Abrams: New ‘Star Trek’ Revolves Around Spock August 2, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackbackEntertainment Weekly had a Comic-Con round table discussion with Star Trek director J.J. Abrams and his Spocks: Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto. When asked why to include Nimoy in the film, Abrams gave some insight into the film’s story:
The story needed his participation for a number of reasons. One, the plot. In many ways, the story revolves around the character of Spock. Two, I think it’s critical if we’re going to look at reintroducing these characters — I didn’t want to disrespect what had come before, for those who care about that. But we’re making this movie for people who don’t care about Star Trek too. This isn’t about pleasing the fans, this is about making a great film. And to do that, you have to both please the fans and please the people who’ve never seen Star Trek. So having Leonard in the film shows that this film exists in a continuum of Trek history, as opposed to an absolute, page 1 reinvention.
Abrams was also asked if he was ready to take on this project and such a big franchise…
I’d like to think so. But again, I’m not looking at it that way. If you’re going to climb a mountain, looking at the whole mountain is probably pretty intimidating. I’m just looking at the story and the characters — I’m looking forward to realizing that. The specter of this massive fan base and their expectations… Look, there’s no way you can please everyone. But we’re going to do our best to make a great movie, and I hope fans of the series will appreciate the respect and awareness that we have of the thing they love. One of our writers [Roberto Orci] is a Trekker, so it’s great to have someone who can speak for that world. I feel like this is a world I want to enter, almost despite that kind of level expectation and fandom. But I couldn’t be more excited.
Nimoy and Quinto said many of the same things from their interviews with TrekMovie.com, but did have a couple nice quotes:
Loading ...
Comments»
looks like no shatner..
Outstanding, I think the film is going to be great and I still say the Shat will be in it.
I would not assume that there is no Shatner. Kirk’s relationship with Spock is very important and chances are they will find a way to fit him into the story but in a way that makes sense. We just have to wait.
Any chance this could have something to do with Romulan/Vulcan Reunification, since they have an old Spock?
I hope not, MrBoston. I always found those NG eps boring, and it seems an awfully convoluted plot point when they’re trying to attract non-fans.
Get KIRK in there! Make it so!!!
#5: agreed
This movie is going to have to be basic trek essence. Not the minutia of the plot. The movie won’t be about the Romulan Wars, Vulcan reunification, V’Ger, The Enterprise-C, or The Human Uprising in the Mirror Universe.
It’s got to be about a passionate man and a logical man, their friendship and their understanding that they are stronger together. It will deal with the wonder of the unknown, and maybe. just maybe. will have a Klingon.
I think the story will deal with TNG era Spock mindmelding with someone, perhaps his Katra before he passes away. Similar to how Sarek did with Picard in Unification. WHICH by the way was a GREAT EPISODE #5!
8. The SAREK episode always brings tears to my eyes. One of the best episodes of TNG, by far.
7 Bill
Well said.
Gotta have Kirk for this film to be a complete success.
Nuff said,
TTM
The problem with Unification is that the Vulcan in it just happened to be Spock. Aside from a few lines, any actor could have played that role, which could have been any Vulcan.
Hopefully this will not involve Spock’s death in anyway. That would be a downer, and end up making things worse when it comes to Kirk and Spock.
Spock alone will not make this a good movie. Kirk has to be the star.
It sounds to me like this might be more of a “Spock’s journey” type of film, following Spock from Vulcan through his years in the Academy, to the Enterprise– basically putting us in his shoes and showing all the challenges (and prejudice) he had to face along the way. And then of course we’d see his early friendship with Kirk.
I think it would be a cool idea, and of course it would be very accessible for the average viewer.
I agree with you Bill, there’s a certain je ne sais quois about the original show that just wasn’t echoed in the next gen, or any of the other spinoffs as far as I’m concerned. It was like, “Here’s Jim Kirk and the Enterprise, we’re all going to be saved!” It was a certain brand of heroism that seems to ahve been all but forgotten in the newer shows. Let’s see if it can be recreated in the new film.
As wonderful as it is to see Nimoy at the center of this much press attention, one cannot help but feel the absense of Shatner. These guys have been and ever shall be viewed as a team. Let’s hope that a month or 2 from now, we’ll see JJ doing another roundtable interview with new AND old Kirk! Other than that, great interview.
