimoy combined with strong writing and casting of the new actors-wow, you would have a cross generational base to market to.

443. Kobayashi Maru - July 12, 2007

# 440
Granted, but profit is the drive of the corporation and the buzz surrounding a project in their bullpen that has yet to shoot a foot of film, it would serve their imperative to examine closely the profitable potential that lies at the source of all this word of mouth.
Many have stated that the movie will be big regardless. I say that it will open big, but whether it has legs will depend on a number of factors, WS returning is not the least of them.
In a strange cinema trend that has already seen the return of Rocky Balboa, John McClane, the impending return of Indiana Jones, all of which are not rebooted or re-imagined, whatever, with the affection and sentimentality of the audience still quite present, it is prudent for Paramount to appreciate this opportunity and not kill the goose for the golden eggs.
By the way, is anybody out there monitoring the blog chatter on the Shatner website or the Star Trek website proper? This is the only one I’ve managed any energy for.
“Logic is the beginning of wisdom… not the end…”

444. Robert April - July 12, 2007

In other words, the poll could have said:

“Yes I want to see both Shatner and Nimoy in the film and it matters alot…but I will reluctantly see it regardless.”

(Again Anthony, no need to change the poll)

445. Lendorien - July 12, 2007

I really don’t get this “I won’t watch the movie if shatner’s not in it” stuff. It’s a bunch of hooey. We all know you’ll go see the movie. Don’t give us that bull. Besides, why does it matter if he’s in it or not? He’d have a cameo, that’s it. The movie isn’t going to be based around the original actors.

446. Elrond L. - July 12, 2007

Man, I thought this fuss would die down last night. Wow,was I wrong! I’ve tried to read most of the posts, and I’m amazed how much passion still exists for Trek. Me, I just want a great movie that makes Trek fun again, and successful. I’m sorry to see the post-TOS bashing, because I’ve always liked TNG and DS9. But I grew up with the classic cast and they will always be my favorites.

Selfishly, I really want to see both Shat and Nimoy up on the screen one last time as Kirk and Spock. It doesn’t matter how brief, as long as it’s meaningful . . . like some folks have already noted, it would be killer for PR, plus it would launch the new franchise with the “blessing” of the classic cast. Very few pop culture icons have been so closely identified with the actors who originated them, so that’s why I think this is the one time such a gesture is needed.

Plus I hated Kirk’s lame death too, and I really don’t want that cloud hanging over the adventures of the “new” Kirk; we already know he’s going to survive his early adventures, so why do I want the stories colored by the lame way he ultimately dies? It will take precious little screen time to explain it, I’m sure.

That said, Shatner is probably goofing around, as always (that’s what makes him fun to watch)… so who knows what the truth is. I’m really looking forward to the movie news to come.

447. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#445

Only some people are saying they won’t see it (and we all know they will anyway!)

448. Michael Hall - July 12, 2007

MichaelJohn and DougL–

Well said. I’m also personally fairly neutral on the subject of whether Mr. Shatner (or Nimoy, for that matter) should make an appearance in this film or not. Since the whole raison d’etre of this movie is to revive the franchise by proving that new actors can successfully take over these roles, and since the producers–being sane–aren’t going to spend any screen time trying to ‘fix’ a mistake made over a decade ago in a film they had nothing to do with, such an appearance would be at best a walk-on, and far from being seen as a respectful sendoff may in fact be viewed by many as a cynical marketing ploy that could actually damage the film’s chances for critical and financial success.

Of course, some in the fan community view it differently. Fine. And of those, a number apparently believe that those two beloved actors are solely responsible for Trek’s success, and that their presence in this film is actually more important than its plot, director, production design, and so on. Just as they seem to think that there’s a huge overlap between the potential audience for this film and Bill Shatner’s ghostwritten spinoff novels and comic books. Well, they’re entitled to their feelings, but I would submit that as a subset of a subset of a subset of opinion on this issue, were I Paramount or J.J. Abrams I wouldn’t be losing too much sleep over it.

449. Anthony Pascale - July 12, 2007

i believe the poll is very accurate because it is very similiar to other polls

it is part of what i have been seeing as the ‘1 out of 5 rule’. with all the pols with multiple choices about the movie there tends to be one out of five who take a passionate etreme view (Shatner and Nimoy MUST be in it, the enterprise must have NO changes, canon must be COMPLETELY adhered too NO EXCEPTIONS, including new fans is BAD, etc, etc).

and in each case you always see a disproportionate amount of these one out of five posting. People must remember that the vast vast vast majority of people who come to this site do not post..or even vote. It goes to reason that the more ‘passionate’ people are more likely to post…and post repeatedly…hence you often get a skewed view when just reading posts.

the polls always show more flexibility.

This post to lurk ratio is just like talk radio…how many listeners really call in?

450. Orbitalic - July 12, 2007

I want a good story.
I don’t need Kirk’s death fixed… this is early TOS. I want the magic of Star Trek again. The shiver up my spine as THE theme builds in the dark theater and a starscape slowly slides off the edges of the big screen.
StarTrek classic isn’t about Shatner and Nimoy, it’s Kirk Spock and McCoy and a crew going where… well, you know.
In my opinion, don’t clutter this with 2 Kirks or 2 Spocks. It’s a freshened look at our old friend and it bothers me that this thread has become so fractured and features people ranting the same information over and over or trashing this Trek or that Trek. In my opinion, that’s just picking a fight.

IDIC, people…IDIC.
And if you don’t know what it means…. I won’t tell you to get out of here, I’ll tell you to look it up and see how it applies. One facet, I believe, is tolerance for others opinions and adhering to a few rules, such as the rules our friend and host Anthony would like us to follow.

My opinions.

451. Jim J (Risk...is our business......that's what this starship is all about...that's why we're aboard her!) - July 12, 2007

#421-In a lot of ways, you hit a grand slam. There’s a lot of truth to what you are saying.

#450 (Orbitalic)-I’ve always been a fan of THE SHAT, so I could handle all you asked for PLUS two Kirk’s and Spock’s. But, I see your point.

Frankly ALL, going without THE SHAT and Nimoy would be bold. Maybe we need bold “risk” takers? Perhaps it would energize the franchise!

452. Robert April - July 12, 2007

Anthony (not to beat a dead horse) but my point regarding the poll is that there are a lot of people who are very passionate about Shatner and Nimoy appearing in the film BUT who would never boycott the movie if they were not in it.

I am one of those (more moderate?) people and voted for “A little…they would be nice to have, but will see it anyway”

but would rather have said “A lot!…they would be GREAT to have, but will see it anyway.

Great site by the way. I’ve been following it from day one and it is nice to see such a variety of Trek fans and opinions. Your Trek news scoops are second to none!

453. Jim J - July 12, 2007

#452-If that option would have been there, I would have checked it.

454. Anthony Pascale - July 12, 2007

oh well everyone is a critic

my earlier point is that…like with the design of the new enterprise..the vast majority of votes are between extremes.

I understand the feeling to want shatner, but there can be a million (or possibly many millions) of reasons why it wont work out…it may also not be over yet.

I do feel however that people with very specific ‘demands’ for the movie
– it must have shatner
– the railngs MUST be red
– the actors must look exactly like the originals
etc, etc are only setting themselves up for disappointment

abrams long ago said that he hoped trek fans would have an open mind. I think that is a good idea and the more open your mind the easier you will be able to sit back and enjoy the movie instead of sit there with your clipboard making sure they met all your demands

my demands are
make it big, make it fun, make it feel like trek, make it emotional, blow me away.

455. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

No Shatner, no peace, d’you hear? That’s right. Folks can talk smack all they want, but without Shatner, it ain’t going nowhere. Star Trek, my butt. It ain’t nothin’ but a name without its greatest hero.

Straight up. I don’t carer about Nimoy, or restoring magic, or reenergizing some played-out Franchise. I don’t care about any of that crap. I just want Shatner back for one last glorious ride, and Abrams had better remember that or he’s playing with fire.

456. Gavin Harris - July 12, 2007

Im Gavin Harris and I say people will see this film if WIlliam Shatner isn’t in it but MORE will see it if he IS in ti. Im Gavin Harris.

457. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

#454

That’s all fine an’ good, noble and whatnot. However, I’m going to say it again: If Nimoy’s in that movie, no matter what the premise, I guarantee you Bill Shatner had better be around somewhere, or there’s gonna be trouble. Big time.

