Bring Back Kirk Campaign Reacts To Latest News | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Bring Back Kirk Campaign Reacts To Latest News July 15, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Shatner , trackback

With all the recent news TrekMovie.com thought it would check in with the ‘Bring Back Kirk’ Campaign and see what they thought of JJ Abrams plans for bringing back Kirk (but maybe not William Shatner). The BBK campaign started in the aftermath of Star Trek Generarations in 1994 by some fans who were not happy with how the character of Kirk was uncerimonially killed off. The BBK claim over a million hits a year to their site, with growing trafic over recent months (for obvious reasons). Although they have never had any contact with Shatner or Parmount they have shown up in some documentaries as well as getting media coverage by various genre sites and mags as well as TV Guide. They may be best known for their elaborate CGI trailers trailers using audio clips from films, TV and audio books to weave together a story around Kirk’s return. Jason Turner (29, freelance web designer from the UK) spoke to TrekMovie.com on behalf of the BBK campign and gave their thoughts on the latest news. 

TrekMovie.com: What is your main objective?
Bring Back Kirk Campaign: We want to see Captain Kirk alive and well beyond the Generations timeline.  We want a happy ending for our hero.

TM: So you want a film that focuses on Shatner as Kirk?
BBK: We’re not asking for them to make Mr. Shatner the center of Trek again.  But we would like to see his inclusion in Trek XI, to let us know the character is alive and well.  It doesn’t actually have to be a part of the plot.  Kirk and Spock in a post-Generations timeline reminiscing about old times would be sufficient.  They don’t need an onscreen resurrection or detailed exposition.  A simple line of dialogue could very easily explain everything. 

TM: With regards to the new film, how do you feel about it being a return to the TOS universe and the character of James T. Kirk
BBK: Right now, mixed emotions.  We’re thrilled that Kirk is returning.  It shows that we finally got the message to bring the character back.  But we are very disappointed at the lack of inclusion of Shatner.  I think that not including him has made a lot of people upset, and probably cost the studio a good chunk of money.  Does this mean the film will flop?  We can’t say.  But I am 100 percent certain that including Shatner WILL add to the box office.

TM: How do you feel about the recasting of Kirk?
BBK: It’s both inevitable and necessary for Trek’s future.  However, it needs to be done right.  William Shatner is a legend.  It is not easy to replace a legend.  Kirk is not Bond, Batman or Superman. They need to find someone that will match the bravado and energy, and that’s not easy.  But more important, another reason to get Shatner in the movie is to add to the legitimacy of the role.  Finally, you will have Shatner passing the torch properly. 

TM: Assuming William Shatner is not in the film, but ‘Kirk is back’ do you see that as a kind of victory or will only Shatner as Kirk satisfy your objectives?
BBK: It’s a victory in that Kirk is back.  But it’s a hollow victory because the death of Kirk still will overshadow the franchise.

TM: How do you feel about Nimoy’s returning?
BBK: Normally, it would be great news.  But notice how the inclusion of Nimoy is overshadowed by the failure to include Shatner.  Nimoy accepting a role means that the script should be good.  But even a good script won’t necessarily overcome the disappointment of Kirk not being there.  To have one without the other is baffling and something we’d like to hear more about from the JJ camp. 

TM: What are you plans for the future?
BBK: We still hold out hope for Kirk’s return.  Even without Shatner, there are opportunities to canonize a return without decanonizing Generations.  We want Abrams to tell this story.  William Shatner is a legend, and wants one more shot at playing Kirk.  We believe it’s win-win and they will be rewarded at the box office with his inclusion and we’ll have our hero back and look forward to more of his earlier adventures.

You can visit the campaign at bringbackkirk.com

Here is their latest trailer

Comments

1. Stanky (XI Makes me Cranky) McFibberich - July 15, 2007

Mr. Turner makes some good points.

2. Thatguy - July 15, 2007

Its remotely possible that bring Kirk back could work IF they used all the elements at their current disposal. That along with a good reason for Kirk
to be brought back to begin with too certainly has to be otherwise those concerned might as well forget it. CGI (If used) will have to be the very best
so we know it can be done….the big question is….will it? Will enough $$ be spent to make it all right and correct the mistakes of the past (storywise) and the passage of time that all the actors face? We’ll see……

3. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

One thing that puzzles me–most of the Bring Back Kirk types express nothing but HATRED for “modern” or Berman Trek. Yet in their demands to bring back Shatner as Kirk they also demand that Generations remain canon. Why hold onto something you loathe so much? This just makes your goal–Shatner back as Kirk!–that much more difficult to obtain…

4. last o' the timelords - July 15, 2007

Well thats too funny, such sincerity.

5. Ro-Dan - July 15, 2007

Amazing trailer. It gave me goosebumps. Bring back my hero! Bring back James T Kirk!

6. chuck - July 15, 2007

May I quote William Shatner circa 1970 Saturday Night Live
“Get a Life”
I want to see a total reboot. There is plenty of classic trek out there to feed on.

7. JC - July 15, 2007

Corney.But there’s a small vocal group of motivated trekkies who want it.Maybe they can do a TV movie to prime interest in the new film where(Nimoy as ) Spock goes into a nexus type thing and meets historical figures such as(Shatner as) Kirk,Plato,George Washington etc.Just an idea to wrap up that Generations mess a little

8. omf - July 15, 2007

Regardless of whether or not “bringing back Kirk” is a good idea, what does it have to do with the new Trek movie? Assuming a linear timeline, isn’t it going to be situated prior to the death in Generations?

9. Reagan - July 15, 2007

Why don’t they use the timeline proposed in Shatners post generations book for the storylines. The books provide a pretty good hypothesis as to how Kirk could be resurrected. I think the Shatner books would have made for better sequels to First Contact as opposed to the other two “films”.

10. omf - July 15, 2007

Oh, and how can people be upset that Nimoy is playing some role in the new movie? For all we know he’s going to be an off-stage consultant, or the voice of the computer, or a Vulcan extra eating a sandwich at a deli or something…

11. JC - July 15, 2007

How did You know the whole movie is taking place in a deli?

12. Buckaroohawk - July 15, 2007

Oy. 13 years of “bring back Kirk.” Talk about beating a dead sehlat.

13. New Horizon - July 15, 2007

They loathe Bermaga, yet propose every tried and true contrivance to bring Kirk back? I just can’t believe this nonsense.

Kirk shouldn’t have died in Generations, but lets just move on already.

My father passed away last year, but I don’t expect to pull him back out of some damned Nexus. The character of Kirk died…humans die. Why can’t they just let it go already?

14. Orbitalic - July 15, 2007

Give them their due… they have their opinion.

15. Xai - July 15, 2007

Stanky..

Good to see you back, ol’ bud.

16. Harbinger - July 15, 2007

Bring back Kirk…..

17. VOODOO - July 15, 2007

BRING BACK KIRK!!!

BRING BACK SHATNER!!!

GIVE THIS LEGENDARY CHARACTER THE ENDING HE DESERVES!!!

18. VOODOO - July 15, 2007

That trailer alone was better than the last bunch of films and tv programs.

The trailer is what people want to see.

19. CmdrR. - July 15, 2007

This trailer is perfect proof that Paramount needs to keep a tight reign on its intellectual property rights. The goal, obviously, was to prove that the makers of this trailer could find a way to Bring Back Kirk. Got it. But, look how long it took for the whole thing to deteriorate into a badly sampled mish-mosh of stolen ideas and stuff blowing up.
Trek needs more than Kirk. It needs fresh ideas.
If you want to make FanFilms, great. Some are OK. Many are pretty awful. Please, don’t ask the owners of the Trek franchise to run in the same small circles. Trek is all about ideas and the future. We’ve had 15 years of repeats masquerading as new product. It’s time to Boldly Go Where We Haven’t Been So Many Times Before…

20. Stanky (XI Makes me Cranky) McFibberich - July 15, 2007

15. Xai
The reports of my death were mildly exaggerated.

21. Jim J - July 15, 2007

So, I figure in REALITY this is about post # 612 or so. Shatner deserves a final sendoff…don’t make it the main part of the movie or even have him in much of it at all, but make it a nice fringe benefit that comes with this movie, giving die hard TOS/Shatner/Kirk fans a warm fuzzy they can keep forever.

22. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2007

Where’d they get Nimoy’s and Shat’s voice-overs?

I don’t recognise some of their lines.

23. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

Re 18 –

Sorry, Voodoo. But that trailer ties with “These are the Voyage” in terms of the makes-me-want-to-gouge-my-eyes-out factor.

Re 19-

Absolutely correct. I couldn’t agree more about Trek needing new ideas.

Re 21 –

That “fringe benefit” you speak of will get in the way of whatever the real storyline will be, and will sabotage the film. No go.

24. Jim J (Yes, we should boldly go) - July 15, 2007

#23-It doesn’t HAVE to, if written the right way and well. That was my point. Frankly, I want the new things many of you speak of. It is time to move on…what better way than giving “SHAT version Kirk” the proper send-off and then letting “new young Kirk” & Co. take us to new places. There are always possibilities…with good writers!

25. Sleeper Agent X - July 15, 2007

Re 24 —

I dunno. I haven’t heard anybody suggest anything like a GOOD way of doing it. They all involve maximum fanwankery like jumping out of the Guardian of Forever as it slingshots around the sun, using the Doomsday Machine as a booster rocket and phallic symbol…

That’s NOT the way to bring in the new crowd. Why would any of them be interested in stuff like that? Especially the whole phallic symbol thing?

26. Robert Bernardo - July 15, 2007

I agree 100% with what Jason Turner has said.

27. Robert April - July 15, 2007

#3 “most of the Bring Back Kirk types express nothing but HATRED for “modern” or Berman Trek. ”

Where do you get this impression? From the vociferous fans who have expressed those sentiments here at TrekMovie.com?

Most BBK fans that I talk to are more likely to enjoy ALL of the Trek shows. It is just that we really do like Kirk.

Shatner’s Kirk.

I am sure that a new actor, if he is good, will be accepted as Kirk by most BBKers provided the director also does his job well.

I am a die hard Kirk fan and a huge “Shatner as Kirk” fan as well but that is not to say I am a “no one else BUT Shatner” advocate. In fact I have thought that if Matt Damon WAS ever cast that he could be great in the role-if he was the same Matt Damon who was in “Good Will Hunting,” not the guy who showed up for “The Brother’s Grimm.”

This movie does indeed need a new direction and I am sure it will have it. But must a “new direction” preclude Shatner, arguably at the hight of his career, in the role he made famous? (Not a call that I would want to make if I was on the production team I might add.)

However this I do know. To have Nimoy without Shatner is like having peanut butter without jelly, cookies without milk. America without baseball…

…Spock without Kirk.

28. The Lensman - July 15, 2007

Okay, enough with the “proper send off” BS. Both Kirk *and* Shatner got a proper send off in Star Trek 6. If you don’t like “Generations” then just ignore it….I do. Is it really outside of your ability to do this? I can’t stand the TNG movies, they all suck and as far as I’m concerned, they didn’t happen. I mean really, how hard is it to do that? Not hard at all.

The original Trek is my favorite, but I’m long past giving any kind of damn as to whether or not any of the original actors are in this. Shatner is not gonna make this movie a sucess…Shatner has become a bad parody that’s always “on” and this movie doesn’t need some Diva ruining the show.

29. Thomas - July 15, 2007

I can understand why BBK people would want to see Kirk brought back; I remember being eleven or twelve years old and seeing the movie (I wasn’t even a Trek fan then) and thinking he would have gotten a better send-off than he did. That being said, even if Shatner appears in the movie, I’m not hedging my bets on the new movie “undoing” or “fixing” Generations. My bet is that any scenes featuring Shatner and Nimoy will probably be set at a vague point in time that could easily be either pre-Generations or post-resurrection. If the movie is meant to bring in new fans as well as satisfy old ones, I would bet on the former as new fans would likely be confused by any reference (even fleeting) to a resurrection or why one was necessary.

30. New Horizon - July 15, 2007

>That trailer alone was better than the last bunch of films and tv programs.

It was a bunch of fan boy, wankerish, amateurish, garbage. Kaboom, kaboom…’fire’…blam blam.

That’s not the basis of the Star Trek I grew up on…it was about exploring new worlds, new ideas…not this constant rehash of good guy vs. bad guy…and can we top the last space battle.

>The trailer is what people want to see.

Not this person. I want to see Trek grounded again, slightly more in reality, no more of these silly resurrections. I want Star Trek to be taken seriously again, and for it to show some reservation and dignity.

31. Greg2600 - July 15, 2007

19 – I agree as well, and having Shatner and Nimoy in a movie of new ideas is my ideal outcome.

22 – They probably use lines spoken in Trek audio CDs of Pocketbooks original novels. Or perhaps other media by those actors.

As Turner said, a simple line of dialogue and having Shatner/Nimoy (Kirk/Spock) reminiscing would satisfy a lot of people. I myself am not a fan of remakes, because I feel they often disgrace or belittle the original. Reboots I think are even worse. But this sounds like it is a new story, which fits into a place in Trek where the story has not been told. James T. Kirk was heavily backstoried in TOS, but we never got to see any of it. For that, I am intrigued, as well because J.J. Abrams is a great film maker.