Must have Kirk AND Spock at the heart of the story. And, somewhere in the mix, Shatner.
The reports from JJ etc are starting to be repetitious. Time for them to stop talking for a bit me thinks??.
Interesting concept. Remember that Roddenberry kept the character of Spock (and only Spock) after “The Cage” failed and he made “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. Even though he “tweaked” the character, he clearly intended the audience to believe the “Pike-era” Spock was one and the same as the “Kirk-era” Spock.
IMHO, the best “Spock stories” in TOS were those that cast his character against Kirk’s as they complemented one another. So it is hard to for me to envision a good Spock story, whether he is young or old, without Kirk.
Guys, the film does not need Shatner to be a success. It needs to be GOOD to be a success. If they were to hinge the success of the film on the cast alone, then they might as well not even try.
Funny how young Nimoy looks in that ST-TMP picture now. I remember when it first came out and everyone was saying how old he looked.
Time is all relative.
How about a GREAT story with the RIGHT cast?
#17
Shatner doesn’t have to be in the movie for Kirk to have a very large and central role in the story. In fact it’s almost guaranteed the character will be front and center– he’s the freakin captain.
If we don’t get to see Nimoy and Shatner interact on screen one more time, it’s not going to ruin the movie.
Shatner desirable but not essential.
Good casting for young Kirk (ie. someone Shatner-esque) important.
Continuity: I;d say keep a ship, characters and visual style that is consistent with TOS, but have the story revolve around aliens we dont know yet, in a setting that is new and unusual. The Enterprise should be familiar, but the strange new worlds it takes us to, not.
(Oh, and as an aside, I don’t feel the need to lock them into using Cage/WNMHGB uniforms. The Black-necked, bright coloured ones are iconic. I would happily think up a retcon to explain them wearing TOS-era shirts, as they do look much better than the pilot versions.)
Hope they can have old Archer on this STXI like DR.Bones was on TNG first episode
This film needs William Shatner to be complete.
Shatner is absolutely essential. Nimoy without Shatner, or vice versa, just doesn’t work right. It could still be about Spock’s journey, with the prize being Kirk’s return. Shatner’s absence has overshadowed everything else. If Abrams seriously wants to work Shatner in, he needs to just do it.
#23 “Hope they can have an old Archer on this STXI”
Say, you have a really dry sense of humour! Er, you were kidding, right? I mean, Bakula seems like a nice guy, but he registers ZERO on the Star Trek charisma meter!! No way, no how!!
#25
But the problem is Shatner wouldn’t want just a glorified cameo, and to just show up at the end of the movie back from the dead. He’d want a substantial part, which would mean putting him in the movie earlier and completely restructuring the story probably.
#23
Please, let’s not. McCoy was endearing and charming. Archer is, well, a very very poor imitation of Kirk.
#24
Shatner does not NEED to be in this movie. I find all these presciptions for the movie infuriating.
Its prescriptions like these that ruined Generations (Kirk and Picard MUST share the screen; Kirk MUST die; the Enterprise MUST be destroyed; there MUST be Klingons … and so on). The more you try to prescribe a story before it is allowed to evolve organically, the more likely the plot is going to become a convoluted mess.
KEEP IT SIMPLE. Have a theme. Stick with SPOCK.
They’re doing it right.
#27
I concur.
does every single thread need to devolve into a shatner debate. The film makers and Shater will work something out if it can all be agreed on and work with the story. The intent is there so as long as it makes a better film and isnt just ’shoving him in’ as Abrams said….then it will happen. If it cant work it wont, but the reason will be to ensure a better film.
The film makers know it is important to many fans…but it is by no means a consensus and making multiple posts over and over will not change that.
Nimoy’s in it because he’s central to the plot, according to Abrams.
If they stick Shatner in at this point, they’re just doing it to pander and that will show through.
It can be a great movie either with or without Shatner.