The movie don’t need either. BUT–I say again: If Nimoy’s in, Shatner’s in. Period. If not, Abrams’ gonna have some real controversy on his hands from places he don’t need none in.

458. Shadow6283 - July 12, 2007

#457-Im Gavin Harris and I say people will see this film if WIlliam Shatner isn’t in it but MORE will see it if he IS in it. Im Gavin Harris.

Ok, you’re Gavin Harris. I believe ya. Sure. Anything you say…

SHATNER FOREVER!!!!

459. Greg - July 12, 2007

How crazy would it be if Shatner shows up on LOST but not in Star Trek?

460. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#454 You seem very well balanced in your opinions.

“my demands are
make it big, make it fun, make it feel like trek, make it emotional, blow me away.”

You have made quite reasonable “demands” I would say. :-)

“I do feel however that people with very specific ‘demands’ for the movie
– it must have shatner
– the railngs MUST be red
– the actors must look exactly like the originals
etc, etc are only setting themselves up for disappointment”

LOL- that “rails must be red” demand is funny-but I get the point. I always liked the red rails in TOS but the old bridge set does not translate well to the big screen. Even those great episodes where the bridge set was recreated, while fun to watch, were still a little cheesy.

All of us who grew up with Trek have indeed grown up ourselves. Visuals and special effects that looked real even ten years ago look small and silly now.

I hope there is at least a visual reboot with this film that, while still keeping true to the feel of TOS, will add a layer of sophistication not yet seen in any Trek film; which (if used correctly) will add to the realism while serving as support for the dramatic action. Deep down the message we all seem to get from Trek is a sense of optimism about our future and hope that something like the Star Trek universe could one day be real.

I don’t want to come home from the theater and say “They did a great job on the Enterprise special effects. It looked just like it should.”

I want to come out of the theater shaking my head saying “UUUUUNBELIEVABLE !!”

461. Xai - July 12, 2007

#455 Shadow6283

Ok, You’ve threatened your fellow posters, JJ Abrams, the writers and I think even Berman…who’s not even close to the subject, with……… what?
You’re going to be mad? Hellfire and brimstone or just thumping your chest online?
Cut through the smack you’re talking and actually say what you plan on doing. It’s a big secret I bet.
I mean really.. one man makes a claim that “he’s not in the movie” and you believe him… no confirmation, nothing to back-up the words. nothing so far.
Tell me what you plan on doing if this comes down to Shatner using the fans reactions as a ploy to negotiate for a bigger check? He wouldn’t be the first actor to negotiate through public channels…you never know.

462. Leonel - July 12, 2007

Holy $hit!! Over 400+ posts. How to get through them all.. Given the camaraderie between Shatner and Nimoy, I’m just going to wait and see. Surely this will not be the last word, but gotta love the free publicity this is causing.

463. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#455

LOL

You sound like Kirk talking about the Klingons in StarTrekVI!

464. Robert April - July 12, 2007

Wow, that is a new one. This site must be getting higher than normal traffic…

“This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota

Please contact this site’s webmaster.

Wait a few minutes and use your browser’s “Back” button or click here to try again.

If you are the webmaster, your account may have exceeded for one or more of the following reasons:

* Your site has used more than 20% of the cpu.
* Your account has too many processes running at the same time.
* Your site was consuming too many resources. This happens on occassion to very busy sites that have inefficient scripts running. “

465. Xai - July 12, 2007

got that too

466. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#465 Guess we better keep our posts short ;-)

467. Hon. David Kulessa - July 12, 2007

#410

Please take your own advice and “Get over it and move on”. This movie certainly doesn’t need Shatner to be a good movie. GET OVER HIM.

#455

Oh, you again. Anyway, even if Shatner is going to be in the movie, he’s probably going to be sitting in front of a fireplace sipping tea and retelling a story to Spock, or some shit. Your “one last glorious ride” makes it sound like he’s going to be the protagonist in this. NOT LIKELY.

No matter how much you TOS junkies complain, Shatner is not going to have the lead role in this. Nimoy is not going to have the lead role in this. Why is it even that important that he’s in there?!

This is analogous to someone making a post-VOY movie about a new crew and fans DEMANDING that Picard or Janeway christen the new ship before it goes underway. It’d be nice, but totally nonchalant. To be honest, knowing that they were there wouldn’t sway my desire to go to the theatre and see it.

The same with Shatner and Nimoy. I’m probably going to watch this film whether they’re in it or not. The story isn’t about THEM, is it? Are you really going to see it simply because it has ten minutes of old Kirk reading memoirs?!

It’s hard to call you guys fans. You’re more like stalkers, really. As Shadow himself says “Get over it and move on”!

468. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

This just in………remember in Titanic when Cameron pulled the trick of a close-up on “young” Rose’s eye, then it panned back and dissolved into “old” Rose’s eye, thereby conveying the feeling of it being the same person, only 84 years apart? If Abrams pulls that crap with a young Spock, then dissolves to “old” Spock (Nimoy) recounting his early adventures with Kirk, I swear, I’ll track J.J. down and…well I….I will URINATE ON HIS FRONT LAWN!!!!! There, I said it!

469. Nelson - July 12, 2007

On a totally different, but very related topic, and a way to look at this from another direction:

Some of you guys here might be old enough to remember back in the day that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had a famously known contractual clause, a so-called Favored Nations claus. Anything Shatner got, such as a raise, Nimoy got and visa versa in the case of directing a film. That benefited Shatner for Star Trek 5, where as the original clause benefitted Nimoy more for income.

Of course that was for the glory years. Today it’s a different game. But these two are probably shrewd enough to be doing the same or similar deal for this film. This assumes they are both invited to the party.

470. Gavin Harris - July 12, 2007

#467 “It’s hard to call you guys fans. You’re more like stalkers, really. As Shadow himself says “Get over it and move on”! ”

Why is the fact i want william shatner in the film considered stalking. Im gavin harris.

471. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

The trouble with the Shat is that he is severely overexposed. In the last ten years we’ve seen him EVERYWHERE…on T.V. shows, in commercials, doing talk shows, hosting game shows, radio call-in shows, etc……let’s face it, the man would go to the opening of an envelope! If he’d go away for ten minutes it might be a little more tantalizing to see him come back as Kirk one last time. Imagine if, after Generations, he had retired to some horse ranch in Kentucky, no one seeing hide nor hair of the man, and then NOW they ask him to come back and reprise the role of James T. Kirk? You think the response is big now? People would be gnashing their teeth, rending their clothing and crying in the street!

472. VOODOO - July 12, 2007

Anthony #457

Most people who are hung up on the whole Shatner thing feels so strongly because of how Kirk was killed off.

It left a very bad taste in many people’s mouths.

473. MichaelJohn - July 12, 2007

#455…”No Shatner, no peace, d’you hear? That’s right. Folks can talk smack all they want, but without Shatner, it ain’t going nowhere. Star Trek, my butt. It ain’t nothin’ but a name without its greatest hero.”

“I just want Shatner back for one last glorious ride, and Abrams had better remember that or he’s playing with fire.”

Dude… you must be a card carrying member of the “Knights of Shatner”…..a shadowy group of Trekkies that has gone completely “over the edge” with your devotion, adoration and worship of “the Shat”! Man that’s creepy! Give us all a break here and “beam back down” to reality!

In the grand scheme of life Star Trek is not important at all…it’s just entertainment.

Mike :o

474. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

#472 “how Kirk was killed off”
How true. If James Kirk had sacrificed himself to save the galaxy, then fine, we could accept it and move on. But, to have such an ignoble death by falling off a bridge because Picard is too dense to leave the Nexus a few hours earlier and shoot Soran dead in Ten-Forward? Bah, bad writing should always be washed away with good or, at least, better writing!

475. Anthony Pascale - July 12, 2007

one thing i am sure of…it is not Abrams job to ‘fix’ Generations.

KIrk died. it was lame. that is that.

if your demand for this film is to not only have shatner in it, but to also resurrect him and de canonize Generatios….well then turn off your computer now and go buy some shatner books….but you will never ever get that in Abrams movie

476. Xai - July 12, 2007

#475
Anthony… might it be time to turn off this thread? Delete my post and call 475 the “record”?
I don’t see where this thread is now moving any discussion forward anymore…just rehashing and regurgitation.