The BBK movement has never been a demand to Paramount, but a heartfelt plea, because we love Star Trek, Captain Kirk, and William Shatner. And if Shatner wasn’t as interested honestly we wouldn’t be either. I hate to lay this baggage on JJ Abrams, in fact I don’t want to. I’ve have advocated for years that Paramount should have done a TV Movie with Shatner, Nimoy, other TOS cast members, as a true 40th anniversary special. J.J. seemed to make overtures to both Bill and Leonard, and if they stiffed Shatner without telling him, that is unfair.

32. sean - July 15, 2007

After watching that trailer, I have to ask, why exactly after pulling Kirk out of the Nexus was it necessary to find Picard, Sisko, Janeway & Archer and go after the Suliban? Did that tie into ‘the plot’ somehow? And why include Chakotay if you aren’t going to kill him? Talk about something the fans want to see…

This trailer is ridiculous. It’s the same nonesense you see from ‘fans’ all the time – some overblown war scenario that brings everyone together for basically no reason other than the sake of doing it. The war thing was done on DS9 and it was done masterfully. It seems as though these people just want to blow a lot of crap up onscreen for the sake of Kirk being the one pushing the button.

It’s not like Kirk isn’t missed, but good lord. This is so OTT it nearly caused my head to cave in.

33. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 15, 2007

New Horizon sounds like you want more of the Berman Era. Grounded, more reality, no good guys or bad guys. Sounds rather bland. I’d take a dozen Shatner renditions of EPlebnista over endless banal scenes of Picard and his exciting band of adventurers droning on around the conference table about diplomacy and technobabel while sipping their tea on their comfey pink easychairs and of course making sure to get the ships theoropist’s opinions about battle strategies. Star Trek was taken most seriously when it didn’t take itself so seriously. Tribbles, Khan, Evil Klingons, Dropkicks, Melodrama, Adventure and romance. And if Shatner can be in it in some capacity I believe most of us would be quite happy.

34. Robert April - July 15, 2007

#34 Gotta love those drop kicks!

35. Robert April - July 15, 2007

Maybe a little perspective is in order.

TOS was corny but we were young (so was televised science fiction) and didn’t know any better. What the shows lacked in special FX we made up for with our imaginations. (Thank God it was better than Lost In Space in that regard.)

Then TOS hit the big screen and we all went to TMP and thought “Cool FX on the ships but why did they do that to Kirk? Why did they make him out to be an idiot in regard to running his ship?”

Then TWOK goes and hits a home run. Suddenly Kirk goes from being worshiped by legions of nerdy adolescents to becoming a mainstream cinematic hero to millions of moviegoers.

Star Trek IV saw the most widespread audience yet and the elevation of Shatner (as Kirk) to the status of pop culture icon. It wasn’t Kirk who became the icon-it was Shatner AS Kirk!

Even Star Trek V had it’s moments. The camping scene at the end was very well done and served to cement the idea of the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

For those born after 1986 there may be no real connection to Shatner as Kirk. But to anyone who lived through those times Shatner is practically inseparable from Kirk.

Come on JJ, throw us old space dogs a bone.

36. toddk - July 16, 2007

Maybe you guy’s werent listening to spiner when he explained why he probably shouldnt portray data any more, maybe you havent seen how old shatner is these days, Everyone should try to let go of the”bring back shatner” thing., I imagine spock , some 20 years after the episode ” Unification” recording his memoirs and the theater audience seeing flashbacks of his first adventures with kirk almost a hundred years earlier.

I don’t actually think there would be a “Logical” way to have kirk and spock talking about the old days since both actors look older than their respective appearances in generations and Unification. I don’t think that anyone was seriously thinking about really having shatner in the film. I think that is why shatner isnt acting bitter and is just accepting it. After all Nimoy and Shatner are good friends and nothing would or could change that. How about this though, The new movie opens with Spock (On Vulcan) taking his place as a vulcan elder opposite his appearance in the first motion picture, after the ceremony, Spock is approached by the vulcan that spock has stated that he has not reached Kolinar (or however it’s spelled) and spock then relates to the young vulcan a story to where spock took his first steps towards Kolinar and sock relates how his half human emotions nearly cost him the life of his captain on their first mission.

What do you all think? Possible?. If I’m right, This is why Nimoy decided to accept the role of spock for the very last time. I await your opinions….

37. toddk - July 16, 2007

yeah I spelled spock as “sock” oh well here come all the sock jokes:)

38. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Those people born in 1986 are now 21 and can drink legally! They’re exactly the sort of audience the new movie needs to capture.

So throwing the old dogs a bone is a bad idea if it confuses or puts off the young dogs. I’d rather J.J. puts all his time and effort in making sure the execution on his storyline is as perfect as he can make it, as opposed to slapping on some extra “bonus feature” that will feel that way as well–like something that was tacked on at the last minute.

39. Thatguy - July 16, 2007

Socko: The Clintons cat while in the white house.
Socko: The sock that the crazy bucked toothed WWE wrestler Mick Foley used
over his hand as one of his many foolish gimmicks.

40. Al - July 16, 2007

Fascinating that Nimoy’s delivery of Spock is so monotone that it can be sampled and patched so well

41. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - July 16, 2007

I actually thought the way Kirk died was perfectly suitable… he sacrificed himself for the good of future generations. Nothing dishonorable or “unceremonious” about it. The fact is, hero, villain, redshirt, or janitor — we all die, there’s no “happy end” to it.

You want to talk about stupid deaths, how about killing Spock off only to resurrect him one movie later, exactly as the person he was, based on the flimsy plot device of the Genesis planet…. Why not trot out Midichlorians to explain it already.

42. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Well, if we are throwing out what our guesses are as to what the new movie might be, I’ll throw my hunches out there:

First, I seriously doubt this film will showcase original series uniforms and set designs. That’s just not going to fly with the new crowd this audience hopes to attract.

Second, I think the biggest hint we’ve gotten about what the new movie will be about comes from Orci and Kurtzman, when they say the new audience will be seeing one film, but the old fans will be seeing another one entirely.

Because of this, I wonder if we won’t be seeing some alternate universe (no, not the mirror universe!) version of TOS.

From Abrams and Paramount’s standpoint, this does a lot for them. You can update the uniforms, set designs, etc. without breaking with “canon”–because you’re sidestepping canon in a parallel universe. Furthermore, you don’t have to worry so much about continuity violations, because you’re in a parallel universe! If the new movie is a hit and sequels are demanded, you can take the characters anywhere, and have them do anything, without worrying that Kirk can’t do something or other because he has to be fighting the Gorn right now.

For those of you who read comics, this approach is like the “Ultimates” line in Marvel comics. There’s the regular Marvel universe, but then there’s a whole separate “Ultimate” line out there, where Peter Parker is still a kid, Gwen Stacy was alive again for a while, etc.

So the regular audience will just think they’re getting the first adventure of Kirk and Spock–but the older fans will realize we’re seeing an alternate timeline.

The fact Nimoy is appearing in the movie and Shatner was at least considered makes me wonder if the story of this film is related to fracturing of timelines and universes, allowing young alternate universe Kirk and Spock to meet with the Kirk and Spock we know…or maybe not! If Shatner has to be in the new picture, then young Kirk could meet an older Kirk from yet another universe where he didn’t die falling off a bridge, allowing for the older Shatner to make an appearance without having to go through all that CGI stuff.

Whew! Get all that? I think there’s at least a 40% chance that’s what’s going to be in the movie.

One last thing–here’s what I hope is NOT in the movie. Orci and Kurtzman have written two big movies now, Mission Impossible III and Transformers. In both movies, the plot has revolved around Get Your Hands On the Gadget–the Rabbit’s Foot in MI:III and the All-Spark in Transformers. I really, really, hope the new Star Trek movie isn’t about getting the MacGuffin–especially as we never found out what the Rabbit’s Foot did and the All-Spark didn’t do much besides melt Megatron’s chest.

43. trektacular - July 16, 2007

Trying to recast Shatner is a horrible idea, I can’t think of anything to compare it to, besides maybe Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, but even that is a stretch.
Simple fact is you can’t replace Shatner as Kirk, without the recast actor falling flat on his face!

44. trektacular - July 16, 2007

I’m talking of the remake portion of Trek 2008 of course

45. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

#3. I would like you to find an example of hatred for Berman Trek from the BBK Campaign itself.

If not, please withdraw that accusation. It’s simply not true. From what I’ve seen, BBK has ALWAYS wanted to work within the Modern Trek world.

Yes, there is plenty of hate for Berman’s Trek, but it never came from the Bring Back Kirk campaign.

#12 & #13, The reason the campaign has gone on for so long is because they never fixed the problem. It’s not small but vocal. It’s a pretty significant group of people whether you choose to accept it or not. I pointed out in the other thread that even if 10 percent of the die-hard fans are turned off by Shatner’s absence in the film, they cost themselves a significant amount of money.

#28, I doubt the BBK campaign would exist if ST6 was the proper sendoff. That proper sendoff was ruined by Generations. Pretending something doesn’t exist does not change that it does.

#32–I love that trailer. I see it as two stories in one. The first part is the return of Kirk, and the next part is shortly after when the Federation is attacked, and has to defend itself. I thought it tied in the Trek universe pretty well, considering they really didn’t have actors doing voices for them.

46. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 45 –

Seeing how you’re the biggest modern Trek hater there is, I’m just gonna laugh, StillKirok.

But if you admit you and Voodoo are the same poster, I might consider it!

47. snake - July 16, 2007

Guess they should have called their site Bring Back Shatner..

re *43*

In fact WHY did they stop TOS movies at VI?? They did it cause they were all too old right? well in 1994 Shatner and Nimoy were only 63 – younger than Ford is now playing Indy…VI was a big success and was critically well recieved – maybe they should have done another….

They could have done a 7th proper final original crew movie for 1993 or 1994 with Meyer or Nimoy directing (or even Shatner)…Which would have then given Berman and TNG cast and crew the time to come up with a decent TNG movie (without TOS crew in it) for say 1996 (their 1st film was rushed into production which is why it has those massive plot holes – they didnt have time to sort out a decent story)

Oh well.

48. Hon. David Kulessa - July 16, 2007

That ‘trailer’ is mildly ridiculous; well done, but still ridiculous. If Cassidy couldn’t convince Sisko to come out of the wormhole, how the hell does Picard and Kirk (or whoever it was) convince him within two lines?!

And bringing the Constitution out to fight this new enemy is stupid. And Archer. Archer is useless. Leave him at home.

-TGP-

49. Hon. David Kulessa - July 16, 2007

#47 – “well in 1994 Shatner and Nimoy were only 63 – younger than Ford is now playing Indy”

That implies that bringing Ford back to play Indy is a good idea.
-TGP-

50. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

I’d just like to point out Shatner and the gang weren’t anywhere near as fit in the 90’s as Ford presumably is today. This is more than about age as a number, it’s about do you look credible punching some Nazi or alien goon’s (hopefully not one of Bermaga’s alien Nazi goons!) lights out.

Though I agree with 49–bringing Indy back has yet to be shown to be a good idea.

51. Sean4000 - July 16, 2007

#9 You said it! I love those books. The Return should have been first contact!

52. Dom - July 16, 2007

Even if there is no appearance by Shatner in the new film, does anyone not think they’ll chuck in a little hint at the end that Kirk is still alive? C’mon, they know it’s a big deal to a lot of us. They’re just trying to avoid spoiling the ending!! ;)

53. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

Are you kidding? Shatner is more fit today than many people half his age, who have trouble keeping up with his energy.

And you don’t need Shatner to do the double fisted punch and flying drop kick, while nailing the 20 something alien. That can be a job for the younger Kirk.

#52, I wish.

54. Admiral_Bumblebee - July 16, 2007

@all Shatner-Haters: Saying Shatner is too old or too fat is disrespectful and I hope that you are not implying that old people in general are “useless”…

55. Diabolik - July 16, 2007

Don’t make him die twice, let him rest.

56. Ro-Dan - July 16, 2007

54.

Well said. We should all respect and revere our elders.

57. Stanky (XI Makes me Cranky) McFibberich - July 16, 2007

re: 38. Sleeper Agent X – July 16, 2007
“Those people born in 1986 are now 21 and can drink legally! They’re exactly the sort of audience the new movie needs to capture.”

Yes, bring on the young drunkards with their Saurian Brandy and Romulan Ale. It is THEY who will save Star Trek for future generations.

58. Lou - July 16, 2007

Interesting that they gave everything away…

59. Wil Tippon - July 16, 2007

Because Rick Berman Sucks!!!!!!!!

60. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re – 57

“And the Drunkards Shall Lead”

Welcome back, Stank!

61. Shadow6283 - July 16, 2007

#35-

I, too am an old timer. That being said, I never cared for any of the newer shows, never will, AND, unlike you, am not a dog to be thrown a bone by anyone in the name of anything. Speak for yourself. They can do whatever TPTB allow them to do, and I retain the common sense option of avoiding it or otherwise once I see what the final product is.

I saw through all of that BS from the start. Anyone who’s ever dealt with Biz types knows you’d better beware when they go outta their way to talk, and tell you not to worry. You think Shatner was the worst? You just watch and see. That new movie’s gonna be a reboot, just like I said, and most of what’s occurred in the Trek Timeline [for you Canonistas] will be lucky to escape unscathed, let alone intact. What else would he do, despite the Hollywood Kidz lying otherwise? He has no choice BUT to start over if the thing’s gonna fly with new audiences. Get used to it.