Back in the day, when “Star Trek” was on NBC, Spock was the character that galvanized the fan base. Spock was the most popular guy on the series, much to Shatner’s chagrin – the stories about the problems this caused on the set are numerous and have been told by just about every major participant. So a rather Spock-centric storyline is certainly a return to the earliest days of “Star Trek.” :)
#23 & #26:
Even so, it would be nice if there was at least a historic reference to something that happened on Enterprise (whether it’s an event or a character). With the exception of T’Pol, I don’t think anyone would still be alive during the TOS-era.
It probably won’t happen, but it would be nice.
always assumed itd be more ‘Kirk Begins’ oh well..i guess it is Spock who is the slightly more ’startrek’ character. as meyer says on the TWOK commentary something about the opening shot being of spocks ear as that was the most powerful trek image in his opinion. btw just seen Transformes – what about the army captain as Kirk? oh and an Archer cameo? LOL
Anthony:
You are correct.
On the other hand this is clearly THE flashpoint topic in Star Trek fandom. Doesn’t the fact that every topic becomes a Kirk/Shatner story say something?
It seems clear the fans want Shatner to return as Kirk.
I understand that they are making a film + Shatner is secondary, but wouldn’t this franchise that has one foot in the grave be wise to listen to it’s once huge fan base by giving the fans what they want?
Remember when the fans saved Star Trek all those years ago? Without them there would be no ST today. It seems the same may be happening now with Kirk/Shatner.
His end was so weak it demands to be fixed.
What you’ve got is not a huge fan base that cares about Shatner. What exists are the remnants of a fan base, and some of the hard core who are left are fixated on Shatner – both for and against.
That’s not a foundation to build a rebirth of anything on.
no it is not ‘clear the fans want shatner to return as kirk’
it is clear that some fans do and some can think of nothing but…and at this point I think it is bordering on trolling for those that come into every thread and just say the same thing. Other fans like myself want him, but dont think it is essential and dont want it to get in the way of the film. Others dont want him at all. There is no consensus, but it is clear that the ’shat or nothing’ crowd feel the need to repeatedly post in order to make it look like there is….it wont make a dif it there were a thousand ’shat or nothing’ posts.
the film makers want him in…but he just doesn’t fit into the current script and they are working on that.
so let them work….they are not going to be intimidated by people posting over and over here…it isnt like they are reading and counting. And I am getting a bit fed up with the repeated derailments.
he will be in it or not….the decision will be one that is best for the film based on the story. You just have to have faith in that. It appears some really do want them to just ’shove him in’…but Abrams will not do that.
I think the film will be set in the 24th century. Something major happens in the 24th century and it’s a result of something the Enterprise encountered on her maiden voyage. They need to explore what happened so they seek out spock who was on that mission. Spock then proceeds to detail what happened all those years ago, and he basically narrates the movie.
That’s what I think.
Anyway, *if* that’s the basic premise of the movie, I don’t see how putting an old Captain Kirk in the movie will be even possible!
Dennis, I agree. What I hear are a lot of people who simply want to see Shatner put on a Starfleet uniform again– they don’t care how it’s done or how much Abrams has to break apart his story to make it work.
Hell, here we actually have an example of Abrams RESPECTING the canon that people seem to cherish so much (by acknowledging that Kirk has died) and people still aren’t happy!
#23 Archer cannot appear because canon (being his service record in a Mirror Darkly) says he died the day the Enterprise Launched with Kirk being about 12.
“I think the film will be set in the 24th century. Something major happens in the 24th century and it’s a result of something the Enterprise encountered on her maiden voyage. They need to explore what happened so they seek out spock who was on that mission. Spock then proceeds to detail what happened all those years ago, and he basically narrates the movie.”
If the century in which “old” Spock appears is even referenced, I will be surprised. After the bomb of Nemesis and the collapse of Enterprise, the last thing anybody wants for this film is to remind anyone of the preceeding bland era that the new team is trying to run completely away from.
Well said Anthony #36!
The STORY is the guiding principle here. And that’s what they are focused on. I personally do not care who is or is not in the movie as long as there is 1) good story telling that is meaningful and poignant and 2) a good team of actors that can play it real.
And I don’t know about the rest of you… but Dec. 25 2008 cannot come soon enough!
Peace!
JJ: ” I hope fans of the series will appreciate the respect and awareness that we have of the thing they love”
We appreciate and presuppose it. They have to have that awareness. Otherwise they could make any other movie but not a STAR TREK film.