Thanks, X

477. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

Anthony, I respect your opinion, but my simple question is…how do you know? What if, as someone posted a while back, we see a post-Generation Kirk and Spock, a passerby looks askance at Kirk, he winks, and says,”I know, I’m supposed to be dead”. And leave it at that, maybe to be filled in seperately, in some other forum, from this tentpole movie?

478. Gavin Harris - July 12, 2007

Anthony the film is going to be like watching a rerun of the original then. Knowing kirk dies a horrid death it’s harder to watch Kirk episodes. Not quite as entertaining a rerun as it should because u know he dies horribly in the future because of weak writing. Thats how this movie will play no matter how the genius of action or script, you know Kirk wont die in the film and his real peril and perishment was at hands of rick berman…. i dont care for a younger actor playing him when Shatner as Kirk is splatted on a piece of sediment…. Captain Kirk deserves better than Bermans script. Who gives a tribble about his early adventures when his future one is one of pathetic writing? Im gavin harris.

479. Sleeper Agent X - July 12, 2007

Re 475 —

Hear, hear!

480. Still Kirok - July 12, 2007

Anthony, saving Kirk will not decanonize Generations anymore than saving Spock decanonized TWOK.

It’s clear by the reaction of this thread how upset people are without Shatner in this film. I doubt Abrams will get the message, but he hurt himself.

The only piece of casting news has been overall considered negative.

In your own poll, which I admit is not scientific, about 20 percent of people on this site will not see the movie without Shatner. Abrams just threw away about 20 percent of his diehard fans.

Not too bright.

481. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

I really do like all you guys here, but enough is enough. Shadow, if I were Abrams, I’d leave Shatner out of the movie just to see the vein in your neck pop out. I think it’s pretty safe to say we all like Shat, but let’s focus our energies on something productive. Like what I want. Miniskirts.

482. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

The Shat in a miniskirt? Well, here comes lunch!

483. OR Coast Trekkie - July 12, 2007

Here’s a thought on how to get Nimoy and Shatner in the movie:

Kirk is about to board Enterprise B. Spock has other things happening, so Kirk says “lets get dinner tonight” or something like that (since the maiden voyage was to only be around the solar system). But then we see Spock getting notification of Kirk’s death (just a simple subspace message saying “Captain Spock, there’s been a terrible accident.”) The movie then becomes Spock’s delivered eulogy: and we use one of the classic “flashback” effects.

You can get around the “where’s the rest of the orignal cast/crew?” question by simply not showing anybody speficic. Just have an unfocused CGI’ed crowd or show it at a distance, or show backs of heads, and show Spock’s face on viewscreens in all sorts of different cities/places/planets/starship bridges etc. Imply that life in the Federation has basically stopped for that day.

There, you’ve got Shatner and Nimoy as cameos, neither of them having extremely major roles. You’ve got your Kirk/Spock acadamey story, and you don’t have to write some off-the-wall story about bringing Kirk back to life. I’m satisfied that Kirk is dead. And I think “actually” dying helping to save a planet of 230 million is quite honorable. And I think Shatner agrees that Kirk’s death was very fitting. At that time, Shatner was ready to retire the Kirk character. If he ever wanted to reprise Kirk, I don’t think he would’ve agreed to do the film.

On an aside: If you’ve seen the Generations DVD, you would also know that this is a revision of Kirk’s death. He was originally shot in the back by Soran, and dind’t even get a final phrase. The bridge and saying “it was…fun!” was certainly better than that.

484. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

Just think, if the producers convince Shat to do his first full frontal nude scene, we could reprise the line from TVH: “Captain, there be whales here!”

485. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#471 “no one seeing hide nor hair of the man, and then NOW they ask him to come back and reprise the role”

Ahh, that would be Nimoy’s role in this don’t ya think?

486. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

#483 “Kirk’s death…was certainly better than that”
Yeah, you’ve gone from extremely friggin’ shitty to just plain shitty. What is it with Hollywood where if any outside writer had pitched that script they would have been laughed out of the room, but when the show’s lead writers come up with it, it’s given the go. Nice work if you can get it; Be totally incompetent, grossly overpaid and immune to criticism! Jeez, what a racket!!!

487. OR Coast Trekkie - July 12, 2007

Another note: I’m satisfied with an explanation that Scotty may have a little disoriented and confused: after alll, he did spend 75 years in a transporter buffer. There’s no way to know what that can do.

One more thing: It would interesting if, perhaps at the end, we see Spock meeting or communicating with Pardek (after all, they had known each other for 80 years). Leaves open some interesting possibilities for future Trek…

488. Robert April - July 12, 2007

#481

Miniskirts? Miniskirts? Oh how I wish I was 12 years old again watching the mirror Lieutenant Marlena Moreau.

Hey, that’s it! A mirror universe movie with just the Trek babes in miniskirts!

Who would need Shatner or Nimoy or Kirk or Spock either for that matter!

489. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

Quick critique of the TOS movies:
TMP: Boring, dry and dull!
TWOK: Superb!
TSFS: Superb, the sequel!
TVH: Stupid, sophomoric humor!
TFF: Worst movie since Plan 9 From Outer Space!
TUC: Murder She Wrote In Space…who friggin’ cares?
STG: Horrible script, should never have been filmed!

Heh, heh, heh……let the bitchfest begin…….

490. OR Coast Trekkie - July 12, 2007

#488 Robert April

LOL. A bunch of scantily clad or nude Orion or Vulcan babes…

It’s Pee-Wee Herman or George Michael times 15 million!

491. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

Now you’ve got it!! Girls, girls,girls!! Orion dancing babes! Rand in a mini! Hell, nurse Chapel in a bikini!! I’ve not been 12 in many a moon!!

My idea in another thread 1,000 years ago was to put Jessica Simpson in it somehow, but forget that. Get that girl from Transformers In the red Uhura skirt and let’s get to filming!!

What are we talking about, again?

492. Robert April - July 12, 2007

Realistically I think they have to play up the Kirk as “smart ass farm boy” angle instead of the “womanizing captain” one.

The miniskirt days are over I fear. What worked well in the 1960’s would bomb at todays boxoffice. (Unless the target audience is 12 year old males.)

I had high hopes for “Enterprise” when it came out but when they tried to spice it up with T’Pol it just seemed ridiculous. I wrote a parody that poked fun at that when Enterprise debuted. (See below just for fun.)

“Theorizing that one could travel within his own solar system at warp 5,
Captain. Jonathan Archer stepped into the bridge of the starship Enterprise
and vanished…. He woke to find himself trapped in strange times, facing
writers and producers who do not know much about science fiction and driven
by an unknown force to change their stories for the better. His only guide
on this journey is T’Pol, an observer from the planet Vulcan, who appears in
holographic Vulcan negligee that everyone but Jonathan can see. And so
Captain Archer finds himself warping from episode to episode, striving to
put right with the Star Trek franchise what once went wrong and hoping each
new show will bring him closer to going where no Trek show has gone before.”

493. THX-1138 - July 12, 2007

Ok, but I made everyone forget about Shat for a little while though.

494. Robert April - July 12, 2007

That last post was a little off topic, but it is getting late and I think I am a bit too tired to stay up to see this thread reach 500!

=/\=

495. Harry Ballz - July 12, 2007

I throw a cat in among the pigeons with post # 489 and nada? What, suddenly apathetic is in?

496. Hawkeye - July 12, 2007

#492 Robert April

I like the idea of the whole Iowa farm boy thing of Kirk. Being born and raised in Iowa, I think it would be cool to start the film off with Kirk on the farm. And you actually film this scene in Iowa. If this movie ends up being a smash, this farm becomes the next Field of Dreams.

497. Oceanhopper - July 13, 2007

What, Kirk builds a starship in a nearby field? If he builds it they will come?
Well, I suppose it would make the shoot cheaper.

Not be very “Star” Trek though. More a “Gotta get out of this little town someday” Trek.

498. Josh T. ( Bow to the power of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire' - July 13, 2007

I bet the Shat’s loins are swollen with power and his face is flushed and swollen, bloated , over the allegiance and dedication his fatness is recieving, as well he should , it’s probably difficult being a living avatar of mighty girth, swaddling to and fro amongst mere mortals with only the sweat of ones red-faced puffiness to defend you against infidels.