Ah, K&O. Notice HOW QUIET they are ever since the Shatner story broke? Interesting, isn’t it? Gee, for guys so readily accessible before, golly, what happened? Think you’re outraged now, just sit back and wait. It’ll get even worse. Despite their lies, that movie’s not being targeted to diehard fans, but to general audiences who could care less about 40 years of “biblical gospel.” Live with it.

BBK. I know a lot of the folks involved in that from back in the day, and I always respected their heartfelt goals. However, the time’s come for them to put it in drydock. Kirk post-Generations ain’t coming back. Period. It’s over, guys. You fought the good fight, but it’s over. Once more, let’s look to the future, by embracing the past’s lessons.

62. tralabela - July 16, 2007

PS:
I want Spock and Picard talking about Kirks past as somekind of introduction.

By the way, Bill Shatner sucks so much today, I don’t even want to see him on conventions. Kirk may be a legend, but Shatner as an artist never grew out of this role. It would be embarrassing and laughable, seeing him in a Star Trek Movie again.

63. Stanky (XI Makes me Cranky) McFibberich - July 16, 2007

I wish Nimoy, too, would stay out of it.
Let the producers cater to their young drunkard audience with their Fake Trek.

That whole narration thing is a bad idea. If Shatner and Nimoy are too old and they are going to have some other fake people faking their parts, then go with that. Let it sink or swim on its own. I don’t know that a narration is even what they are going to do, but don’t waste time by padding the movie with that just to get Shatner and/or Nimoy’s name on it.

A Star Trek adventure should start out with the Enterprise on patrol. Something happens, then we see the opening credits, followed by the Captain’s Log and then on with the story. Yes, like the TV series. That is a big part of what Star Trek is. The show format.

That’s one thing I didn’t like about the movies. They did not retain that TV format. Who cares how so-and-so got to be where and about refits and all that? On with it.

Oh, and for the young drunkards, could we have as many shaky hand-held cameras and as much dark lighting and mumbling as possible? ;|

64. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

#62, are you serious, or are you like 10 years old? Shatner has had several successful roles, including as Denny Crane right now!

I guess 50 years in the business and multiple Emmys isn’t growing out the role.

HA!

But even if he didn’t grow out of the role, this is the role we all want!

65. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

RE 64:

“we all want!”

StillKirok, just because you post here under various names doesn’t mean you can speak for yourself using the plural form! ;-)

Cut it out, boy! Learn to speak for yourself, instead of constantly invoking fictitious multitudes!

66. MichaelJohn - July 16, 2007

I’m quite upset and surprised that the BBK campaign has not gotten the press and media exposure it obviously deserves.

Why isn’t this important and most newsworthy cause being covered by the major media outlets? Are the editors of our major newspapers and TV networks deliberately ignoring this story, or are they all conspriring together to squash this very vocal and passionate group of Trek/Shatner fans?

I don’t consider myself a paronoid person, but I can’t help but feel this conspiracy extends far beyond the media, and maybe all the way up to the Bush administration.

As the “true fans of Trek,” we all have an obligation, a duty and a sacred mission to work together to bring back our saint and hero- no matter how long our struggle takes!

It won’t be easy..and the sacrifices witll be great…but in the end I know we can succeed!

This is a call to arms “Knights of Shatner”! I implore you…I beg you.. I demand that you join me on this nobel quest!

Kirk must return!…Kirk must rise from the dead!..Kirk must save the universe!…Shatner is God! Amen!

Mike :o

67. sean - July 16, 2007

#45

Sorry, but to me that trailer stands as definitive proof that writers should NEVER cave in to fans. The premise is silly and forced. Shatner’s ‘Return’ novels might be fun reads for hardcore fans but would likely not translate well to the screen. They’re so full of wink-wink, nudge-nudge moments that any casual fan would be totally lost.

If it was just a silly fan film for the sake of a lark, I wouldn’t come down hard on it at all. It obviously took a lot of work to put that together. The problem is this is supposed to be a serious attempt to convince someone, somewhere, that bringing back Kirk is the right thing to do. I don’t think it does that at all. It just seems like the premise for a videogame I wouldn’t want to play.

68. Joseph Brown - July 16, 2007

I’m a fan of all the Trek series and I support bringing Kirk back Post-Generations. Generations was, in my opinion, the worst TNG movie. It wasn’t The Final Frontier bad, but it was bad enough. However, I think decanonising it just to bring Kirk back would be a disaster because it would decanonise the other TNG movies and parts of DS9 from the fourth season on. That’s why the best way to bring Kirk back is probably what Mr. Turner suggested. It would also be nice to have the first three “Shatnerverse” novels reworked and revised into a trilogy of animated movies which would fit canon and continuity to explain how Kirk came back. I have no problem with Trek moving forward, but Kirk deserves a better send off than Generations gave him.

69. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 66 –

Sniff…That was moving, MichaelJohn! I’m ready to answer the call!

70. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

I just hope I’m not in the tub when the call comes… :)

71. non-fanatic - July 16, 2007

Wouldn’t it be nice to just turn up to watch the film — or wait for it to come on tele if you’re like me — not knowing what the plot is, who’s in it, who’s not in it, when it is set Etc. Wouldn’t that be more exciting?

72. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 16, 2007

Sleeper Agent X – Actually as one of the younger (29) fans here I have to disagree with a point you made earlier. About scewing to a younger audience. Shatner is in fact as hip as ever with that target audience. Mostly because of Denny Crane I suppose, but many of my non geek friends can’t shut up about how funny Denny Crane is and routinely say Denny Crane to one another as a hip way of saying F- off.. Don’t know how old you are or who you roll with but Shatner is as hot as ever as a pop icon, not just goofs who collect action figures

73. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

#67–you are missing the point of the trailer. It’s not a scripted movie. It just shows how exciting a movie like that could be. And given the general reaction has been unbelievably positive, (just see the YouTube comments and rating), it shows a market for Shatner as Kirk still exists.

Hell, look at the past week and all the comments. Anthony had to CLOSE the topic and this one is picking up where it left off.

People will pay to see Shatner as Kirk.

And at no point does anyone involved with the BBK Campaign suggest Generations be de-canonized. While that WOULD have the effect of bringing the character back, it would also hurt all the Trek that came after, which is clearly not the objective.

Let the character have a future. Without that, the movie will suffer because it is soured knowing how Kirk dies.

74. Shadow6283 - July 16, 2007

I’m amazed they still don’t get “it.”

You need a billboard, or a full-page ad in Variety to spell it out for you?

You ain’t seen outrage yet, but you will. :P

75. Pat - July 16, 2007

My favorite part—

“It doesn’t actually have to be part of the plot”

!

76. Pat - July 16, 2007

My favorite part—

“It doesn’t actually have to be part of the plot”

!

77. Shadow6283 - July 16, 2007

#67-

Essentially correct. Novels aside, the only way Kirk’s gonna rise from the dead’s in fanfilm, because it ain’t gonna happen on the big screen, folks. Hell, as much as he’s worth, he could bankroll the whole thing himself and turn it into a major event, bigger than anything out there, and it’d sell like crazy. Why not? That way, well, you get it. I hope, that is.

As for that BBK trailer, nice job, but outside of a handful of true believers, it ain’t even gonna remotely convince anyone about you know what. Hang it up, guys. Come on…

As I said, Nimoy in, Shatner in. Shatner out, Nimoy out. I don’t need either [esp. Nimoy] involved in any capacity, but if JJ’s gonna play havoc here, he might as well throw in Shatner for some fun. But, it ain’t my movie, nor anyone else’s, and that’s that.

78. Rainbucket - July 16, 2007

Kirk had a perfectly good death in Generations — at the 10 minute mark. Went out saving the Enterprise after seeing it could never be his ship again.

They should have just left him at that.

The BBK trailer is technically impressive, and fun to watch, but as a movie? Um… how many millions would you spend for all that

zzzzap…Boom!
zzzzzap…Boom!
pew pew pew….Boom!
(repeat ad infinitum)

I think even Michael Bay would turn up his nose.

79. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 72 –

Well, not to be rude, but at 29, you’re not THAT young, either!

If anything, Shatner’s being known for Denny Crane would argue AGAINST him being in the movie. This new audience the movie’s supposed to bring in wouldn’t see heroic Kirk…but flippant, wisecracking, Denny Crane!

But even if that wasn’t the case, this new movie can’t be about bringing The Shat back from the Nexus. Even if Shatner is beloved, that’s not going to save the movie if the new audience has to sit through a BBK from the Nexus intro that they won’t really get or care about.

80. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - July 16, 2007

Sleeper Agent X- Dude what’s with the tone. Someone can’t disagree with you?? The point is Shatner is popular with the target audience. No need to get bent out of shape.

81. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

What tone? I said I wasn’t trying to be rude!

82. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

Denny Crane only shows Shatner’s versatility as an actor and the fact that he’s an icon that can still go. To say he can’t be Kirk because he’s Crane is ridiculous.

As for what the audience can sit through, THE RETURN was one of the bestselling Trek fiction books of all time. People were paying $25 a pop, and it made the NY Times Bestseller list.

Kirk returning=money.

83. Jeff Weimer - July 16, 2007

Wow, lots of emotion here.

They brought back Spock, and did it well. But Kirk wasn’t given such an easy out to resurrection. I say leave it, and I love Kirk! The mistake was made, and I’m ready to see something new. I just wish it wasn’t a “prequel” like the often terrible Enterprise was. Let’s have an all new crew! It worked for NG. Make it later, like NG. That way there doesn’t have to be all this reconciliation with what we *know* should be the future. Good God, make another NG movie, I know it seemed to fall into an abyss, but it COULD be revived with the right story.

My 2c.

84. StillKirok - July 16, 2007

Actually, Kirk was given an EASIER out with that stupid nexus. Plus, there is proof that Kirk’s return can be done and done well with THE RETURN.

A new crew would be a disaster bigger than Nemesis. They are doing the right thing by going to Kirk.

And it’s not really a prequel. It’s a story set during the era of the original series.

More like a pilot.

85. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 82 –

Do you know how many tickets need to be sold in order to make a movie a hit? Especially one that costs in the $100 million range?

And do you know how many books you need to sell to be on the New York Times bestseller list?

There’s quite a difference in magnitude between the two.

Anyway, the audience that bought The Return is NOT the audience this new movie is after. This new movie needs to appeal to people who may have never seen Generations!

86. Zazzo - July 16, 2007

I want Shatner back as Kirk.

87. Shadow6283 - July 16, 2007

#83

They’re in that abyss for a reason, and that’s where they’re gonna stay.

88. CmdrR. - July 16, 2007

I just read an article talking about how good “Hidden Frontier” is.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/150707_02.shtml

I have to say, I watched a few episodes and had a very split reaction. On the one hand, it’s GREAT to see fans care so much and show such enthusiasm. On the other, it’s horrifying to see Trek done on such a low level production-wise. (Virtual sets, lifeless dialogue, 300 lbs. actors playing Starfleet’s finest.) Isn’t it great that there ARE fan films. (Even ones that bring Kirk back — see, there is a point to this entry.)

But folks, if that’s as good as it gets, then Trek is dead. Please, spare us from big budget films about the two-captains or five-captains somehow coming together. That puts Trek on a level with ‘Freddie v. Jason’ or ‘King Kong v. Godzilla.’ We need to be more ambitious. Paramount knows what it’s got; we have to believe that. I agree Trek was misused in the last two movies and also missed the mark frequently during the run of Enterprise. But, it’s not going to enjoy a rebirth if our best goal is to rehash 40 years of canon (aka dogma.)

Leave the fanboy ideas for the fan films and books. Let’s get behind JJ and hope XI is a NEW adventure (including a new Kirk; although bookended narration from Shat with NO explanation of how he came back from the dead would be sweet.)

Hmm.. I wonder if anyone out there has a contrasting opinion?

89. Xai (still waiting for confirmation) - July 16, 2007

#61 Shadow

I have asked before… why all the doom and gloom? If you are “in the know”.. clue us in instead of this “it’s my way or there will be hell to pay” attitude.
And if you don’t know… maybe lighten up a little? You can still play the “I told ya so” game with us if you are right.
I’m not against Shatner coming back, I just don’t think it’s needed … especially if it’s not to move along a good story. I want a good story that doesn’t depend on a movie from 15 years ago.

90. John N - July 16, 2007

Arguing that a Shatner-less Trek will hurt them in the bank sounds an awful lot like the screaming about putting flames on Optimus Prime… and we all know how badly Transformers has bombed at the box office. ;)

I’d like all of the “Brink Back Shatner” enthusiasts to specify right here and now what THEIR HONEST definition of a financially successful 2008 Trek movie would be. The target gross should be accompanied with an explanation of how the number was determined so that people can evaluate the legitimacy of the estimate. I’d like Anthony to post it permanently on this site, and then let’s check 3 months after the film has been released to see how the movie has fared.

If Shatner IS in the film, and the criteria is not reached, what will you blame then? Certainly not the quality of the film or script, because in these threads you’ve clearly demonstrating that those qualities are secondary to Shatner appearing in the film. What do I base this on? Postings too numerous to recount offering a ‘wink and a nudge solution’, summed up nicely by Mr. Turner: “It doesn’t actually have to be a part of the plot. ”

If Shatner is NOT in the film, but the film meets your criteria for success, will people finally put this issue to rest?

91. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

RE 88 —

“I wonder if anyone out there has a contrasting opinion?”

I doubt it. Not many Shatner or continuity fans on this website.

92. Anthony Pascale - July 16, 2007

everything is a cost benefit analysis. I am sure that Shatner’s inclusion would have gross revenue effect, but he also increases the cost. But more to the point Shatner has certain demands which may have another cost on the script and the story they want to tell. Who is to say that if such demands are met it would result in a better film. It may simply be that there is no way to make all parties happy.

so yes Shatner = money, but he also = cost (in both money and time)

As I have said I would be happy if they can work that all out, but if not then I trust the film makers made a good faith effort to try. The film makers love Shatner and love TOS and went out of their way to reach out to both Shatner and Nimoy. If it doesnt work out, then we can only assume that all the Hollywood stars did not align, but you can be sure that JJ Abrams and Paramount Pictures are not ‘leaving money on the table’. If there was guaranteed profit then they would take it

93. MichaelJohn - July 16, 2007

I totally agree…the movie has to appeal to both Trek fans and non trek fans to be successful. Hopefully these new Trek fans will enable the franchise to grow, and that will open up the possibilty of a new TV series and future movies. That would be great!

It’s still my opinion, especially after visiting this site for the past eight months or so, that the continuing success and longevity of Trek, is due primarily to it’s appeal to mainstream audiences and casual Trek fans. It’s NOT due to the minority of Star Trek “Geek Fan-atics” that continuously argue over “canon” and worship Trek like a religion.

I know the die hard fans “think” they speak for all Trek fandom, but that’s just a delusion. The next movie will succeed or fail not because of the inclusion or exclusion of Shatner and Nimoy, but on it’s own merits as a good or lousy film.

God please save Trek from the Geek Fan-atics! The rest of us casual Trek fans like it too!

Mike :o

94. Rainbucket - July 16, 2007

Despite all the “bring back Shatner” sentiment an actual BBK-style movie would pretty much have to use digital, Final Fantasy-style actors. I’d even assume that’s what they’re proposing, for several reasons.

First, most of the actors aren’t in their prime anymore. Frankly a troupe of actors who haven’t aged well won’t sell a movie past the hardcore fan market.

Second, the “captain” actors have better things to do than take a fractional role in a huge ensemble cast. But they might be willing to do voice work, assuming they even go for voicing their own CGI simulacra.

Finally, I don’t see how else you’d get Doohan in there, and mixing live actors with a “holographic” DeForest Kelly is just offensive. Imagine how his actual friends Nimoy and Shatner would feel. Dammit he was an actor, not a puppet.

95. Blackzodac - July 16, 2007

If they can bring back Nimoy, they sure as hell can bring back SHATNER!!!

96. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 16, 2007

StillKirok, do not be discouraged. Everything you say is spot on!

My Trek buddies and I were discussing this recently, and I have come to believe that Shatner WILL be in the film in some capacity; JJ’s crew is just saving that surprise for later. C’mon, if they are using Nimoy, they HAVE to use Shatner! It would be foolish not to! And one thing I think all of us here can agree on is that if those legendary actors ARE in the film, we want to see them as Kirk and Spock, rather than any other characters.

I made my feelings on all this well known in the other thread. The one thing I would like to repeat here is, to those saying Shatner is too old or too associated with Denny Crane, you couldn’t be more wrong. If Shatner had not worked since Generations, and become some washed-up recluse, or worse, if he were feeble and ill like poor James Doohan was during the last years of his life, then you would have a point. But Shatner’s power in Hollywood has only risen in the years since Generations, and he is now at the top of his game. And yes, I do believe that his rise to the top is partially because, on some subconscious level, audiences began to miss seeing him as Kirk. He looks great for his age and could easily pass for a man a decade younger.

To those saying Shatner can only be seen as Denny Crane now … that is the lamest argument of all. I guess you don’t see many movies or tv shows, do you? It must be terribly confusing when you keep seeing the same people you recognize wearing different clothes and being called by different names! :)

97. Rastaman - July 16, 2007

I think the Bring Back Kirk campaign is a little naive if they think that you can bring back Kirk with one simple line of dialogue, particularly if you are truly trying to tell a meaningful story.

The exposition required to get to the point in the story where a Resurrected Kirk is logical would pointlessly detract from the larger story arc of Young Kirk. Put simply, it’s a waste of film. Why go there if you don’t have to and still honor the memory of Kirk?

Surely fans can forgive the writers for that! This talk of boycotting the film is ludicrous. I just want good Star Trek … period.

98. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 96 —

“My Trek buddies and I were discussing this recently, and I have come to believe that Shatner WILL be in the film in some capacity; JJ’s crew is just saving that surprise for later.”

Ah, the power of wishful thinking. If we just shut our eyes real tight and wish for it hard enough…yes..yes!

Oops, you forgot to add the pixie dust.

99. Sleeper Agent X - July 16, 2007

Re 97 —

“The exposition required to get to the point in the story where a Resurrected Kirk is logical would pointlessly detract from the larger story arc of Young Kirk. Put simply, it’s a waste of film.”

EXACTLY RIGHT!

Whew! I’m so glad I’m not the only one here who understands that!

Shoehorning Kirk’s resurrection into this movie just hurts the real story!

100. CmdrR. - July 16, 2007

92-
Good point, Anthony.
Shat’s daughter is a hottie, but I don’t need another movie with her wandering around the bridge trying to hang up her dad’s coat. (STV if you’ve been lucky enough to forget.)

101. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 16, 2007

#’s 97 and 98 … virtually no screentime need be wasted with a clumsy explanation. If The Matrix, Star Wars, Batman, Superman, and other franchises can flesh out the backstory of the films with comics, novels and animated DVDs, so can Trek. The Next Gen movies were so forgettable, the average audience members won’t even remember that Kirk is supposed to be dead! The majority would just be happy to see him back!

102. Shadow6283 - July 16, 2007

#89 Xai-

It’s called common sense, thank you very much. Don’t give me any “doom and gloom” talk. I’ve Trekked since before you were born, so kindly refrain from counseling me, if you don’t mind.

I’m not against him coming back either, let alone from the ashes of a turkey of a film from way back when. Whenever did I suggest that a post-Generations Kirk return in the new movie? That’s absurd, and Abrams won’t hear of it, and shouldn’t. All this minutiae aside, I’m for charting an entirely new course from this point over, and that’s what I’m betting he’s going to do. Nothing else makes any sense.

103. CmdrR. - July 16, 2007

Fine… Shat voice-over from an unspecified post-Generations future and NO explanation as to how he came back from the dead.
That still leaves Shatner himself to gum-up the works. If he doesn’t try to wrest creative control from JJ, then great. But, how likely do you think that will be??

104. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 16, 2007

Holy Roddenberry. I can’t believe the things I’m reading. CmdrR., JJ doesn’t deserve to be directing major motion pictures if he can let an actor “wrest creative control” from him. A movie set is not a high school classroom. It would never happen. On the contrary, I think Abrams is just the sort of filmmaker who could bring out the best in our Shatner. Another Nicholas Myer, if you will.

105. John N - July 16, 2007

#61 – Shadow6283

“Ah, K&O. Notice HOW QUIET they are ever since the Shatner story broke? Interesting, isn’t it? Gee, for guys so readily accessible before, golly, what happened?”

No disrespect intended, but isn’t it more likely that this is because all of the Transformers junkets have come and gone, rather than because of what Shatner said? The reality is, they were under a microscope for about 3 weeks, and now only the Trek/genre outlets care what they have to say.

I mean, I love conspiracy theories, but usually the simplest solution is the best one.

106. TomBot2007 - July 16, 2007

Here’s a hilarious idea… produce a 5 to 10 minute short, kind of like what PIXAR shows before their features; a somewhat teaser that hints at the “likely possiblility” of Shat’s Kirk being still around post-Gen… I leave the details blank, but to my mind, it doesn’t have to be a big production, in fact, ambiguity will make it more fun to chew on. Then onto the Star Trek XI: The Reboot. Yes, you read that right. I am so tired of all the mess. Screw it, let’s just start over. Thusly, if the movie or the short tanks; they will stand on their own. Both camps will benefit and both will have their own way.
Btw, I wish people would dial down the histrionics. A lot of this stuff is media hype and a lot of the things we’re arguing about were already likely decided a while back for better or worse.
Really, if anything, if Star Trek let’s us down, there is always the possibility something new will have to rise to the challenge.

107. sean - July 16, 2007

#73

The problem is, you’re using faulty logic. Just because Shatner’s inclusion or lack of inclusion generates a lot of discussion doesn’t mean one or the other is a guarantee of a payoff. Plenty of the comments on that previous thread were people that thought it made sense Shatner wasn’t involved. Hell, a good 1/3 of that thread is composed of the same people making multiple posts. I don’t think that a discussion on a Trek-related movie site is a true microcosm representative of the general moviegoing public.

As for the trailer – story problems aside – it WASNT exciting. As I said, it looked like a videogame I wouldn’t want to play. The whole concept of bringing all those captains together plays much like someone else has mentioned – Trek’s version of Aliens vs. Predator. In fact, caving in to the fanboys’ dream of Kirk & Picard together resulted in the movie that caused this mess to begin with.

If the story in this film is a quality one, I don’t think Shatner’s being there or not being there will be the saving grace nor the death knell.

108. Robert April - July 16, 2007

#98

“Second star on the right, strait on ’till morning.”

109. Robert April - July 16, 2007

Regarding the BBK trailer.

I may be wrong on this (BBK folks reading this feel free to correct me) but I always took that trailer as an attempt to show a multitude of BBK ideas within a short clip. I believe it was never intended to be anything more than a trailer to spark interest.

In other words they made their trailer more action packed and exciting than any REAL trailer could ever be to promote the idea of Kirk’s return.

Anyone who viewed it and thought “who are they kidding, what an awful idea for a movie” missed the point.

110. Robert April - July 16, 2007

#108 OOPS. Guess I was thinking of George Strait in that spelling.

111. Rob, Slayer of Carl - July 16, 2007

BRING BACK KIRK?

What for .. if I want HAM I will go to the deli Nimoy is an extra at. :D

112. Rob, Master of Anthony - July 16, 2007

That said, the trailer isn’t bad. If ENT is a 7, and DS9 a 10, and TOS of course a 5, it’s a 4.2.

113. Ralph F - July 16, 2007

I like TomBot’s idea of the short subject film before the main.

And I agree with what sean said; caving in to the fanboys’ dream of Kirk & Picard together resulted in the movie that caused this mess to begin with.

114. gorgon - July 16, 2007

hmmm this all sounds like maybe some crazy fan-natics……sO, will they try and kill abrams if they dont put in shatner and get their way??

they are kooks these BBK’ers!!

oh god KEEP shatner and nimoy out of it and kirk dea, PLEASE give THE Next Gen cast one last chance please!????

115. Xai - July 16, 2007

#114 Gorgon,
Sorry, bud. As far as the evidence indicates… including interviews…this is a TOS project.

#102. Shadow6283 – July 16, 2007

“It’s called common sense, thank you very much. Don’t give me any “doom and gloom” talk. I’ve Trekked since before you were born, so kindly refrain from counseling me, if you don’t mind.”
…. You assume alot… for one…. Trekked (Trekking?) since before I was born? I’ll take the compliment, but you missed on that one. Another bad assumption.
You threatened “hell to pay” in the other thread and now you are the “elder statesman?”
Perhaps you should look at your own statements of ‘kindly refrain from counseling”.

—————————————————————-
I compliment the BBK people for their efforts, at least they will have Kirk, if not a Shatner Kirk one more time. There’s no way to tell yet from Shatner’s one man PR campaign.

116. Greg2600 - July 16, 2007

The level of animosity in this post is very disappointing. BBK has always been just a group of fans hoping to sway the decision making at Paramount. That’s all. It’s not about vengeance on Rick Berman. And for Pete’s sake the trailer is a compilation of video, audio, and CG. It’s not meant to be the script for the next movie, it’s just a fan trailer. Stop taking it so literally.

Rather than cite legitimate reasons not to include Shatner or Nimoy, everyone just resorts to bash everything BBK has done. Good arguments. The reality is most Trek fans are squarely in the middle, and if they have Shatner and/or Nimoy, they will be happy, and if they don’t, they won’t care. But it’s clear that as many if not way more Shatner or TOS haters have flocked to these posts as BBK’ers. Rationality has gone out the window.

Again, my view is if Abrams didn’t want either guy, I would have been fine with that. It’s his movie. But I do feel there is legitimate beef for Shatner fans to have when the producers are so “open” to him, and then cast Nimoy and leave Shatner hanging in the wind. I am reserving judgement until J.J. gets a chance to speak, but in my view it’s unfair to leave Shatner out but Nimoy in.

117. MJPollard - July 16, 2007

#116 –

With all due respect, Shatner and Nimoy are not joined at the hip (no matter what those crazy K/S slash fiction writers think). If there are good reasons to include Nimoy but not Shatner, so be it. Welcome to Real Life. If the drooling fanboys want “fair,” they should go back to preschool, where teacher will make sure that every little boy and girl feels special.