Oh so now it’s “trolling” to comment on wanting Shatner back on a website dedicated to Star Trek – amazing.
wouldnt havin old spock set in the 24th century sorta make a TNG film? i dunno…sort of agree with 40
I had an idea that perhaps Spock’sl return from Romulus would have something to do with his recieving news of the death of Kirk. Spock’s Jouney back to Earth with Kirk’s body could be a fantastic frame for a flashback of their first encounter and early adventures together.
Just my pet idea. Abrams is welcome to it if he hasn’t already thought of it.
@billy #40
One bad movie doesn’t spoil the 24th century.
How would an old spock be in the movie *without* having something set in the 24th century? Especcially since it’s common knowledge that kirk’s death is what’s causing the problems for shatner. It seems a given to me that the 24th century is in.
Unless it’s set sometime in the 23rd century after the Enterprise B. I suppose they could get away with leonard nimoy playing spock in that timeframe, if he’s not too old looking. They’d have to youngify him or something.
#40:”If the century in which “old” Spock appears is even referenced, I will be surprised. After the bomb of Nemesis and the collapse of Enterprise, the last thing anybody wants for this film is to remind anyone of the preceeding bland era”
Nope. No one is concerned about people remembering the modern Trek shows and no one at Paramount wants anyone to forget them – quite the contrary, they’re making big money hand-over-fist on those and in fact are looking for ways to “remaster” them as well so that they can *keep* them playing to the public.
The studio has made far more money on “Star Trek” since its return to TV in 1987 than it ever made on TOS. :)
#40: “After the bomb of Nemesis and the collapse of Enterprise, the last thing anybody wants for this film is to remind anyone of the preceeding bland era that the new team is trying to run completely away from.”
If the movie will indeed fit into the established canon of the Star Trek universe, then they can’t just ignore what happened on Nemesis or Enterprise, no matter what people think of them. Bad or not, they are still part of Trek canon.
And I never thought that the last season of Enterprise was “bland”.
HMMM. Why can’t Shatner play Admiral Komak, if not Pappy Kirk???
Anyway, besides the Shatner stuff, more and more promising every day!!!
Can’t wait for the leaked production art, set, costume, photos ect. Let the Leaking begin!!!!!!!!!!
I’m still thinking we will see Spock’s first love, Leila Kalomi.
And I’ll keep saying it til we see it.
Anthony:
I did preface my last statement by saying I thought you were correct in your assesment of the situation.
I also think (my personel opinion) that this is the topic that for the first time in a long time brings out the passion (remember that 500 post thread about Kirk’s return?) in ST fans.
Isn’t it great that people (even if you don’t agree with them) are passionate about Star Trek again?
With your frustrations in mind I will keep my (can’t speak for anyone else) “Bring back Shatner/Kirk” posts to a minimum.
I’m sure the film is going to be great (Can’t wait to see Mr Nimoy back in action) either way, but from a personal point of view I’d love to see Kirk get a better ending.
Enough said.
Hear, hear, Anthony (in #36) and Dennis (in #47).
The full EW interview was fun to read, by the way.
Im just glad to have ANY Star Trek.
53/Super
how right you are. less than 2 years ago star trek was deader than roadkill. Now we have a big budget movie from the team behind Lost…the return of Kirk and Spock characters, a committment to keep canon, Leonard Nimoy, ILM, etc….and yet some people are still acting like spoiled children running around saying – Shatner or nothing – and berating the film makers for not shoving a dead character into their film.
The irony here is that so many were screaming \’reboot\’ \’reboot\’ they will piss on my childhood, etc when it is clear that the reason Shatner is not in the movie is because they are trying to honor the filmed canon of Trek….you know the part where he is freakin dead! You cant just pop dead people into movies! And it took a whole movie to ressurect Spock….and they started with the Genesis planet and some major telegraphiing of his return at the end of Star Trek II
I love the shat…i want to hang with the shat and have his babies
but he just doesnt fit into their movie….so I will move on and be thankful and amazed at the rest of it
I’m delighted that Nimoy’s appearance as Spock will not be a mere cameo. Personally, I doubt an “old Spock helps resurrect old dead Kirk” device – why free up the old actors when the franchise is clearly skewing toward a new envisioning of their early adventures? Particularly when there’s been no discussion of fitting William Shatner as Kirk into the production (while Shatner has championed the idea of resurrecting his character and has done so in books). Further, something seems odd about an “old Spock on his deathbed, delivering his memoirs” sort of presentation; Spock’s already died once.