Some of you are infidels, unholy and undeserving of the Shats mass and displacement. A Shat ass cheek smeared all over the face, to anyone callously disrespecting the wholesome Shatness.

Shatner has more ass in one cheek that most of you will ever dare behold in the life of a lowly simpleton.

The Shatness jiggles heavily, grimaces, and blows one proudly in your general directions, that is the price of sacrilegious disrespect to chunks of Shat.

Go forth yon toodles and bermanites, drink of the false demi-gods the Archer, the Picard, drink the Sisco. Away with ye non-fattening filler materials.

Your twinkies doth stale, malodorous and non-satisfying.

A Shat a day keeps the haters away.

499. Sleeper Agent X - July 13, 2007

Oh, that was classy…

Keep it up, Shat brigade. You’re repulsing the rest of us more and more with every post! Way to bring people around to your point of view.

Or maybe you just want to go out in truly nasty style!

500. Josh T. ( Behold the power of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire. - July 13, 2007

Point of view?

Shatness has no point of view, Shatness is the age of the swollen google chin.

Shatness puckers his bowels and bellows a horse and haughty laugh at petty mortals “point of view.”

501. Sleeper Agent X - July 13, 2007

Just remember, JJ is a far, far greater power that the Shat!

502. Hawkeye - July 13, 2007

497 Oceanstopper

Key word was “start” the film in Iowa. Maybe Kirk’s a ten year old flying around some little remote control model ship that shoots little, non-lethal mini-phasers at cows. Address how he wants to join Starfleet, and he has a reluctant but supportive father. Then flash forward to the Academy…

Oh, by the way, the town of Dyersville (which is the town nearest to the farmhouse and baseball field) still sells “Is This Heaven? No, It’s Iowa” bumper stickers. They also still play baseball games there.

503. Chris Pike - July 13, 2007

Glory be to the word of the Shat. His word was let there be girth, and there was girth. Let there be hair, and there was, indeed, much hair. Let Him be reborn to spread the words of the Girth and the Hair. Let there be more Shat, much, much more…

504. trektacular - July 13, 2007

I think in regards to Trek2008 we need to be more concerned with who will be cast in these iconic parts of Kirk Spock etc. and that the writers of Transformers are involved.

505. Doug L. - July 13, 2007

Some posters out there have a really bizarre fixation on William Shatner. I actually started considering that one of you might actually be William Shatner, here to stir up trouble…

How funny would that be?

Doug L.

506. Shadow6283 - July 13, 2007

Good, good…

Keep it up.

LOL.

507. Cervantes - July 13, 2007

Where’s Stanky? I’m getting a little worried now…

508. Shadow6283 - July 13, 2007

#499-Oh, that was classy…

Keep it up, Shat brigade. You’re repulsing the rest of us more and more with every post! Way to bring people around to your point of view.

Or maybe you just want to go out in truly nasty style!

That aside, who’s trying to convince you of anything, or wanting to convert your point of view? No one requires your approval where discussion of Classic Trek or its seminal characters is concerned, and neither does anyone else, I’m suspecting. I’ve been Trekking for 40 years, and I don’t require counsel on anything regarding it, thank you very much. I don’t care what you or anyone here or elsewhere think about anything.

Now, I suspect the burr under your saddle runs a little deeper than the railings of the “Shat Brigade.” I’m betting it has everything to do with everything this movie ain’t about, right? I’d be right, too, and you can forget about it. Ain’t gonna happen. Get used to your reruns and fanfic, pal. For a long, long, long, time. I’m guessing, oh, for at least 20 years or more. Probably 30, but I’m being conservative here.:P

The only thing that went out in “truly nasty style” as you put it, was Modern Trek under Rick Berman, fueled by the demise of Nemesis at the B.O. [a perfect example of what pre-launch anti-buzz can do for a film] and the long-overdue cancellation of Enterprise, and posterity has shoved what’s left of it off a cliff somewhere.

All Good Things…:P

509. Jim J (over 500, WOW!) - July 13, 2007

I awakened to the fact that THE SHAT still carries the power of 500+ photon torpedos (or, over 500 Stella models-lol). I’m just glad that we have been able to enjoy his talents recently in things like “Boston Legal.” If he’s in the movie, I’ll be happiest, BUT, either way I’m going to this movie and praying it’ll turn the franchise around.

Denny Crane!

510. Admiral_Bumblebee - July 13, 2007

I, too am very upset about Shatner not being in the movie.
It’s like a new Batman movie, but instead of Batman, we just get Robin…

For me it is quite simple. I won’t watch the movie if Shatner is not in it, simple as that. And I don’t think that I am the only Trek-Fan thinking so.
For me, Star Trek died wit Kirk. If the don’t bring him back, then it stays dead.

511. Windsor Bear - July 13, 2007

The funny thing here is if they would make this story about the early adventures of Capt. Pike and Mr. Spock, there probably wouldn’t be much debate at all. Spock was on the Enterprise at least 13 years before Kirk became the captain of it. So why not explore some of the adventures of those 13 years. There are a lot of untold adventures of Mr. Spock that didn’t involve Kirk at all. That would work IF canon was being followed for the new movie… which I expect it will not be. If they show Kirk and Spock at the academy together, that will pretty much blow TOS canon away, and at that point, who cares what the story is or who stars in it because the movie then will be Star Trek only by name… the same way the Lost in Space movie was tied to the TV series only by name.

512. Shadow6283 - July 13, 2007

For me it is quite simple. I won’t watch the movie if Shatner is not in it, simple as that. And I don’t think that I am the only Trek-Fan thinking so.
For me, Star Trek died wit Kirk. If the don’t bring him back, then it stays dead.

Excellent points. However, in my opinion, this movie doesn’t require the involvement of any of the original actors. Yet, if Nimoy’s appearing, you’d damned well better believe Shatner should be involved, too, despite all the antagonism generated locally, mostly by folks who, even 2 years ago, would’ve self-imploded over the thought of a Classic Trek Era feature, let alone one featuring Kirk and Spock. They’re not fooling anyone, and their influence is about as neglible and their counsel as welcome as a case of Martian Measles.

We are the music makers. It’s a bandwagon, and everyone wants to ride, especially folks with nowhere left to go. Jesus, I never realized all the love out there for Classic Trek. Goodness gracious and little green men from Vulcania. Who’da thunk it?

But, I’ve got news for ‘em: There are too many musicians onboard as it is, and they can go hitch a ride somewhere else and assist Modern Trek’s “Fat Man” John Frakes and try and help him jump start the “Titan” with a Vorta Volvo and crawl outta spacedock to the nearest Internet drive-in theater or somesuch, ’cause that’s about as far as they’re gonna get Trekwise in this new era, ’cause they ain’t gonna get a chance to muck it up like they did theirs.

Yeah.

513. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 13, 2007

#471: “The trouble with the Shat is that he is severely overexposed. In the last ten years we’ve seen him EVERYWHERE…”

I hope you’re kidding, because that makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that Shatner’s popularity is at an all-time high is EXACTLY why it would be dumb not to include him! If he were a washed-up recluse, like you suggested, I doubt anyone would be calling for his return. But he IS everywhere, and still DYNAMIC and ENTERTAINING as hell. He is a multiple Emmy-winning network tv star. Cable channels as diverse as Comedy Central, TV Land, and the History Channel build specials around him, evidence of his across-the-board appeal. Every movie producer who wants an audience for their film tries to hire actors who will be draws. And which Trek actor is more popular than Bill? None. He is even more popular now than he was when he was making Star Trek movies! It’s simple economics.

And just think, there is basically a whole new generation of young fans, high school and college age, who have grown up only knowing Shatner from his funny Priceline ads, Boston Legal, and maybe his music collaborations with Ben Folds. They are aware that he was Captain Kirk, but they’ve never had a chance to see him as Kirk on the big screen. This would please old and young fans alike.

Sure, bring in a young new guy to be the new Kirk. I AM in favor of that (he better be damn good, though!). But bring back Shatner as Kirk too. Remember the film Big Fish, where Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney played the same character at different times in his life? That was great, and it could work for Kirk!

Don’t F this up, JJ!! BEAM. UP. SHATNER!!!

514. Zazzo - July 13, 2007

471:

Sorr, but I can’t agree with you. Shatner Fan is correct when he says Shatner’s popularity is at an all time high.