118. jonboc - July 16, 2007

You can bet the rent that the script, with Shatner in the movie, is already written. And you can also bet the farm that the writers had a contingency plan in place just in case Shatner or Nimoy or both declined to participate. In the end, the degree of either actor’s participation boils down to one thing, negotiation. Whether or not either actor has succesfully negotiated a deal has yet to be seen officially, but I have no doubt that Shatner, not being in this movie, won’t be the fault of the producers or writers. Want him or not, I’m sure that if there was ANY way to get him in this movie, JJ and company would make it happen.

119. Redshirt - July 16, 2007

After seeing and wanting to hang myself after seeing Transformers…its obvoius to me more than likely Star Trek XI will be a reboot.If Shatner is not in big friggen deal. Its rather fanboyish and highly unlikely hat he will be in the movie. Rather ckiche to bring somoene else back from the dead and Star Trek has become full of idoitic cliiche’s..I like the character but Shatner should blame himself for that one for aggereing to do it in the first place.

Kirk as seen in the series is in his prime in his thirites. In the films he was a man that was looking at his own mortality. You can only stretch the life death thing so far without your audience considering suicide or antyi depressent pills.. Its a intresting theme but whats so new about that about a man looking back?

Regarding the Bring Back Kirk thing. its nice..Again Fanboyish not realistic as far as production. Will never happen because Paramount can care less about three failing series in the ratings and the cost would be be enormous along with the inflated egos of its cast demanding top billing. We would have seen a DS9 movie already if they really liked it.

The actors are too old..that’s why they are recasting the parts. You wont see many big budget movies that can pull off a cast of actors that are over 70.
I remember doing a poster for BBK on my site…But looking back I can never see this kind of movie working anymore. the only thing positive i can find is the fans no matter if your into TNG, DS9 VOY or ENT might walk away with a happy face. .Thats what this film should do is make you feel good. And Star Trek really hasnt been doing it for last fifteen years. No matter how you look at it. All its been saying is the future is going to suck. Its optimism has gone out the window.

120. Xai - July 16, 2007

#116 Greg
It’s your opinion that they left him out? How do you know? Only one man has spoken so far and he’s likely biased or not giving full information.
He may be out, but of his own accord or couldn’t negotiate a better deal or it may be that he’s still negotiating and just using fans to pressure the production company and Paramount.

121. Admiral_Bumblebee - July 17, 2007

I have great respect for the guys at BBK.
That such fan-actions can have an influence on the studios shows Firefly and Jericho. Maybe we should all send peanuts to the studio ;)

122. Zazzo - July 17, 2007

The BBK people are what Star Trek fandom is all about. It’s this type of grass roots movement that saved the franchise in the first place + hopefully will now save Kirk.

Not to mention they are correct in everything they say.

Keep up the great work guys.

Much Respect!!

123. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

I disagree. BBKers tend to think of Trek only as a vehicle for Shatner. Star Trek was always about much more. So they don’t represent “what fandom is all about.”

That doesn’t mean I hate them or anything, but I do feel it’s necessary to point out they are only a vocal faction, if for no other reason than BBK types often claim to speak for all of fandom. Which they don’t.

124. Nathan - July 17, 2007

They make some good points, though a huge part of me would hate any attempt to bring back Kirk. Generations, in my opinion, is one of the better Star Trek movies, and the only one of the TNG movies that really captures the spirit of the television show. But it unquestionably does have its flaws, and these flaws succesfully keep it from the top tier of Trek films. As for Kirk’s death, it has always seemed quite moving and fitting to me, though in retrospect there is a quite tangible sense that Kirk was simply brought into the movie in order to die. But, even had Generations done the greatest job imaginable with Kirk’s death, a backlash seems in retrospect to be inevitable for a character of Kirk’s stature. But I do think that, if tastefully done, and with the utmost respect for Generations and the rest of canon, a return of Kirk could be done. But, if such a film trashes all post-TOS canon, denies that Generations ever happened, and spits on TNG, as some posters have suggested, I, for one, will be extremely disgusted, and will refuse to see it. But, in all likelihood, Kirk is dead for good.

125. Robert April - July 17, 2007

The character of Kirk is like Superman, James Bond or
Sherlock Holmes. Once the character becomes a pop culture icon you cannot kill him off.

Yes you can write a script that says he dies. Yes you can make a movie that says he dies, but all that is irrelevant. The character lives on in our collective memory. And because of this Paramount will continue to make money from that character long after Shatner is gone.

Still, even years from now people will be saying that Generations was a mistake and should be fixed. All the “early adventures of Kirk” in the world will not change that.

It may be that no actual correction of Generations will ever happen but a new history will be written to take it’s place.

Good dramatic writing often puts characters in peril, and it is that sense of peril that reminds us of our humanity. There are countless great stories written where the main character dies and we are saddened but accept it. Indeed, without death many great literary works would not effect us as deeply.

BUT…

Star Trek is not a great literary work. It is not even great science fiction.
But it does allow us, for a brief time anyway, to suspend reality and believe that the world is good and that our heroes are immortal.

126. TrekLog » Blog Archive » ‘Bring Back Kirk’-Kampagne reagiert auf die jüngsten News - July 17, 2007

[…] (Anm.: Dies ist eine Übersetzung des Original-Artikels aus dem Trek Movie Report) […]

127. StillKirok - July 17, 2007

123–you couldn’t be more wrong. BBKers do not think of Trek as only a vehicle for Shatner. They just want Kirk alive and well.

128. VOODOO - July 17, 2007

127 is correct

129. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

Re 125 –

If what you say is true — a character can’t be killed off once he’s a pop culture icon–then the new movie makes your case regardless of whether Shatner is in it or not. You’re getting Kirk back again. Just perhaps not Shatner as Kirk.

You’ve confused Shatner the actor and Kirk the character, as many of the BBK types do.

And let’s not hear anything about how Shatner can’t be replaced as Kirk because he created the role. That’s just silly.

130. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

And one other thing–to want to believe our heroes are immortal is rather childish. One of Star Trek’s consistent themes has been how we can face up to and accept our own mortality, and do the best with the time we have.

To wish for immortal heroes is to really want some sort of Greek god figure to worship. Not healthy.

131. Robert April - July 17, 2007

129 “If what you say is true — a character can’t be killed off once he’s a pop culture icon–then the new movie makes your case regardless of whether Shatner is in it or not. You’re getting Kirk back again. Just perhaps not Shatner as Kirk.”

That is correct. But I still want Shatner’s Kirk in it anyway.

“You’ve confused Shatner the actor and Kirk the character, as many of the BBK types do.”

How have I confused the two? One is a fictional character and one is an actor. Pretty cut and dry I think.

Due to the medium in which Star Trek in presented (film, television, books with cover art, etc.) the character of Kirk has always had Shatner’s face. It may not always be so, but this is the reality of the moment. Let’s face it. We are creatures whose brains are hard wired to the visual.

Of course people want Kirk to look like Shatner. Is it vital? Maybe not.
Is there confusion about Shatner the actor VS. KIrk the character (who just happens to look like Shatner?) Perhaps by some people-especially when you take into account that an actor creates the character by putting a part of himself into that character.

The only REAL thing about Kirk is that which Shatner (and the many creative production staffers over the years) has “given” him. A new actor will add to this body of work.

It is just that BBKers (is that what I am?) LIKE what Shatner has done.

#130 “To wish for immortal heroes is to really want some sort of Greek god figure to worship. Not healthy.”

Did I give you impression I truly wish for immortal heroes?
REAL heroes are VERY mortal. That what makes them great. Firefighters, policemen, teachers, parents (I am a hero to my son for example) etc.

Fictional heroes can sometimes serve to remind us of our own potential to be heroes. And that is an idea that is deserving of immortality.

132. Robert April - July 17, 2007

Although I prefer REAL heroes over Kirk any day.

133. Greg2600 - July 17, 2007

119 – Redshirt I really appreciate your comments, very well said. I forsee a reboot as well, and I also was disgusted with Transformers. But my blame is with Michael Bay, who made the decisions on so many of the aspects I didn’t like.

Bringing back Shatner is definitely fanboy, but I don’t care. I’ve never said they should shut down production without Shatner, I just want him to be in it. Per BBK, I was always a supporter of the endgame, which was Shatner as Kirk. I didn’t really like where Shatner’s novels went after the first trilogy, nor the BBK trailer in terms of having all those series in it. That was done more for fun on their part. Personally, I love the 23rd century, and miss it dearly from Star Trek presentations. I would have loved to see a buddy picture with Nimoy and Shatner, but I don’t think anybody has really given that thought.

I am hoping to see City on the Edge of Forever in Film, to be honest. Is that possible? I think so. Abrams has done a lot of romantic scifi on Lost and Alias, and by romantic I mean classical not necessarily a love story. Berman and Braga drank too much Ron Moore Kool Aid and got too deep into war mode. Although I liked the movies, aside from the stupid Kirk death and even dumber Data death.

134. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

All I need out of Star Trek XI is a good Star Trek story, and actors who don’t screw things up with their performances. If the BBKers are at the point where they can’t enjoy a good story without Shatner’s presence, I’d say that’s a problem.

Looking over these posts by the BBKer types, it seems to me what you all really want is for Trek to indulge in simple, childlike fantasy. There’s no mention of tackling important themes or issues, just Make My Hero a God. I would really hate to see Star Trek brought to such a low. For me, Star Trek is at it’s best when it aspires to be thoughtful, brave, and inspiring. This Make Kirk Immortal stuff is obviously the kind of thing a seven year old kid wants in a movie–keep it simple, keep it safe, and don’t ever tell me the ugly truth.

But that would be a bigger threat to Star Trek than anything Berman or Braga ever did.

135. Spud - July 17, 2007

Finally, I don’t see how else you’d get Doohan in there, and mixing live actors with a “holographic” DeForest Kelly is just offensive. Imagine how his actual friends Nimoy and Shatner would feel. Dammit he was an actor, not a puppet.

How about Spock reminiscing with an older post Generations Kirk? A holographic Kirk. Now this could be done without much explanation. It sets up the story for JJ’s flash backs. We know Nimoy is already in. And we know its about a younger Kirk and Spock. They are not going to undo Generations in anyway. Believe me JJ wont even try. But a post Generations Kirk In the form of a holographic is not to far out of the way in means of time, money and explanation.

136. Robert April - July 17, 2007

Television IS simple childlike fantasy. Read a good hard scifi book if you want more. In fact, name one movie, TV show or even miniseries that can even approach the story telling of a good hard scifi book.

No I don’t want a Saturday morning cartoon, but unless Paramount decides they can live with an R rating. . .which they will never do, we get what we get.

I will settle for a movie like TWOK or First Contact.

Give me a break, childlike.

137. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

Please. This isn’t the 1970’s! There’s plenty of good TV out there to appeal to adult tastes. What about shows like The Sopranos or The Wire? Movies like 2001? Maybe you’ve turned your back on the more substantive shows and movies out there, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

And having more substantive, adult content doesn’t necessarily mean R rating–I’m not talking about gore or sex or dropping F-bombs, here. Just thoughtful storytelling that’s not a complete cliche and that maybe has something to say–as all the best Trek has had in the past.

Wanting an immortal hero IS childlike. Even King Arther died in the old legends. Why should Kirk be exempt from the fate that awaits all men? Kirk’s heroism doesn’t stem from the fact that he is immortal, or somehow innately superior to other men on a genetic level or in terms of strength; he’s a hero because he summons the best of his human qualities to overcome his human frailties, even while knowing that in the end, he can fight the good fight for only so long.

I would hate to see Star Trek become like the original Battlestar Galactica–all cheese and whimsy and completely irrelevant. That would kill Trek’s spirit completely.

138. Robert April - July 17, 2007

#137 Your points are all valid except when you make assumptions about other peoples tastes. As far as TV entertainment goes, I do not watch it very often. I have seen some of those shows and they seem quite substantial for what they are.

As to your question “Why should Kirk be exempt from the fate that awaits all men?”

Let Kirk meet his fate, just let it happen off camera so that I can enjoy his early adventures without a “GODLIKE” knowledge of his impending death.

139. Robert April - July 17, 2007

#137

I suspect we are really not that far apart in some of our views regarding this topic. It just seems we are coming at it from two different directions.

140. Sleeper Agent X - July 17, 2007

Anyway, I think it’s a bit unfair to lay the burden of “fixing” Generations on this movie. It was never intended to do that, from what I can tell. So trying to shoehorn it in is a bad idea.

141. Robert April - July 17, 2007

A bad idea if it does not work at any rate…

142. Xai - July 17, 2007

I can’t imagine myself sitting in the theater in December’08 watching this film with my mind wandering back to…” I know he won’t die here because he dies in Generations”. If the movie’s that bad I won’t sit for the end anyway.

Knowing the hero won’t die now is just as much a “spoiler” as knowing he dies far in the future.

143. Mutt Ravenwood - July 17, 2007

# 143

Why have Shatner in the film when you can have some 18 year old from “Lost”

Don’t you know Star Trek has to be hip these days. Besides what has Shatner ever given to Star Trek?

144. Xai - July 17, 2007

Mutt..huh?

What 18 year old?