I’ll get to my real theory in a minute, but first I want to point out something I don’t know if anyone else has really mentioned – we first had DeForest Kelley, as McCoy, present in a cameo to launch the first TNG episode; and later Shatner’s Kirk in a framing participation to launch the TNG cross-over movie… I’m most delighted that in some fashion, Spock will launch the new TOS-era film.
My theory is twofold, but it comes down to earned experience. Science Officer Spock has 11 years’ experience on the Enterprise at the time that young Jim Kirk takes command, and as a logical soul, would likely share that experience to help bring his new commander up to speed (the converse of the way Willard Decker would presume an experienced Admiral James T. Kirk couldn’t handle a refitted Enterprise a decade later). If it’s going to be about a coming together of the core characters, this would be a good place to do it…. but experience goes even farther… For Leonard Nimoy to really appreciate participating in this film as Spock, and to play an important role (and not just as a reflective framing device to cue a feature-length flashback) rather than a “these lines could be given to anyone” appearance, I think his Spock will actually participate.
What would Nimoy’s Spock’s participation entail? We know from three of the best TOS movies that aging and relevancy-in-light-of aging/change are recurring themes… so it seems reasonable that a similar approach might be employed here, as a 40-year old franchise is dusted off and reintroduced to the world. My prediction – Leonard Nimoy as Spock will be involved using one of Star Trek’s most cherished devices – one that would allow him to actively participate, in more than a “pass-the-baton” sort of way:
TIME TRAVEL
We’ve already seen Spock interact with/save his younger self, courtesy of the Guardian of Forever, in the Animated Series. And we’ve seen Trek use time travel as a way to interact with/reflect upon Earth’s past, present and future in poignant and humorous ways. We’ve even seen Trek use time travel as a way to revisit Trek past.
I’n not suggesting this will be a “Trials and Tribbleations” scenario… but it would be wonderful if the “convergence” of characters that Zachary Quinto alluded to wasn’t merely a first-time convergence (for all of them). Time travel to some degree may be important for other reasons, too:
First of all, we’re revisiting something we’re all intimately familiar with, but we’re doing so a number of generations-removed form the original product, using a new production team, a new vision, and a new cast. One way to acknowledge that changeover could easily be to revisit it not only from without but from within.
Secondly, we all know that revisiting the past can change details in the future. And there is the promise of changes – both for reasons of more sophisticated production and effects techniques, and the desire to not just re-hash something we’ve all seen before. If Nimoy’s Spock travels to the past and interacts with young Spock/Kirk/Enterprise crew, he could create a few changes that either set up the Trek continuity we know, or affect it in ways that cascade toward some of the slight changes we can expect – particularly if it’s going to set up a wholly re-envisioned franchise.
so this is what happens in the new movie
spock is on romulus (still) , sitting with a bunch of kids , he tells them
the first adventure of the Enterprise with him and Captain Kirk. Then at the end the young kids tell him its a great story and much better then a clone of a federation captain and a bunch of remans talking over the star empire and building a big thalaron radiation weapon ship. Then spock says well of course , a story about “clone of a federation captain and a bunch of remans would make no sense whatever , and would be a terriable story , much less movie .
#55 @Steve
I am in concurrence with your thoughts.
I know many will roll their eyes at time travel but using the Guardian would be cool. As a bone to TNG fans they could have Picard or someone transport him there.
Well said, #36 and #47! I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Re 57-
Ugh. No bones to anyone! I’m a huge TNG fan, but I don’t want to be pandered to by having Picard “shoved in there”…nor The Guardian of Forever…nor Shatner as Kirk!
This story needs to stand on its own. As Abrams said, it isn’t about just pleasing the fans, it’s about making a great film. Throwing in every little continuity reference that you can think of is not going to make this movie good, and would actually probably hurt it.