That popularity should be taken advantage of.

515. Greg - July 13, 2007

Anthony (#475) you are very correct. J.J. should not have to undo Generations, nor would I want him to botch up his movie to do so. That would be unfair and unprofessional to him.

Hon. David Kulessa (#467) What you said holds the key! Kirk and Spock sitting around the fireplace? Played by Shatner and Nimoy. Well, unless they intend on trying to do that CGI work DIRECTV did for their commercial, Shatner will be MUCH older and plumper man than the one who appeared last in Generations. As a result, just by showing Kirk as that older man, they have in fact cancelled out Generations, no? Maybe it’s not the neatest approach, but one of the positions the BBK folks have maintained is they would accept it if Paramount simply canonized Shatner’s Kirk novels in some way as to confirm that Kirk is not dead. Such a scenario as you described, as simplistic as it is, does just that.

Now, in my opinion, I find it very lame and quite a waste to have either Nimoy and/or Shatner just for some kind of story telling narrator. I mean, since when would Spock be telling a story??? Vulcans don’t tell bedtime stories. And to cast Nimoy as someone other than Spock would be foolhardy and again, IMO quite lame. Once again, all we ask is to have Nimoy and Shatner again one last time, together, to ride off into the sunset properly this time, and to usher Star Trek into a new era (even if it’s remaking).

516. Kobayashi Maru - July 13, 2007

JJ,
Are you paying attention to all of this???

517. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

#513+514
I understand the commercial appeal of Shatner, but, please, let me clarify my position. It’s not just an oversaturation of Shatner that disturbs me, it’s his demeanour in the last ten years as well. From Free Enterprise, to Third Rock, to Priceline, to Boston Legal we’ve had the Shat doing nothing but lampooning his own image with much humour and frivolity. It’s cute and entertaining, but it also flies in the face of what the image and character of James T. Kirk is all about. Kirk always had some humour to his behaviour, but he wasn’t a clown. I think the serious side of Kirk is what really sold us on Trek’s timeless appeal and mythology. I’d have a hard time accepting the image of Kirk making one last appearance when I know, instinctively, that the Shat is having a hard time delivering his lines because his tongue is stuck so firmly in his cheek. Yikes!!

518. Robert April - July 13, 2007

Wow… Is this thread to the halfway mark yet?

519. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 13, 2007

Harry Ballz … that also makes no sense. It’s called ACTING. If you think Shatner can’t switch from comedic roles back to a more serious Kirk, you better think again. The man’s been an actor for 50 years. And no matter what some dumbass critics might say, a damn good one.

520. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

#519
You’re missing the point…the Shat might be a good actor, but after seeing him MUG and GRIN and behaving like a FOOL for the last decade, it’s hard to accept the image of him switching back to SERIOUS and us BUYING IT!!! Just like when you see Jim Carrey, who everyone loves in comedy, try his hand at serious roles. No thanks! It’s called baggage, and it’s not up to the audience to find the will, or open-mindedness, to offset the conditioning, it’s up to the actor to SELL IT, and as good as Shatner is, I think some of us would have difficulty in accepting it. Acting talent aside, you can’t have it both ways!

521. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 13, 2007

#520 … I can tell you with 100% surety that if Shatner was onscreen as Kirk, I would see KIRK up there. Not Denny Crane. If you can’t leap that mental hurdle, that’s your problem. A lot of other people can.

522. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

Have fun watching the Big Head/Denny Crane In Space show!

523. Xai - July 13, 2007

Anthony,
I was mistaken, keep the thread open permanently. It gives them something to do.

524. Xai - July 13, 2007

Shadow, I forgot to ask…
Since you didn’t reply to my questions from #461, I assume that the retribution you promised JJ, the writers, etc… is still being planned out? I’d not seen any news reports of large irate groups gathering with pitchforks and torches and holding Shatner signs.

I’m in the media, give me a location and date so we can get this covered.

525. Anthony Pascale - July 13, 2007

i will not tolerate any threats veiled or otherwise to anyone. Also no stupid stuff about protests, boycotts, petitions, etc…that stuff is just embarrassing and I certainly will not let this site be associated with it

I am considering closing this thread…i think it has run its course….please only post if you have something new to say

526. Xai - July 13, 2007

#525 Anthony

Thank you, I’ve said all I wanted on this subject.

527. TomBot2007 - July 13, 2007

What poll? I saw no poll. ;-) Gah, all the gameplaying, Hype, Spin, and crapola that’s going to precede this movie may kill it more for me than whether or not Shat or Nimoy will be in it briefly… I won’t cry over the missed opprotunites till they’re missed and I’m seriously pondering avoiding all this until the movie hits. Yes, most fans will see this, no matter what… even if it’s a trainwreck, they’ll see it. I see no point in comparing TOS & TNG over and over. TNG wouldn’t have existed without TOS; period. No argument saying TNG was more successful can really stand on it’s own, since it owes its very existence to TOS. Nevertheless, TNG had it own merits and missed opprotunities. What’s coming is an unknow quantity… it’ll have to be it’s own thing, judged on it’s own merits. Sure, many will show up once, and most movies are lucky to get that, these days. It’d have to be pretty damn good to have repeat business and good word of mouth referal. I didn’t see Insurrection or Nemesis in the theater, nor have I seen it on video yet either… Somewhat in response to an earlier post about certain fans not being deserving of new Trek film, If Paramount cannot forgive me for not supporting what I sensed to be crap then I cannot forgive them for making it. The mantra of business sometimes seems to be minimum of effort for the maximum of profit. Certainly, it has worked, but in some cases, it’s been to the detriment of the future. One hopes this won’t be the case but must accept it, if it turns to out to be the result.

528. Josh T. ( Behold the power of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire. - July 13, 2007

It seems puff the magic stick in the mud has spoken.

529. Doug L. - July 13, 2007

re: 525 Anthony

I’m now curious if left alone just how much longer this thread can go. Is 529 a record?

:) Doug L.

(ps… i agree w/ Harry Ballz, not sure Shat can pull off anything beyond tongue in cheek anymore, BUT, I would prefer the introductory lead in to the new characters. However, this is not a make or break deal for me. I want a smart, well acted, fun movie and those can be made with or without William Shatner)

530. Zazzo - July 13, 2007

XAI:

You remind me of the Brady Bunch epiosde where Bobby Brady was made hall monitor.

Clearly nobody should be childish enough to make threats about a movie/tv character, but you are being a nudge about shutting this blog down.

What do you care?

531. Shadow6283 - July 13, 2007

#524-I’m in the media, give me a location and date so we can get this covered.

Media, huh? They still manufacture mimeograph machines?

532. Sleeper Agent X - July 13, 2007

Re 508–

Oh, give me a break, Shadow! This isn’t about modern Trek, and it isn’t about Berman. Both are part of Star Trek’s past now–something I can accept a heck of a lot better than the Shat brigade. Maybe you can’t accept the notion of a fan who’s also a rational human being.

Certainly most of these Shat fan posts don’t show much rationality, so I can see how it’d be a hard concept to grasp…

As for waiting for 20 or 30 years for the return of “Modern” Trek–hey, I can deal with it if it never comes back. Can you say the same if the Shat sticks to Priceline commercials from here on out?

Maybe. But not well.

At the end of the day, Star Trek is just popular entertainment that at times was pretty good. There a lot more important things to get outraged about than whether one actor appears in the new movie. And frankly, it’s just silly. I mean, how old are you? Over thirty at least, more likely over forty. This is no way for an elder member of the community like you to act!

533. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

#532 “likely over forty…elder member of the community”
Gasp, what if one is over fifty??! The mind reels! Won’t drink my ginseng tea tonight,…will help the memory of this horror fade by tomorrow!

534. Shadow6283 - July 13, 2007

Re 532-

>>Maybe you can’t accept the notion of a fan who’s also a rational human being.>Certainly most of these Shat fan posts don’t show much rationality, so I can see how it’d be a hard concept to grasp…>As for waiting for 20 or 30 years for the return of “Modern” Trek–hey, I can deal with it if it never comes back. Can you say the same if the Shat sticks to Priceline commercials from here on out? >I mean, how old are you? Over thirty at least, more likely over forty. This is no way for an elder member of the community like you to act!