145. sean - July 18, 2007

#109 & 116

I realize the trailer is not to be taken as a strict telling of a specific story. What I was saying is it turns me off the cause in general because it comes off as something I’d never, ever want to see, and usually when people talk about bringing back Kirk post-Generations it’s ideas like that (something Shatner himself used in his novels). I understand it’s not a specific template, but it’s purpose is to get people interested in Kirk being back in the story. It just happens that it doesn’t do that for me. As I said earlier, I’m sure a great deal of effort went into it and I’m not attempting to belittle that.

The whole BBK thing just strikes me as wee bit obsessive. It’s sort of like when I went to a Star Trek convention as a kid. I thought it would be fun, full of people who loved the show and wanted to hear all the upcoming news. Instead, it was full of crazy people speaking Klingon & wearing Starfleet uniforms, insisting I address them as ‘Korchar’ or ‘Admiral’ and looking suspiciously similar to both my high school math teacher & the ladies down at the DMV (in some cases a combination thereof). It wasn’t that I didn’t love Trek too, it’s just that I didn’t love it THAT way.

As I’ve said since the beginning, if the story is good and the acting is where it needs to be, I’ll accept someone else playing Kirk. If those two things aren’t in place, then Shatner being there won’t save it. He certainly didn’t save Generations.

146. John N - July 18, 2007

I see that none of the “Bring Back Shatner” group decided to take me up on the challenge to quantify their opinion of a financially successful new Trek movie, with or without Shatner.

Not surprising… rhetoric is so much easier to defend.

147. Spud - July 18, 2007

John N

I see that none of the “Bring Back Shatner” group decided to take me up on the challenge to quantify their opinion of a financially successful new Trek movie, with or without Shatner.

I think it would be safe to say that about 1/4 of the revenue stream could be effected in a more positive way by having Shatner in the movie. IMO asking them to undo Generations is a bit to much I will give you that. But a small part with Nimoy playing Spock along side an older post Generations Kirk. A holographic Kirk. Now this could be done without much explanation. It sets up the flash back and the reboot. IMO Shatner will not make or break this movie. But he has the ability to bring in more revenue and fill more seats. He is also a great walking billboard for promotions. Or do you feel better that he talk bad about the movie and give it negative publicity every time he is asked about it? Perhaps JJ will have to get a TRO to shut him up. :)

148. Robert April - July 18, 2007

#146

Better yet, scrap the new movie in favor of a documentary on the money making business of Star Trek. Yeah, I can see the audience flocking to the theaters now!

“Wall Street: The Final Frontier. These are the voyages. . .

;-)

149. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 18, 2007

#90 John N: “If Shatner IS in the film, and the criteria is not reached, what will you blame then? Certainly not the quality of the film or script, because in these threads you’ve clearly demonstrating that those qualities are secondary to Shatner appearing in the film.”

I don’t believe anyone has said that. In fact, I believe that the script, director, and cast – mainly whoever is cast as the new Kirk – are all more important than Shatner being in the film. I and many others simply want him in it as well as those other elements. You’re asking us to predict box office gross and what percentage of that gross will be attributed to Shatner. If anything, your question is what is unrealistic. None of us have any way of knowing how the final product will turn out. We all hope it’ll be a big success.

But there is one thing I can tell you for sure: having Shatner in the film WOULD help, not hurt. You can’t argue that.

150. Stanky (XI Makes me Cranky) McFibberich - July 18, 2007

Generations, Generations! Who cares about Generations!?

151. Ivory - July 18, 2007

Nonbody cares about Generations. We care about Kirk . A character we grew up with.

152. StillKirok - July 18, 2007

A hologram is not important. It’s not just Shatner. It’s Shatner AS Kirk, and yes, Generations is the key there. Without Generations, anything could have been done, and there would be no BBK campaign.

The whole excitement is not just the return of Shatner, but the return of Shatner as Kirk.

As for quantifying it, Shatner’s record in Star Trek speaks volumes. When the franchise was centered on him, it grew into a cultural phenomenon. The franchise declined every single year since 1994.

We see that without Shatner, the franchise is a failure.

The TNG movies failed. Voyager and Enterprise failed.

Shatner still is riding a high. There can’t be empirical data without actually casting Shatner in the movie.

But if you can’t tell by the reaction that they cost themselves money, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s wilful blindness.

153. Sleeper Agent X - July 18, 2007

Shatner returning as Kirk to “fix” Generations WILL hurt this movie.

That’s why regardless whether he’s in the movie or not we will not be seeing him getting his keister pulled out of the Nexus.

154. Anthony Pascale - July 18, 2007

anyone who thinks that Abrams and company are going to write in a whole thing about the nexus into their script and film targetted at a wider audience is not being realistic.

155. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 18, 2007

#153 “Shatner returning as Kirk to ‘fix’ Generations WILL hurt this movie.”

You guys just must not read the other posts. Believe me, no one wants a direct sequel to Generations! It deserves to be mostly ignored. Kirk’s return can be explained in a few throwaway lines of dialogue … a wink at Spock and an, “I’ve been dead before”… or the novelization of the film.

It IS entirely possible to have Shatner in this film without directly referencing the crapfest that was Generations. (On a related note, the great Robert Wise, Oscar winner, directed TMP. Berman brought in a no-name tv director to helm Generations. I’ve always thought that spoke volumes. Come to think of it, the Enterprise crashing in that movie was highly symbolic! Pathetic!)

156. John N - July 18, 2007

#155 Shatner_Fan_2000

I respect your opinions, but personally, I DO think that “a wink and a smile” approach to this film WILL hurt the movie. There are very few examples in cinema where I have ever felt that this was clever story telling.

#152 – StillKirok

It’s not that hard to do. Pick a number… Say $250 million. If the next movie surpasses that mark worldwide, the film will be a success. Now if the film does not have Shatner, and it reaches that mark, will you admit that Trek does not need Shatner as Kirk to be financially successful?

157. Robert April - July 18, 2007

#156

Who really cares about the money anyway? (Unless we posters here at TrekMovie.Com get a cut of that $250 million!)

By the way, what Star Trek movie DID rake in the most dough anyway?
Hmm, as I recall it was Resurrection. No wait, it was Nemisis! Or was it…

Oh gosh, my memory is getting so cloudy in my old age.

Will someone with more knowledge and trexpertise PLEASE help me out here?

158. Xai - July 18, 2007

#152 Still Kirok
Voyager and Ent “failed” due to lackluster writing and the fact that they were on UPN, a network that barely covered half of the US TV market and often times were buried in a poor timeslot. Their success or failure had nothing to do with Shatner, even though Shat was asked to appear and it didn’t happen for whatever reason. Ent would have gone off the air anyway, even with his appearance.

159. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 18, 2007

#156 – When you say “hurt”, you are referring to your own personal feelings about what the film should include. I’m looking at the big picture. My question to you is: Overall, do you think that including Shatner in it would do more harm or good?

I do not believe anyone can make a good argument that he’d hurt it. It’s not as if middle America would see his face on the posters and decide not to go. On the contrary, he could only help. His return would spark lots of press, he is more popular with audiences than he has ever been before, and it would be a gesture of goodwill to the millions of TOS fans worldwide. And yes, even if the events of Generations weren’t specifically addressed, I believe it would make most if not all of the BBKers happy just to see him one more time. I really can’t imagine why anyone would be against it.

It may not happen if the filmmakers are as closed-minded and cynical as some of the Shatner detractors, but I’d like to be able to give them more credit than that. New Kirk and original Kirk. JJ “flashback/forward” Abrams. It absolutely COULD be pulled off successfully!

160. Sleeper Agent X - July 18, 2007

Re 157 –

Well, Paramount cares. It’s good to point that out because that’s why we can’t expect the studio to cater to our every whim, if it hurts their bottom line. And anyone who starts babbling about how Paramount owes the fan is just embarrassing himself.

Re 159 –

We’re also looking at the big picture. Any bring-Kirk-back-from-the-Nexus scenario hurts the real storyline of the movie, because it takes away from the true plot’s ability to set up and build in terms of drama and excitement. That’s why the BBK’s claim that Kirk’s return “doesn’t have to be part of the plot” is just not credible, despite their earnestness.

The wink-nudge approach feels clumsy to me too, though it’s not as bad as a full-blown Return to the Nexus scenario. Maybe it could be incorporated…but that depends a lot on what the actual story is. I trust J.J. to know what works best for his movie.

The fact that J.J. feels strongly enough about this script to risk putting his own budding career as a director on the line, as well as the fact Nimoy is willing to come out one more time to endorse this passing of the torch, really gives me some hope this new story might be a very good thing for Star Trek, regardless of whether Shatner is in it or not.

161. Spud - July 18, 2007

I think it would be safe to say that about 1/4 of the revenue stream could be effected in a more positive way by having Shatner in the movie. IMO asking them to undo Generations is a bit to much I will give you that. But a small part with Nimoy playing Spock along side an older post Generations Kirk. A holographic Kirk. Now this could be done without much explanation. It sets up the flash back and the reboot. IMO Shatner will not make or break this movie. But he has the ability to bring in more revenue and fill more seats. He is also a great walking billboard for promotions. Or do you feel better that he talk bad about the movie and give it negative publicity every time he is asked about it? Perhaps JJ will have to get a TRO to shut him up.

162. Spud - July 18, 2007

152. StillKirok

“A hologram is not important. It’s not just Shatner. It’s Shatner AS Kirk, and yes, Generations is the key there. Without Generations, anything could have been done, and there would be no BBK campaign.”

Its to bad the BBK campaign wasn’t bigger in numbers forcing the darn change. I wonder what a poll would show in regards to the people. Its hard to ignore the numbers. Heck get the clowns at AOL to do one for free. Then send it off to JJ and company. The BBK campaign needs to kick but and take way more action right now. Shatner is 76 how many more years will he have left to BBK.

163. VOODOO - July 18, 2007

A holograph of Kirk would be lame.

I want Kirk alive and well post nexus.

164. Spud - July 18, 2007

A primary concern of philosophy of action is to analyze the nature of actions and distinguish them from similar phenomena. Other concerns include individuating actions, explaining the relationship between actions and their effects, explaining how an action is related to the beliefs and desires which cause and/or justify it (see practical reason), as well as examining the nature of agency. A primary concern is the nature of free will and whether actions are determined by the mental states that precede them (see determinism).Some philosophers (for e.g. Donal Davidson) have argued that the mental states the agent invokes as justifying his action are physical states that cause the action. Problems have been raised for this view because the mental states seem to be reduce to mere physical causes. Their mental properties don’t seem to be doing any work. If the reasons an agent cites as justifying his action, however, are not the cause of the action, they must explain the action in some other way or be causally impotent.

165. Xai - July 18, 2007

Shat can potentially hurt the movie. If hired, his salary would go against the bottom line and I doubt his asking price is small. He too would be arguing that his presence would fill more seats, which I agree it could. But would these “extra” tickets sold create enough revenue to off-set his salary?
Additionally his presence could hurt the story line.
1. A “generations-fixer movie.
This will appeal to the hard-core fans but the casual movie-goers may not have a clue. The whispers of “Ithought he was dead” or “he was dead?” could echo in the theater and the lack of knowledge they walk in with hurts their enjoyment of the movie.
2. Direct comparisons.
Shatner and a currently unknown actor are both Kirk in the movie, even if they are in different time periods, Comparisons will be made, visually and more (“he doesn’t look/sound/talk like Shatner”). None of us want the new Kirk to impersonate Shatner. Thiis could also hurt enjoy ment of the movie for the casual movie-goer and the movie DOES need them.

I’m going either way, but I think a good story can stand without them.

166. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 18, 2007

“A young Jedi named Darth Vader – who was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil – helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father.”

In Star Wars, Alec Guiness as Obi-Wan was able to cover a lot of backstory in just a few lines of dialogue. Again, no one is expecting page after page explaining exactly what happened after Generations. Thrust Shatner and Nimoy into the NEW story, and make a passing reference to the death. What if at some point, Nimoy as Spock said something along the lines of, “There are always possibilites, Captain. You were thought dead until I used The Guardian of Forever to retrieve you.” Geeks would smile, and casual audiences wouldn’t blink even if they didn’t fully understand, because they’d be aware that these 2 have shared many amazing adventures.

The “wink-nudge approach” might bother some fanboys, but the smiles on the faces of the casual fans (who would comprise the bulk of the audience) when seeing Kirk and Spock back would outweigh that! This is just one approach that might be used. JJ & crew, highly-paid professionals that they are, should be able to come up with several.

167. RandyYeoman - July 18, 2007

“I want Kirk alive and well post nexus.”

…and I want a pony

but neither are going to happen and it is time people stoppped whining about it. It’s over…he is not in the movie, but don’t blame Abrams for the sins of Berman and Generations. And I sincerely believe that the reason he isnt in the movie is his own fault…He is not worth any price in terms of money and story demands…there are limits. It is just like with Enterprise where he had demands above and beyond what they could afford.

He needs to realise that it is not the 80s and early 90s anymore…Trek does not need him.

Sure it would be nice to have, but it is by no means essential, nor is it worthy *any* price

168. Sleeper Agent X - July 18, 2007

Re 166-

The Obi-Wan backstory thing was necessary to fill in Luke’s history–it also helped the real story by adding to the idea that Luke’s destiny was to become a Jedi, like his father.

Shoehorning a Guardian of Forever reference is unecessary and confusing. There are probably lots of casual fans who don’t even know off the top of their heads what the Guardian of Forever is–though they’d recognize it if they saw a picture.