Here’s my theory. Spock stayed on Romulus at the end of Unification. Because of the fact he was running an underground, he couldn’t get away until peace talks started, post-Nemesis. Now that he’s starting to achieve some part of what he set out to, he can go visit Kirk’s grave.
I suggested this possibility a few weeks back, that the new movie would be a “Biography of Spock,” but I was told by several here that this was not “Spock Trek.” Well, maybe it is.
RE: #60 –
I just don’t see it. If Leonard Nimoy is as keen to ignore TNG/DS9/etc, and feels so strongly that Kirk’s death was a “waste of an important character”, I don’t see him participating in a film that explicitly references it. The film’s about these characters coming together, rather than parting ways – even as a device to spur looking back to the beginning, I can’t see Nimoy interested in that. Further, with what a cunning plotter J.J.Abrams can be, I expect the elder Spock’s appearance to be something more cleverly reflexive and interactive.
#56
Funny. And, quite possibly, why this new movie is being made. At least as a catalyst.
44. snake – August 2, 2007
“wouldnt havin old spock set in the 24th century sorta make a TNG film? i dunno…sort of agree with 40″
No, it would make it a “Star Trek” film. The Universe of STAR TREK involves all these “eras.” I have always maintained that, while people prefer to be fans of a given series, they must at least accept the other series as either history, or the future.
Sort of like the fans having omniscient powers to look “forward” and “backwards.” That has always added something to my experience. I mean, I can watch KIRK in “Shore Leave” and think…Kirk is attracted to Ruth…”I wonder what happened?” I know he had a relationship and son with Carol Marcus… Also, the place where he and Finnegan fight is a sort of barren land…much like where he eventually died.
I’m not ashamed to say I love it all, but cite that TOS is my favorite era.
I don’t kink Archer is a poor Kirk, but rather look at him for what he was, an independent character with flaws. In “Dear Doctor” he did a very Archer thing that Kirk and Picard likely would not have done, he “first” ordered Plyox to cure the natural mutation/evolution of a species…and then later went back on that. Kirk would have cured the person…Picard would not even have entertained the idea of getting involved at all.
In any case, back to the point.
We have very little knowledge of the “Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before” era and before. There is literally a blank slate there. Also, we have never seen Earth as it looked like in the TOS era Proper.
As for the uniforms from that period, I think they can be altered and updated while keep the same basic style.
I love films that do the “Forest Gump/Fried Green Tomatoes” thing, by that, that are period films that move through history as the characters grow. I could very much enjoy such a telling of a Spock Story.
It could start in the post TNG era (keeping with the fans that want the relaity to keep going into the “future”) and then flashback to the pre-Kirk Times. The long life of Vulcans make that possible.
Also, now is the time to streamline canon a bit. You can keep fans pleased and present a movie people will like with no knowledge of Star Trek. But, ultimately, the money will be made via the fans who will buy the products and ancillaries. Thus, you cannot sell out the fans for an audience we don’t have. The balance can be made.
Screenplays, much like popular opinion, are not written in stone, and shift as easily as leaves in the wind in the right circumstances. When you’ve been around as long as I have, you’ll realize that with the certainty of long experience, or just plain common sense, as it were.
Whatever one’s feelings on this controversial matter, one thing is clear: I am certain, beyond all doubt that William Shatner will be in that film in one capacity or another.
This is a watershed moment. Mr. Abrams will make the call, not anyone else, and he and he alone, based upon the decisions which he makes will determine this upcoming film’s success or failure. He and he alone will bear the responsibility in the aftermath of a box office smash or flop.
This film will not have it’s success or failure decided by one actor’s appearance or absence. Please name all the box office smashes decided by William Shatner’s appearance in the last ten years. One would think that this would logically end this circular discussion.
But then again, we are talking about Star Trek fans, whose propensity for rabid irrationality can sometimes cloud their wisdom.
But I stand by my challenge. Any takers?
#43 Josh, No, it’s trolling to have it repeated over and over.
#62 Steve …
Part of me says I really don’t want to see time travel considering it figured prominently in the plots of Star Trek IV, VII, and VIII. I always thought Star Trek should be more about “space” than Back to the Future nonsense. There are too many paradoxes and plot holes involved with time travel.