535. Shatner on Saturday Night Live - July 13, 2007

Ok #517 Harry Ballz, are you saying that Kirk is the only character I ever should have played? I was acing many a year before 1966. How can you say that other characters I have played are a reflection on Kirk?

Here’s a lampoon of myself: Nightmare at 20,000 Lightyears. There’s a gremlin on the side of the Enterprise.

Watch for the release of Rescue 911 on DVD!!

536. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

#535 “are you saying that Kirk is the only character I ever should have played?”
No, but some variety of some sort would have been a welcome relief from the repetitive buffoonery time after time. No wonder we hear the phrase “sad clown”. After Shatner played such an iconic hero role in Trek, it’s SAD to see him play the part of a clown now to lampoon and cash in on his own image. I just read he’s got $40million in the bank. HE DOESN’T HAVE TO DO THIS! And if any of you say “maybe he enjoys it”, that’s not the point. We’re discussing whether he would be believable coming back as Kirk after portraying the “village idiot” for over a decade now! I doubt I could, and hey, I am a HUGE Trek fan, having seen TWOK and TSFS probably 30 times each! Even if the Shat shows up, with a serious look on his face, it will be virtually impossible to not conjure up the image in my mind of a befuddled, grinning, pun-cracking Shat! He’s ruined it, I tellsya!!

537. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 13, 2007

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, Ballz. YOU can’t accept Shatner playing Kirk again? Fine. But don’t presume you speak for anyone but yourself. Personally, I think a lot of us understand that the definiton of an actor is someone who CHANGES and becomes different characters from role to role. We accept that as part of our suspension of disbelief. The inability to separate actor from character is pretty childish if you ask me.

538. Xai - July 13, 2007

#530 Zazzo,
If you had actually read the posts you wouldn’t be asking. And no, I won’t be pointing them out now.
I did suggest to Anthony that he shut it down and in a later post withdrew that suggestion because …
…after thinking about it I decided it wasn’t up to me to even suggest it.
… and if it was shut down, it just means that this rumor-mongering will drift into the other threads more than it already has.

This is Anthony’s site, he can do whatever he wants with it…

It’s ok that Bobby Brady was a hall-monitor, but I think it was Cindy who was the whinner.

539. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

#537
Whoa, I have no quarrel with you, Shat that hit the fan! Down deep, I hope that I love seeing Shatner pop up in this new film. I really do. I’m simply expressing the CONCERNS that I have, and in no way am I trying to speak for others, or force my opinion on them. I look at this forum as an opportunity to exhange ideas, opinions and concerns. After all, we all subscribe to IDIC, don’t we?

540. Kobayashi Maru - July 13, 2007

There is really no where else to go other than to state for the record:
I’m a huge TOS fan.
I hate the way Kirk was dispensed of in ‘Generations’
I’d like to see William Shatner take a final bow in the role that he immortalized
Regardless of the final outcome in script and negotiations,
I look forward to and anticipate seeing the new ST film.
I hope it’s a good movie.
Happy Birthday, Patrick Stewart.

541. Jake - July 13, 2007

Forget Shatner and Kirk they should bring back Ben Sisko!!!!

DS9 is better than TOS any day

I will not see this movie unless it has Sisko in it….and bring Data back from the dead too

542. VOODOO - July 13, 2007

#530 was pretty funny.

I went away for a day or so and I can’t believe this topic is still going and is still so heated.

How can tptb not see the demand for Shatner?

Bring back the Shat.

543. Leonard Nimoy (well, not reall) - July 13, 2007

So where was all this outrage for me not being cast as Paris for the Mission: Impossible movie?

544. VOODOO - July 13, 2007

543 comments about Shatner

51 about the new actor to play Spock.

Shatner has 10 times more comments than the Zachary Quinto story.

Doesn’t that say it all?

545. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2007

If you compare the ratio to body weight, I’d say it’s a dead heat!

546. Sleeper Agent X - July 13, 2007

Re 544:

Nah. StillKirok alone is responsible for 60% of those comments. ;-)

It’s a handful of people posting the same comments here, over and over. Granted, they’re quite a committed few. Or maybe the few who ought to be committed.

547. Josh T. ( Behold the power of the one true UberShatner) Kirk Esquire. - July 14, 2007

Shut down the thread??

This quasi-story and the subsequent reaction have made this website semi-RELEVENT, and now a handful want to cease the discussion because they are pissy pants about William Shatner?

I laugh heartily.

Anthony should post a story about Patrick Stewart, or Brent Spiner, or Avery Brooks, I daresay not even 500 crickets would chirp.
Oh wait, that would require they MATTER enough to even have an article about.

548. Doug L. - July 14, 2007

re 537… Shatner Fan 2000…

A real pet peeve for me is the “don’t presume you speak for anyone else” line. I’ve been on the butt end of that line several times… Seems to me Harry Ballz was pretty clearly expressing his own opinion. I agree with him. Shatner has been making a career out of lampooning himself and being Hammy. It’s fun, i enjoy it, and like him, but not so sure I can take him seriously anymore as Kirk either. Even as Kirk in Generations, it seemed a bit like a joke to him. So on that level, I’ll say Harry Ballz is speaking for me, and he can presume it.

And to be honest, from the threads, you seem to be the one having trouble separating the actor from the character…

Doug L.

549. Cervantes - July 14, 2007

This thread has taken on a life of it’s own, like some some V’ger-like entity…

Bring back Stank…I mean Bill Shatner, in all his clown-like, big girthed majesty for one last hurrah with Leonard! An aged Kirk along with the new young Kirk for me.

550. Cervantes - July 14, 2007

Just NOT in some lame time-travel storyline where they interact with each other please.

551. MichaelJohn - July 14, 2007

#546…It’s a handful of people posting the same comments here, over and over. Granted, they’re quite a committed few. Or maybe the few who ought to be committed.

Hahahaha that’s very funny!

Mike :o

552. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

#548 Doug L.
Thank you, Doug. I appreciate your positive comments of support and defence against the naysayers! I also, by the way, agree with your assessment of Shatner’s performance in Generations. Even at that point he had a “who gives a crap” twinkle in his eye!

553. Stephan - July 14, 2007

Bring back Shatner in one of these trekkie films like “World Enough and Time”,then all the trekkies will be satisfied .Problem solved.

554. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

Yeah, like Shatner’s going to work for scale! Not in this lifetime!

555. JC - July 14, 2007

Where else will you be able to undo generations with a cacamaimie storyline that only the most uncritical trekkie would love.Shatner would do it as a Thank You for all the trekkies who relauched his stale career in 1979.Promise?

556. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

You are joking and, if not, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you, real cheap!

557. JC - July 14, 2007

It’s called giving back.

558. JC - July 14, 2007

Maybe He’d do it out of LOVE.LOVE for THE FANS!!! And gratitude.If He could just look into our sad eyes…

559. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

This just in….Shatner has offered to stand nude in Times Square and sing opera if someone will give him a cheque with enough zeroes in it! Get it? Mr. Shatner is motivated ONLY by money!!! There’s NEVER been any evidence that he gives a sweet shit about the fans!

560. Kobayashi Maru - July 14, 2007

That’s a throw down Bill!
What is it gonna take for you?
Love or money?

561. MichaelJohn - July 14, 2007

Hmmmmm….I’m wondering….

If Nimoy and Shatner are still alive 15 years from now when they are in their early nineties…and they are still making TOS based Star Trek films with Kirk and Spock’s character….will all the Shatner, Nimoy and TOS worshipers still be clamoring for both of them to be in the next film?

But you know, maybe they are right. Kirk and Spock…Shatner and Nimoy truly ARE the heart and soul of Star Trek, and the franchise is probably lost and doomed without them.

If thats the case, I say keep both actors involved in every future Star Trek project period! Films, aniamated series, new TV shows- you name it.

And when they both pass away, that shouldn’t signal the end of Star Trek either. Paramount should insist that their corpses be preserved for use in future Star Trek projects. I’m sure they could still be useful, and both would come in handy for flashback scenes. In fact, with future improvements in CGI effects, they could easily be brought back to life, so to speak, and their adventures together could continue forever. Wow!

In between projects their bodies could be on display at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, near all the other Star Trek memorobilia.(Kind of like Vladamir Lenin in Red Square) That would be cool!