Throwing in a “well you were dead just a little while ago but now you’re alive” seems unecessary and doesn’t help the real story at all.

169. Greg2600 - July 18, 2007

Once again, the BBK trailer is not to be taken literally, nor that we all want to see that kind of thing. To read into it that Doohan has to be included Sleeper X is not the point. Stop calling everyone who supports Shatner’s return childish. We are fans of Shatner, and Shatner as Kirk, and we’d like to see him have a part in this movie, and give legitimacy to the new Kirk actor. How is that childish? Most of us don’t care about Generations anymore, or whether Kirk lives in 2408. We want to see Shatner as Kirk, and Nimoy as Spock in 2008! Xai, Shatner could well demand a big salary (like Nimoy hasn’t?), but he wasn’t even given that chance. The producers seemed to have ignored him completely. They can bring Shatner back as Kirk (not hologram), without EVER mentioning anything about Generations. I wouldn’t care, and neither would 99.9% of the audience.

170. Anthony Pascale - July 18, 2007

Greg your statement is just plain wrong. The producers are the ones that reached out to Shatner and Nimoy….they did not have to do that. As I understand it Shatner made his needs known and they went off to write the script and create a budget and it seems as of now that it all didnt work out. I know for a fact that the producers are in awe of Shatner and Nimoy and have the greatest respect for them.

it is not fair to disparage the producers of this film, plus it is not over yet.

As I have said before I hope they all work it out, but if it doesn’t there can be a million reasons, but at least they tried…and I for one will be happy (if it happens) to see Nimoy again.

I do think some are just taking this whole thing too seriously. They are putting way too much pressure on this film. This film needs to focus on the future of the franchise and rebuilding a fanbase. I want them to keep their eye on that ball and ‘fixing generations’ is not part of that game plan.

171. Robert April - July 18, 2007

#170 “This film needs to focus on the future of the franchise and rebuilding a fanbase.”

Lets hope they make a better film than Transformers.

172. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 18, 2007

168 “Shoehorning a Guardian of Forever reference is unecessary and confusing. There are probably lots of casual fans who don’t even know off the top of their heads what the Guardian of Forever is…”

What, am I speaking Klingon here? :) Sleeper, you miss my point entirely, even though I already addressed your concern. That Guardian of Forever reference was just an example off the top of my head for how things might be done. It would NOT be unneccessary, in that it would provide an answer to the 2% of the audience (basically, the hardocre continuity geeks) who needed to be explicity told why Kirk was alive, and it would NOT be any more confusing to the casual fan than references to tiberian bats, Kobyahsi Maru, or whatever else the writers might throw into the script. I think a certain amount of that is expected when casual fans walk into a Trek, SW, or any other major franchise movie. You have to realize that most of these people aren’t even going to recall that Kirk was killed off!

The writers have already gone on record saying that fans and non-fans will see “2 different movies”, because there will be references we get that other people do not. And that’s ok, as long as they’re used properly. They’ve already said they’ll be throwing references to us fans. So what’s the harm in using one of those fanboy-pleasing lines of dialogue to briefly address Kirk’s “death”, then get on with the story?

173. Xai - July 18, 2007

#169 Greg
“Shatner could well demand a big salary (like Nimoy hasn’t?), but he wasn’t even given that chance. The producers seemed to have ignored him completely.”
I think Anthony covered my answer in #170.
Thanks Anthony,
I feel that finding a way to get him (Kirk) in…. wasn’t the problem. We know there are at least 2 dozen scenarios that could be written into the script to achieve that. It comes down to why have him (moving the story forward) and what does it cost. (He may have priced himself out or may still be in negoitations.) I highly doubt that he was just left out.
I guess we wait until ComicCon

174. Sleeper Agent X - July 18, 2007

RE 172

You keep giving us examples of what you want to see–but then you say, “But that’s not what we want to see!” Well, I’m sorry, but every example given so far–even in general concept–feels kind of clumsy and forced to me.

Again, the real issue here is does including such a cheeky “I was dead but now I’m alive” bit get in the way of the real story? Which none of us can really answer until we know what the story’s about, and what role Nimoy will play in it.

Though I will admit your approach at least sounds within the realm of the possible, as opposed to saving Kirk from the Nexus.

175. Admiral_Bumblebee - July 19, 2007

Kirk does not need to come back from the Nexus. Ignore the Nexus.
But I still think that it can work to bring back Kirk from the dead even for a broader audience.
Kirk is dead. But in the 24th century something happens, something that is related to the 23rd century. Something, someone named Kirk has to deal with – but he is dead. His long-lived friend Spock recounts whats happened back then as he is seeking a way to bring his friend back from the dead.
So we would have two stories. The “flashback” story with young Kirk, Spock and the others explaining what happened – this would take up most of the screen-time. Then we have the story of “old” Spock seeking a way to resurrect “old” Kirk. At the end we could have a showdown between the enemy and young/old Kirk and Spock. Two Generations battling an evil from the past that is out to destory the whole Federation.
So, no one needs to know how Kirk died, they just need to know that in the 24th century he is dead and that the Federation has to find a way to bring him back while the audience is experiencing what happened in the past during the first mission of Kirk and Spock to cause this dilemma…
This would very well work and could lead to new adventures with young Kirk and Spock.
Noone even needs to know who Kirk and Spock are. They just need to know that two people named Kirk and Spock have to save the day, the one named Kirk is dead and has to be resurrected.
Maybe this enemy is bent on destroying the past for what Kirk and Spock did to it back then, but by doing so it would destroy the whole Federation… Old Spock and Kirk have to save their young counterparts that the future is save…

176. John N - July 19, 2007

Shatner_Fan_2000

I think that you and I could sit down for a drink and enjoy a nice debate about this. While on opposite sides of the debate, I respect and appreciate the level-headedness that you seem to be approaching the discussion with, which is refreshing, given the approach that some “Bring Back Shatner” fans choose to employ.

Now… to clear up my use of the word “hurt”.

For the record, I love Shatner. I think he’s great! I think that his presence could certainly help the publicity of the film. Of course, without a crystal ball, I can’t tell you how a Shatner-less publicity campaign would go. Perhaps a “break from the old, brand new actors” approach might drum up an equal, albeit very different level of excitement. Neither one of us can predict the future I’m afraid.

When I say “hurt”, I specifically mean in terms of quality story-telling.

The dialogue you cited from “Star Wars” is an excellent example of exposition being dealt with in a few short lines, but filling in back-story of a throw-away character is different than explaining how the main character was able to come back from the dead. Remember, no one knew who Luke’s father REALLY was in that movie. When we finally KNEW who he was, it required a detailed debate between Luke and Obi-Wan’s ghost about truths “from a certain point of view”.

Personally (and I freely admit that this is just my opinion), I think that bringing back Kirk from the dead would require the proper on-screen attention that it deserves. How would you feel if at the beginning of Star Trek III, Spock was alive and well, with the first line of dialog going something like:

Kirk: “Well, it was tough Spock, but luckily we were able to find the Thasian homeworld and convince Charlie X to help us bring you back from the dead!”

Spock: “Indeed.”

Personally, I wouldn’t like it. Maybe it could work… maybe not. Who knows? What I get frustrated with is the over-reaction on the “Bring Back Shatner” fans that can’t let this go, and scream what a huge mistake it is to not include Shatner, or worse, not have Kirk alive and well post-Generations.

It’s ridiculous. I’m not sure if you’re a Transformers fan, but as MUCH as I was delighted to hear Peter Cullen’s voice as Optimus Prime, it STILL didn’t turn out to be the movie I was hoping to see.

So… in closing… I just wish that the “Bring Back Shatner” fans would cool it with the screaming and the doom and gloom, and instead focus on what will TRULY make this film a success or not:

– solid and compelling story-telling
– strong acting
– excellent direction and pacing
– etc.

IF…. IF… IF… they can produce that, and it happens to have Shatner in it… great. But please… it doesn’t hinge on his presence. Let’s put this kind of stuff into perspective.

Cheers,
John

177. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 19, 2007

John,

I understand what you’re saying. Yes, the scenario you described would’ve sucked in ST III. But ST III was the direct sequel to an excellent film, coming just 2 years later. It will have been 14 years since Generations by the time XI comes out, and it was a forgettable film to begin with (to the general public and even some fans). That’s why I think it would be excusable to gloss over Kirk’s “death” in the new film. In Rocky V, Sylvester Stallone established that the Italian Stallion could no longer fight because he’d suffered brain damage. When that depressing movie was KOed by the public and Sly wanted a chance to redeem himself 15 years later, no mention of the injury was made in Rocky Balboa. Rocky had seemingly been miraculously cured, but no one really minded, because RB was a much better closing chapter for the character. Sometimes when someone screws the pooch badly (as Berman and co. did), it’s best to ignore it as much as you can and move on. You know, sorta like when someone farts in public! :)

To borrow another Star Wars phrase, this bickering is pointless. When is the ST XI panel at Comic Con – next week? We should get some answers by then.

p.s. I didn’t expect much from Transformers other than Peter Cullen and cool fx. That’s what I got! Let’s hope Orci and Kurtzman actually turn in a PLOT for Trek!

178. John N - July 19, 2007

Shatner_Fan_2000

You know what, I have to concede you that point on Rocky… “Rocky Balboa” DID gloss over facts previously established, and I wasn’t bothered by it at all.

Like I said… you could be right… they could do it in Trek, and I might not bat an eyelash. It’s also possible that Shatner’s not involved in the least, and the series is reborn with a spectacular successful movie.

I’m with you… let’s see what news comes out next week… :)

Cheers!

179. David - July 19, 2007

Guys, that trailer is one thing.

Embarassing.

-sd

180. Spud - July 19, 2007

Star Trek: Generations – Alternate Ending
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwQZWdzDwTo

Kirk Kicking Ass and taking names!

181. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 19, 2007

Kirk gave the double-fisted club in that. :) I also LOVE the line, “The 24th century isn’t so tough.” I remember it was in the tv spots.

182. Greg2600 - July 19, 2007

170 – Anthony, yeah you’re probably right, they did reach out in the first place. If Shatner demanded too much money, well then he’s stupid. But like I said, even if they get Nimoy, it won’t be on the cheap. If I find out that they left Shatner out because they couldn’t figure out how to write him in, that will be pretty unfortunate. I’ve tried to keep from blasting the producers of the film, and I hope Nimoy is not cast as Sarek or doing some kind of flashback. I don’t like flashbacks at all (except on Lost of course). Again, my preference, if they are going to recast TOS characters, would be to do something akin in scale to ST:TMP. Doubt they have the budget, but it would be cool to see an opening sequence which rivals Star Wars Episode III (not the remainder of the film though). I will lament the lost opportunity of Shatner/Nimoy reunited in Star Trek for a long time.

183. Greg2600 - July 19, 2007

180 – Spud that was the original ending to Generations, which was shown to test audiences, and faired poorly. They then re-shot the final ending as a result, where Kirk goes off the cliff. It was definitely better than the original.

Jay Turner from BBK created a “New” re-edited Generations ending from the final version, in which Kirk lives. He cut out the part where Kirk goes for the remote and dies, has Soren blow up, and then adds in a couple of edited audio clips indicating that Kirk is alive. Not bad for 2002 video technology. Generations would have been great is Soren blows up, Kirk says bye to Picard, and jumps into the Nexus, where he emerges to Scotty’s surprise on the Enterprise-B. They congratulate him, and the finale scene is Data finding his cat and Picard and Riker’s moment.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/PhineasBog/newgenend.html

184. The Lensman - July 20, 2007

45. StillKirok

“#28, I doubt the BBK campaign would exist if ST6 was the proper sendoff. ”

Uh huh….I saw a proper send off, what movie did they see? I have no doubt that they could’ve done the best possible ending and there’d STILL be people bitching about bringing back Kirk (and the old crew) not because the TNG movies sucked…..but because Trek movies were being made without the originals. Maybe not the same group of folks, but there would be a group doing it.

“That proper sendoff was ruined by Generations.”

Tell it to Shatner. He had his chance, he passed it up. And you know what? That’s life. You make a decision and you live with the consequences. And people who can’t deal with those things, who can’t adapt or who can’t let things go and move on…well, there’s words for people like that, and I’m afraid they aren’t too kind.

“Pretending something doesn’t exist does not change that it does.”

Yes, because pretending that pretend events in a pretend universe didn’t happen is so hard. Oh wait……none of that stuff really happened! It’s all make believe. And it’s really that simple. And since it’s not real life, but just a pretend universe that I take the *occasional* foray into, I CAN pick and choose the parts of it that I like and discard the parts I don’t. It’s a luxury we all have when it comes to make believe that we don’t have with real life.

If you want to get hung up on it and spend so much time gnashing teeth and raising your fist, crying “INJUSTICE!!!!” to the universe….well…whatever makes you happy.

It’s time for Trek to move ahead with a new generation of fans and stop worrying, completely stop worrying, about it’s old fans. The original started off with zero fans and look what it became. A new one can do the same if done with all new people with a love of the material. For some people that’s the real problem. It won’t really be for them because it’s all new, aimed at a new audience.

Go ahead and rail against it….it won’t do any good. No more than railing against Grunge kept Hair Metal alive.

185. Spud - July 20, 2007

183. Greg2600

180 – Spud that was the original ending to Generations, which was shown to test audiences, and faired poorly. They then re-shot the final ending as a result, where Kirk goes off the cliff. It was definitely better than the original.