That being said, time travel could be used in an original manner, and I understand where your coming from in terms of “an interactive experience”. Hopefully, only Zach Quinto’s Spock will be aware of his time-traveling future self. That might add a bit more credibility to an un-tainted timeline.
Both the first part of Nimoy’s interview and now these comments from Abrams push my assumptions of the movie’s plot closer to what I am actually hoping for. First, that this will take place prior to Kirk commanding the Enterprise. Second, Abrams confirmed my questions as to why Nimoy is in and Shatner at the moment is not, which is that the story revolves around Spock.
Ironically, that has largely been the case in almost all of Trek history, except maybe ST II and ST III, which centered on Kirk. It’s something I think has been a little unfair to Kirk, that any backstory for him always seemed to be relegated to him and an old flame. The lone exceptions were the Anton Karidian/Tarsus IV deal in The Conscience of the King, which was never fully explored, and the other was Generations. In Generations, there was this backstory attributed to Kirk in the Nexus, which most fans never quite understood. The reason was it was so rare that Kirk openly discussed such things. He was always so personal, fearful of letting his feelings show to his comrades.
Now, again, I am thinking there is a huge opportunity with the continuum for great storytelling about Kirk. He is the youngest captain of a major starship in Starfleet history. He must have done something enormous. Who knows, maybe they’re saving that for a sequel?
Xai,
Have you appointed yourself “Anthony Jr”? Are you a moderator here?
Damn, you are always putting your condescending two cents into EVERYONE’s comments.
SHUT UP!!! You’re just another visitor to this site!
Another thing…and this goes for all the REAL moderators…Why is it people aren’t allowed to voice THEIR OPINIONS here without some smartass comment or accusation of “spamming” or “trolling”?
Shit, what’s the point of having a message board if you aren’t going to let people speak their minds and express their opinions about these articles?
Pretty stupid if you ask me…and even if you don’t. Damn.
TTM
I’m afraid I don’t want Shatner in this movie. Let this be Spocks movie.
There is no overwhelming consensus that people want Kirk back, there’s just the same people, posting over and over and over…
I’m astounded that people would confuse the two really…
Re 70:
Well, feel free to start up your own message board and do whatever the hell you like there, then.
The point is, every thread’s getting hijacked by these repetitive “but Shatner MUST be brought back as Kirk!” posts. We’ve heard all of it already, over and over, and it’s getting annoying.
You make it sound like you’re not getting a chance to express your opinion. Hardly. It’s that you and others have voiced your opinion…OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, to the point of trying to drown out all other discussion. What’s the point of that? You really think all those posts are going to somehow change J.J.’s and Paramount’s minds, and cause Shatner to be put in the picture? They’re already trying to do that! And if they can’t, all the posts on this board aren’t going to make a difference, like Anthony said!
And it’s pretty ironic you’re moaning about not being able to get your opinion out there while at the same time you’re telling others to shut up. YOU’RE just another visitor to this site, pal! So I’d watch it with the SHUT UP!!!s if I were you…
#73 – Sleeper Agent X
The “Shatner MUST be in it!” posts have been around since this site started. That’s why I quit being a regular poster after the first several months. It was fun for a while, when the focus was more on the remastered series, but as the new movie has ramp up, so has the Shatner rhetoric.
So, basically, I agree with you… and unfortunately due to the extreme volume of this particular squeaky wheel, my enjoyment of this site has continued to drop over time. :(
Oh look…we have another self-appointed “Anthony Jr”. How cute.
Here’s the deal: Either let people express their views or close down the message board. It’s pointless to have a message board where the free expression of ideas cannot take place. Sometimes REPEATING a point is necessary as part of reinforcing it. GOD KNOWS some of you clowns repeat your “The movie is going to be Citizen Kane with or without Shatner” message enough to make ME sick.
Xai got told to shut up because he’s always bossing other people around and playing would be moderator! Since you are doing that too…you leave me no recourse but to tell you to follow the same sage advice. ;-)
And let me tell, ya PAL that if I DID start my own site, I wouldn’t censor people’s opinions or the number of times they stated it.