Of couse they would be displayed proudly wearing their dress uniforms from the TOS era. (In Shatners case, a newly made costume would have to be made to fit his post TOS figure.)

Long live Kirk and Spock!

Mike :o
(AKA..Sammy Sarcasm)

562. Greg2600 - July 14, 2007

All actors have agents, who’s job it is to get the talent the most money. Why? Because they know the studio makes millions and millions off a film, which they star in. They’re not naive. Such as Sean Connery, who demanded a ton of money lately to appear in a film, because he knew his name is what the production was marketing on. Granted he donated most of the fee to Scottish charities. Maybe they decided they couldn’t afford both Nimoy and Shatner? Because I doubt Nimoy will do this for free. Again, he’ll likely donate the money to charity, but he knows what his image and name is worth to them.

563. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

Shatner’s such a pig for money, no wonder they call him a ham! Ouch!

564. Stephan - July 14, 2007

Nimoy did do that episode of TNG (unification) to publicize his appearance in” Undiscovered Country”.Why don’t they do something clever like that with Shatner in Trek on TV to publicize the new movie(special episode).They can give Shatner what He gets to appear on Boston Legal.Newsflash guys!He’s a TV actor again!And if He doesn’t do it ,then He’s the bad guy hanging everyone out for cash.

565. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 14, 2007

Ballz … I am one of those who want to give Shatner a chance to reprise a role that millions of fans are thankful for. You do not, so … who’s the naysayer, again?

Doug L. … I have no trouble at all separating Shatner from Kirk; I don’t know where you’re getting that from. See, *I* understand that actors are by definition chameleons who should be able to change and take on new personas from role to role. I suspend my disbelief when they move onto a new project and give them the benefit of the doubt. In Shatner’s case, he’s proven in his Emmy-award winning portrayal of Denny Crane that he’s very skilled at comedy (and btw, even Crane has moments that are dramatic), and he also turned the part of James T. Kirk into one of the most iconic in pop culture history. Like a Connery as Bond situation, Shatner OWNED the role. And you better believe he could make a great Kirk again, given the right script and direction.

Now if YOU are unable to buy a ticket to a Star Trek movie, and see William Shatner onscreen in his most legendary role without thinking of Priceline, and it somehow detracts from the experience for you, then that’s a personal hang-up. Too bad for you! As witness the passion in this thread, many other people would enjoy it immensely. I once thought as you did. I would sometimes chuckle when I saw an actor I recognized trying something different. When I was a kid.

Ricardo Montalban has spoken many times about how he had to shake off his nice guy image as Mr. Rourke in the early 80’s and find his inner Khan again. He did. He rocked. And everyone forgot all about Fantasy Island once TWOK got rolling. Ha!

Bring it on, fellas. I can keep refuting you at every turn with salient points, while you devolve into cheap jokes about Shatner’s appearance. How old are you, Ballz? Judging by your handle and your comments, not very.

p.s. Even with the godawful death scene, Shatner’s performance in Genertations was still the best in that film!

566. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

In your p.s. didn’t you mean “that godawful film”?

567. Doug L. - July 14, 2007

re 565:

I’m getting it from your comments mostly. d

568. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

Yeah, Doug, you’re right! There is an EDGE to this fellow, now that you mention it. We’re the pussycats here…..

569. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 14, 2007

That all ya got, guys? Thought so. :)

570. Harry Ballz - July 14, 2007

See Doug, he’s trying to bait us, and he’s pretty good at it, too…..you could say he’s a master baiter!

571. Mark - July 14, 2007

571st!

Well, I’ve read 250 posts so far, and will get to the rest, but I have to say a few things. No matter which incarnation(s) and/or characters of Trek you prefer, there’s absolutely NO question that the core of Star Trek’s success are the Kirk and Spock characters. That cannot be denied no matter what you think of their age, the amount of money they want, whether they should or shouldn’t be in the new picture, etc.

Second, as several people have mentioned, this most likely is Shatner and Paramount’s last chance to have Kirk played by Shatner no matter what the story line is – and there are a zillion people out there that would love to see him one last time. I am one of those, and will be disappointed if he’s not in it.

Also, as far as Kirk’s death/resurrection, that is not an issue. Generations is still canon (man, I hate that word), but that is not a problem. In ST there are countless ways to bring people back. As I’ve mentioned before, the easiest, which wouldn’t even need to be explained – even to someone who has never seen an episode (so they don’t know Kirk was dead, anyway) – would be to start the movie with Kirk and Spock stepping out of The Guardian of Forever. Kirk says to Spock, “thanks, old friend,” and the movie starts from there. This is not an issue.

572. Robert April - July 14, 2007

#571 “Kirk and Spock stepping out of The Guardian of Forever…”

That is an interesting idea. I still think that the Nexus should end up being a breakaway piece from the Galactic barrier (perhaps an artificial construct related to the Guardian?) This way the first episode with Kirk (WNMHGB) ties into his last appearance in Generations.

The whole movie could then be almost entirety about the new actors with significant bookends for Nimoy and Shatner. Have this “B” storyline develop over three new movies and, Voilà! You have an important enough script so that Nimoy will sign on and a three movie deal that cinches it for $hatner as well.

-RA

“Bash your head, not my post.”

573. Mark - July 14, 2007

Oh, yeah, and I renew my request to be able to filter posters. For reasons of language and/or attitude, there are a few here I would like to not even see. I know I can skip them “manually,” but it would be a nice feature if you are keeping track.

574. Greg2600 - July 14, 2007

re 561: Again, there wouldn’t be all this hoopla if Shatner and Nimoy didn’t express interest in roles, or if Abrams and team hadn’t told both me they wanted them in the film somehow. This is not a movie about new characters, it is a recasting of TOS (or at least partially) supposedly. I feel it is only right to offer a small role for the original stars, playing themselves. Not some cheap cameo like you see so many times.

re 572: Frankly I would rather Shatner be brought back as Kirk in a way that circumvents Generations, but doesn’t just white it out. I just get the impression that they are going to follow canon, but not down to the letter of the law. Especially avoiding the Nexus, maybe the dumbest concept in Trek history. The most logical thing to do is to have the story be kind of like Back to the Future, where young Kirk and Spock and whoever must do certain things to prevent a paradox or something. And that some kind of timeline change is what resurrects Kirk. But they I guess don’t want Shatner in it, although I think their issue is probably more with not wanting to deal with resurrecting Kirk than any beef with Shatner. Then again, why not even call the guy back?

575. Jim J (575?) - July 15, 2007

As I said, I’ll go to this film whether THE SHAT and Nimoy are in it or not…but I truly feel that MOST TOS fans would relish the chance for those two to get one last chance to reprise their roles, whether a bigger or smaller part, so they can go out in style.

Nimoy NOT being included would be ok, because his exit via TUC was fine. THE SHAT definitely needs closure though. Just think how much happier we all would have been had Kirk saved the day in TNG, stayed alive, and gone back into the Nexus AS a younger Kirk (maybe just use some old footage from TOS to establish it) and HIS paradise was to be the captain of the Enterprise for good!

Ok, sounds hokey, but ya gotta admit it would be a better send off for him than falling on a ladder, laying there bleeding out of his mouth, and saying, “it was…fun.” Frankly, I can think of hundreds of conclusions that are more satisfying to me than that pile was. Thanks Berman, you enticed THE SHAT into your circle and destroyed Kirk’s dignity. If I know Bill, he regrets it…but Bill’s judgement hasn’t ALWAYS been the greatest (TFF for example).

576. Admiral_Bumblebee - July 15, 2007

Yes, Kirks death was a shame. He deserved much better. A pity he died that way. I don’t think that the TOS-fans want Kirk to be alive forever, they want to have him a death that befits him – which is clearly not falling from a bridge.
Therefore I am not sure if the decision of Paramont/Abrams is the right one. I don’t think the audience is crying for new adventures with Kirk, but for a return of Kirk to have a proper send-off.