Yes I know that was the original ending to Generations. I wish they would have used way more footage from that. Kirk was doing some of his best fighting scenes since The search for Spock. The man was 63 years old at the time. Filming in the hot Nevada desert valley of fire. And IMO looked very darn good. And if he wanted to get into shape now. He could still IMO play an older respectful Kirk. IMO JJ will find a way to let the older Spock and Kirk set up the flashback. Telling the story of the younger days. Then it would be nice to see them both some how ride off into the sunset.

186. Shatner_Fan_2000 - July 20, 2007

Spud, I agree that the fighting in the discarded footage was more exciting. It was more kinetic, there were more wide angle shots showing Kirk and Soran running and jumping around, and more brutal. The final edit was just a few quickly clipped close-ups. And yes, at 63, the Shat did still look believable in action scenes.

And I liked the fact that Kirk went back to one of his famous original series signature fighting moves – the double-fist – to bring Soran down! That’s the only time that move was used in the films, and it got edited out! :( Kudos to whoever decided to use it, though. Wonder if it was the stunt coordinator, or Shatner himself?

Although Generations ultimately had too many flaws to be considered a good movie, it was not without its share of great Kirk moments. In particular the opening scenes on the Enterprise B.

Kirk: “Congratulations, Ensign. It wouldn’t be the Enterprise without a Sulu at the helm.”

Kirk: “Risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair.”

Kirk: “Scotty, keep things together for me until I get back.”

Scotty: “I always do!”

Kirk GRINS as he enters the turbolift to go save the ship.

Good stuff! :)

187. Robert April - July 20, 2007

#186 “Kirk: “Scotty, keep things together for me until I get back.”
Scotty: “I always do!”
Kirk GRINS as he enters the turbolift to go save the ship.”

Yeah, he BACKS INTO THE TURBOLIFT WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING! It’s like he knows the Enterprise B even better than Harriman. Not bad for being on board for only five minutes!

188. Spud - July 20, 2007

186. Shatner_Fan

You know I bet that there is still a lot more footage that was cut out that could be used to change the outcome of Kirks death. Heck even other parts of the movie could be upgraded as well. The movie might not then be half bad. With a little fine tuning here and there. Now If Paramount and David Carson wanted to offer a better DVD collectable version and or even bring it back to the big screen. It might be worth it revenue wise. This may sound like a very crazy Idea. But at most just some cutting and editing. And perhaps some voice overs if need be. Heck look what they are doing with the original serious. Get Kirk on board that shuttle craft and then laying in sick bay. End the movie with him not dead but wounded but alive! If you think about it its pretty easy to do because his death takes place at the very end of the movie. Perhaps the BBK gang can sell this idea to Paramount and David Carson. Hey if Paramount even thought that they could make more money by doing this and get it out by Dec. They would still have another year before the next movie.

189. Sleeper Agent X - July 20, 2007

Re 188 –

Oh, my freakin–THIS is why the BBKers get no respect. None. Forget the trailer and the fanboy ranting, this tops it all!

Yeah, like Paramount’s going to shell out the big money to pay for prints for a movie that’s over ten years old. And theater owners are going to be thrilled to get this old movie! And somehow, through the magic of editing, we’ll get Kirk into a sickbay, alive and well! Sure, editing’s magical, but it ain’t THAT magical. And what would this do to the BBKers all-important “canon,” anyway? Plus, the notion that the BBKers are going to SELL this idea to Paramount…

Fellows, I’m not claiming to be a Hollywood expert or insider here. But if you’re going to make suggestions as to what studios and theaters should do, at least have the most bare bones, basic ideas about what they actually do and how they work… ‘Cause this kind of thing is just laughable. Not trying to be cruel, it’s just the truth.

Ughh… Gonna go have a beer and lie down now…

190. Spud - July 21, 2007

Sleeper

Fellows, I’m not claiming to be a Hollywood expert or insider here. But if you’re going to make suggestions as to what studios and theaters should do, at least have the most bare bones, basic ideas about what they actually do and how they work… ‘Cause this kind of thing is just laughable.

I see you don’t have any clue as to how studios have wasted millions of dollars on pilots and projects that have gotten shit canned. They throw away millions of dollars on stupid mistakes. I say this after working in the business for over 30 years. The cast, crew, extras and all the departments always get paid! Even when the movie gets dumped! Now you don’t need all this to some simple cutting and editing. A few people in the room is all it requires! They are not refilming the whole movie now. And they also have the ability and the rights to use footage from other past Trek movies as well. This has been done in the past Trek movies saving the studios money. Explosions have been recycled. The bottom line is the demand there to show a nice profit. IMO its there. Heck DVD sales at Star Trek conventions would go thru the roof for Kirk!

191. Sleeper Agent X - July 21, 2007

Bwahahahahahhahhahha! Can’t…stop…laughing…sides…hurting…heehehehehehehehee!

Where’s that shuttlepod/sickbay footage they’re going to splice in, anyway? Even if it existed, modifying it into a “Kirk’s alive!” scene would lead to something as forced, clipped, and clumsy as that BBK trailer.

If somehow everything did exist, I bet you could probably release something on DVD. But back in the theaters? Please! And again, how are the BBKers going to “sell” this to Paramount? (“Guess what! We want you to pay us for telling you to use footage you already own to come up with a new ending! No, we’re not going to do any of the actual work! But pay us anyway!” ) Oh, Paramount’s just gonna get down on one knee and kiss you for that one.

You don’t work in the business, do you? So please don’t lie about things like that. When you’re in a hole, best to stop digging…

192. Spud - July 21, 2007

Sleeper

You don’t work in the business, do you? So please don’t lie about things like that. When you’re in a hole, best to stop digging…

The next time your in Honolulu stop by the Lost studio and ask for Spud. When you get your wake up open hand slap up side your head. Well then perhaps you can see who’s in the business. Until then your just another 18 year old clown spanking his monkey as life passes you by. Do a Google on the basics of supply and demand. And perhaps a few business courses as well. The baby boomers set the trends now days my little masturbator. They are the ones that are all done with zit popping and spanking of the monkey. They are the ones that would buy the DVD and go back to the theaters to see a reversion. Not just the BBK gang miss him but the generation that grew up with him do as well. You are a waste of time as it shows.

193. Sleeper Agent X - July 21, 2007

You crack me up, pal!

But I’ll play along–just what do you do over there at the “Lost studio?”

194. Sleeper Agent X - July 21, 2007

Yep. See? I told you to stop digging yourself into that hole. :-)

195. Alfredo DeDarc - July 21, 2007

Here’s an idea. Racast Kirk, Spock and McCoy but do not give them central jobs yet. Touch on them peripherally, go with the Captain April or Captain Pike as lead character. Treat these characters as Sulu, Chekov and Scotty were in TOS- the up-and-comers. Could make for some fine and funny character moments.

196. Alfredo DeDarc - July 21, 2007

Here’s an idea. Racast Kirk, Spock and McCoy but do not give them central jobs yet. Touch on them peripherally, go with the Captain April or Captain Pike as lead character. Treat these characters as Sulu, Chekov and Scotty were in TOS- the up-and-comers. Could make for some fine and funny character moments.

197. Xai - July 21, 2007

Spud,
How will that make enough money to recoup the production, editing, direction and rewrite time? I am not in the biz, but I know you need at least those and distribution and advertising. Ummmm, I AM in advertising and don’t see a good way to advertise this film (“Hi, We are Paramount Pictures and , well frankly… we goofed by allowing Berman and Shatner to kill off Captain Kirk”) How do you overcome the audience’s (uninformed) decision to stay out because they think they already saw it?
I’m not picking on you, but I do not see a huge market or profit in making over an old movie with a new ending to appease a small group of fans.
It WOULD however quiet the Shatnerfanatics that insist XI MUST fix Generations…

198. Greg2600 - July 22, 2007

Xai, come on, the consensus is not a fix of Generations. Because we are such long time fans of Shatner and Nimoy, we would like to see them together on screen, in Star Trek one last time. Not in some lame dream sequence or fireside chat, in the flesh, as part of the story. Otherwise why bother? Paramount is recasting the roles they made. Not the other way around. Shatner made Kirk and Nimoy made Spock.

They’re remaking what to many of us was a complete and near perfect series in TOS. It’s very risky. Now you can sling insults and call names, but the hard truth is that without such “fanatics” Star Trek would have stayed dead 35 years ago or so. Perhaps fans like me cannot be won over by J.J., and you’ll then blame us that Star Trek is dead for good. Well, that’s our prerogative and freedom of choice.

The Transformers movie I think is a very good analogy. I’ve gotten the gist that people who knew the original well, aren’t raving about Bay’s movie. Those who didn’t know it, loved the movie. Clearly Bay is the winner, because of the box office receipts. However, 20 years had passed since TF were relevant in the mainstream, and most all movie goers knew nothing about them other than they were toys that transformed. I don’t think enough time has passed for Star Trek, and that the bad news from Nemesis and Enterprise still linger. We’ll see who is right at day’s end. But I’m a Bill/Leonard fan and the fans have kept this franchise alive for 40 years, not to mention line Paramount’s pockets, and we deserve an opinion.

199. Sleeper Agent X - July 22, 2007

Plenty of time has passed since TOS’s heyday. As I’ve mentioned before, there are people practically at drinking age who were born since TOS was at its peak with Star Trek IV! Fifteen year olds who were born after Star Trek VI! Many of these people have never watched TOS at all!

A fresh new audience that Trek should at least try to reach out to. There’s a whole generation of potential geeks out there who do not grok Star Trek.

Look, if Leonard Nimoy–who’s done more for Star Trek than any fan can claim–is comfortable with passing the torch, and approves of this new movie, then really, shouldn’t we at least give the new movie a chance?

Some of you are gonna say no, and that’s a sure-fire way to guarantee your own irrelevance. Don’t complain about it when it happens, though. Please?

200. Xai - July 22, 2007

#198 Greg
Frankly I do not see where I’ve insulted anyone. Fanatic is not a derogatory term and I did not use it in a negative manner. And there ARE people here demanding the “fix” for Generations. Read a few posts.
I am not a come-lately to Trek. I watched and fell in love with TOS in the 60’s and stayed with all the movies and series. But I have opinions about things, as do you.
I’ve said many times that if Shatner’s in…cool. If not, I am still going. I can accept another actor in the role if he’s good and it’s a good story.
I don’t like some fans demanding and stomping their virtual foot if their demands aren’t met because they have “given so much”. That’s BS and current movies and TV series don’t work that way. This isn’t Burger King.
We all deserve an opinion… but it doesn’t mean we all get our wish or even will be heard.
If you never see the movie, for any reason, that’s your loss and I won’t know or care.

201. Buck Rodgers - August 2, 2007

So if Stallone can do Rocky 6 (after 16 years) and Rambo 4 after (20 years), Arnie can do Terminator 3 after a good 15 years – what’s wrong with Shatner returning as Kirk after only…..well 14 years…….afterall, we’ve got Harrison Ford in Indy 4 after nearly 20 years and I heard Eddie Murphy’s back in Beverly Hills Cop again………unfortunately the pressure is on to make sure this film does not flop at the box office…especially after Nemesis…the studio could not afford it…it’s all about numbers at the box office – not just about fab scripts in Hollywood – now all the studios are run by executives and not experienced movie makers (like in the 40’s and 50’s)…they need a short term boost in revenue and having Shatner & Nimoy in the film will help cement the younger characters into a sequel no doubt and kick start the success……the problem for Star Trek has always been that in all their films (bar number 4), they have relied heavily on Trekkies to see it…..unless you know Star Trek, how will it be possible to bring non Trekkies to watch this film? What will excite a 21 year old to see this….remember Star Trek is not as big as Star Wars (both in box office and merchandise around the globe)…..which is why Star Wars has the pulling power….for the film to get moving off the ground successfully they need both Shatner and Nimoy……..you may need to ask too, in Star Wars – Revenge of the Sith – many characters (as seen in the original trilogy return – Chewbacca, C3PO, The Emperor and of course Darth Vader…with the original voice…no doubt a contributing factor to the films box office success………..

202. Rich Sigler - August 15, 2007

Bring Back Kirk!

I could not agree more with the BBk campaign. Just give our hero a happy ending. Let him ride off into the sun set. Set the record straight! Bring Back Kirk!!

The new movie would allow for some terrific opportunities to bring back our hero. Begin the movie with Spock reminiscing about his time with Kirk (flashback to main movie story) and then end with the rescue of Shatner/Kirk in the 24th century by Spock (Nimoy).

Bring Back Kirk!

203. james T mcginn - November 17, 2007

Bring Back Kirk!

you must have willam shatner playing kirk if hes
in the movie it will make the franchise go through
the roof and trek XI will be the best startrek movie
of them all some fans may think diffrently of shatner
in the movie but why cast Nimoy & not shatner , if hes
not in the movie i think it will flop just like trek 10 did but
if he is i think paramount will make there money back
three times over

204. Kirk darren Olson - November 5, 2009

star date 05112009 this is kirk I am waiting help me star trackers beam me back the pain bring me back where I belong at the helm of my star ship to go where ever I want and where know other man has gone beforeI might be an little fatter but what the hell just make an bigger ship this is Kirk calling the real deal

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