The last Star trek movie I watched in the cinema was Firt Contact. It was a really good movie, but I had the feeling that is wasn’t a Star Trek movie… there was too much action and horror in it and it lacked the humour of the old movies. I also think that the TNG-crew is not suited for the big screen. There are too many important characters for not enough screen time to feature them the way they were featured in the TV-series. It was totally different with TOS, the only really important characters were Kirk, Spock and Bones – it worked perfectly on the big screen.
I haven’t watched Insurrection and Nemesis in the cinema as I had no interest in Star Trek anymore after Kirk died and First Contact showed me that the Trek I grew up with was gone. But when I heared that William Shatner would be in the next movie as Kirk and maybe even Nimoy as Spock I was so hot for this movie, seeing them again one last time in a grand adventure, giving them (especially Kirk) the send-off they deserved. Now my interest is gone again.

577. VOODOO - July 15, 2007

Jim J:

That’s the issue. Spock was given a good send off. If they had simply not had Kirk in Generations nobody would care one way or the other about Shatner being in this film.

Kirk’s death was so poorly done + disrespectful to TOS and it’s fans many people have had a hard time getting behind new Star Trek.

This is the one chance to fix the problem.

578. VOODOO - July 15, 2007

Admiral Bumblebee #576

There are many,many people who feel exactly the way you do.

579. Harry Ballz - July 15, 2007

Yeah, me too. I’ll give the Shat the benefit of the doubt that he can climb back into his uniform and have us believe one last time!

580. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

Fellas, fellas, fellas. The goal of this new movie isn’t to right old wrongs, and it isn’t to leave the old TOS fans with a warm and lovy feeling in the cockles of their hearts. Go with fan films if that’s what’s you want.

The goal of this film is to make Star Trek appealing to the mainstream audience again. And no, you can’t get there by giving the film a continuity-laden premise that relies on the viewer to remember 40 years of backstory. That would sink the movie from the get-go.

So this isn’t about bringing Shatner back from the Nexus. This is about taking Trek someplace new. You don’t have to like it. But you ought not to hope that things will be otherwise. Is it an injustice? Is it a crime? Regardless, the script’s done, the movie’s going forward. Further shocks to your systems are guaranteed, as nacelle caps are revealed to be the wrong color–or perhaps be absent altogether!–and costumes and bridge controls are revealed to be distinctly different from what you remember.

You have no power to change it.

581. Harry Ballz - July 15, 2007

What, not even some red bridge railings?

582. Robert April - July 15, 2007

#580 “So this isn’t about bringing Shatner back from the Nexus. This is about taking Trek someplace new. You don’t have to like it. But you ought not to hope that things will be otherwise.”

Ought not to hope?

And you have an inside scoop as to exactly what this movie will bring?
If so, you must be closely tied to this movie and, if that is true look around at all the posts on the net at people who DO wish there to be SOME correction to the generations fiasco (if even in a small back story.)

There is always hope. “There are always possibilities.”

As I recall the Generations script was completed as well-Kirk destined to die from a shot in the back. Wow, how exciting! Then an 11th hour edit was filmed to try to “fix” the ending. “The bridge is on the captain!” (or was it “Captain on the bridge?”)

Anyway, the change was due, of course, to the backlash of fans who booed the initial screening. Has filming even started yet on the new movie?

I have no problem with a new actor playing Kirk but I want there to be endless possibilities. Knowing when and where Kirk dies robs us of that a little, don’t you think?

Go ahead and give us a new start Paramount. Give us new stories and new actors. Give us great movie making and “WOW” all the critics! Satisfy old and new fans alike while making a ton of money. Secure a place in history for following generations to enjoy these characters.

And if that is ALL you are capable of (A daunting task for any creative team that’s for sure) we will understand.

But should your creativity go BEYOND our expectations and you are also able to bring back Shatner and NImoy one last time in a creative and meaningful way, I suspect you just may see us cheering in the theaters on opening day.

583. Harry Ballz - July 15, 2007

#582
Eloquent as ever, Captain April! Well said!

584. Orbitalic - July 15, 2007

#582 Robert April (and all the Generations-fixers).
I cannot speak for Sleeper, I don’t know the poster.. but I doubt they have studio connections. Nor do I.
But let me point out… again, that all this discussion, regardless of viewpoint, is based on one man’s unconfirmed announcement that “he’s not in it” . That’s an out-of-context statement from a man who regularly, ummm… doesn’t give complete facts for his own reasons. He may well be stating the absolute truth, or he might be using the fans to stir up pressure on Paramount to get his price on a part in the film. We don’t know… no one else is speaking, including Nimoy.
Several people are blaming the writers for not writing him in, JJ for allowing it, Paramount for not including him and Berman for “killing” him (Shatner knew going in and could have said no, right up until the shoot in my opinion..but anyway..). We STILL know nothing.
Until we know casting for REAL..isn’t it just an futile exercise to worry about fixing Generations? I understand your hot-button on this point, but maybe points are better made after we actually HAVE information?
I am not trying to scold people for having an opinion and saying.. “what if”. But it looks like the thread has two groups… some of those and another group that’s assuming this one source is correct and is really inflaming the rumor.
Let’s see all the cards before we assume.

585. MichaelJohn - July 15, 2007

I can’t take it anymore! Please God…end this thread!

586. Orbitalic - July 15, 2007

#585 MichaelJohn

Amen.

587. Robert April - July 15, 2007

#584 #585 #586

For the record I am of the “fix Generations if if you can” bunch.
I am also in the “we don’t assume anything camp.”

Shatner has put this all out there. Paramount and the rest have given almost no reaction. Fans of all kinds are reacting to the news. It seems that the fans on this site (well most anyway) are speaking their mind and enjoying the lively conversations (yourselves included.)

My last point goes out to all who keep calling to end this thread… if you are so done with this discussion, why do you keep “peeking” back here? Just to see if more comments have been added? (586 IS a lot that’s for sure)

Maybe it is simply because you enjoy the infinite number of diverse posts in infinite combinations?

Respectfully,
RA

P.S. I will not revisit this thread again. Ever. No, not even to see if it reaches 1000 posts. Really…honest. This thread is dead. I have the will power of a Vulcan.

You …

can’t . . .

MAKE …

me sneak a peek …

:-)

588. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

No, no inside access at Paramount. Just a healthy sense of perspective as to what’s fanboy excess and what might appeal to the mainstream audience. Given the new movie’s mission–make Trek popular and accessible to the masses again–it’s possible to make reasonable guesses as to what could and what could not be in the movie. And I agree with Anthony–J.J. ain’t going to be wasting time in his movie ‘fixing” stuff that occurred four movies ago, for a very small handful of hardcore Shatner fans.

So many of you talk about all the posts in this thread, and how significant that is! If we assume every one of the 580+ posts was by a different individual (which of course they’re not) and that they all buy a ticket for the new movie ONLY if Shatner is in the film (which isn’t true either), why then, assuming tickets all cost $10 each (that’s higher than the national average, by the way) J.J. and Paramount stand to make about $5900! Almost SIX…THOUSAND…DOLLARS!!!

Well, technically, J.J.’s and Paramount’s cut would be smaller after the theaters take their cut, but still, we’re talking FOUR DIGITS, here!!! J.J. would have to be a FOOL to pass up this kind of money! Right?

As for the “there are always possibilities” line (the most over-quoted line in Star Trek discussion boards!) that includes the possibility that J.J. can create an all new movie that’s amazing, wonderful, defies all expectations, and has a look and quality all its own, without being too beholden to the past. The fact Leonard Nimoy thinks the story is good improves the chances of exactly that, in my opinion.

Yeah, screenings after a movie’s shot can cause a studio to go for reshoots. But re-doing Kirk’s death scene is different than putting in a major sequence, like oh…bringing Kirk back to life. They needed an entire movie to bring Spock back to life, after all!

And hello, folks? Does the fact the studio and everyone involved is keeping tight lips about the script suggest anything to you? They’re not looking for fan input on how to change the movie!

If you guys want to hold out hope that Trek XI will be the singular fanboy experience you crave, I can’t stop you, even if all evidence is to the contrary.

But at least now you can’t say you weren’t warned, when the time comes!

589. boda - July 15, 2007

no shatner?

no movie success!

…i hope somebody wakes abrams up before it is too late for him, and the franchise, if this one tanks like the last two trek is really dead!

590. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

Too late to “wake up” Abrams! The “dream” has already been written, and all the yelling and shaking here won’t wake him from that pleasant vision…

591. Anthony Pascale - July 15, 2007

this thread has done all it can do and is now just slowing down the page load

but there is a new article on this whole thing to keep it up..
http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/15/bring-back-kirk-campaign-reacts-to-latest-news/

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