Again, that’s just stupid. And Hitch is still around and I sure read enough nonsensical posts from him. Nobody said word one about his posts!
THETrekMaster is right… There are starting to be a alarming number of little kiss-asses on this site. Sad. Anthony doesn’t need his own personal little suck ass squad. He’s a big boy.
Exactly, Lord Garth!
Per the Shatner Post Hijacking……..Honestly, what else are we supposed to talk about? I am being serious, but there’s next to nothing leaked about this movie yet, and Star Trek has been dormant for over 2 years.
timetravel? possible..its only been used twice in the movies. unless u count generations too :( maybe the new poster logo being ‘inverted’ is something todo with timetravel?
As much as I would love to see Shatner show up in this movie and piss off all the haters, I have to admit, if it doesn’t serve the story first and foremost,, then it doesn’t need to be. No cute cameos or clever fan wank winks and nods….please?
75, 76 –
Ugh. This is Anthony’s site, not yours, so if you don’t like the way it’s run, go create your own, if you can. Or find something else that more suits your style.
“Sometimes REPEATING a point is necessary as part of reinforcing it. ”
Reinforcing it to WHO? You’re complaining about other people being condescending, but now you’re acting like some kind of lecturer, imparting some kind of lesson! Please. You’re not convincing anyone who’s not already convinced. Sage posts like “Gotta have Kirk for this film to be a complete success.” don’t get the job done. Sorry buddy, but J.J. and Paramount aren’t going to be swayed by your weak attempts at Jedi mind control. You’re rude behavior now isn’t going to impress too many people, either.
Gee, thanks for calling me a kissass, Lord Garth! I liked you better when you talked about yourself in the third person… ;-)
@59SAX – OK no TNG bones then. I’m good with that…. and I agree – bring on a good story!
OK I posted a challenge, #66 to be precise and I see that none of the Shatner-files have bothered to take me up on it.
Don’t start bandying about threats or telling people to shut up on someone elses site. Your sense of anonymity has given you faux bravery. Most of the people on this site know how to use their manners and discuss things with civility. I’m not Anthony’s puppet but I am a great supporter of his efforts. HE has provided a forum for us to engage in intelligent discourse so I feel like it is a privledge to share my thoughts here. I think it would be a great idea for those of you who keep hijacking threads with the same old parroted line to start your own web site and repeat yourselves ad-infinitum.
Again I challenge you. Any takers?
Just a Spock based movie. Good bye Star Trek. J.J. Abrams should stick to tv shows I don”t watch.
OK, when Sarak was close to death his brain started breaking down, so we are assuming that is a more or less regular occurrence with Vulcans. Seems that a relatively elegant way without getting into Braga-ian time travel is to just have the whole movie be a flashback through Spock’s dying mind. That’s how it becomes Spock-centric as it is quite irrelevant where/if Kirk is at the time of Spock’s death. Another interesting point is that Vulcans live much longer than humans so it’s feasible that Spock’s death is many decades past the TNG era.
There are my 2c.
#70,75 Theetrekmaster
I am gone for a few hours and manage to piss someone off.
Thee, On this one thing, you are right. I’ll apologize for reacting to a post by Josh.
Josh, My bad and I apologize. That stuff is between you and Anthony.
Thee, let me ask you this. What is the difference between what you say I’m doing and your repetitious demands for Shatner’s return or the insults? I haven’t insulted you or told you to shut up. Even if I had stooped down to that level, you wouldn’t listen.
I’m pretty sure I can be a better poster in here and I’m betting you can’t consistently hold yourself to one “bring back Shatner” post per thread.
Repetition works in advertising. This isn’t advertising.
Another spock movie….zzzz zzzz zzzz
I agree with #87.. I would have liked to see a Kirk story.
Since they repeat themselves, I shall repeat myself.
Name ANY movie in the last ten years that had it’s box office decided by whether William Shatner was in it.
And for all the people that won’t go see it because the story is going to center around Spock:
Great! I don’t have to sit next to someone complaining about the movie. More popcorn for me!
I don’t understand what people mean by ‘another Spock movie’. When did we ever have a Spock movie? The only movie Spock’s name appears in barely features the character. Now Kirk movies, we’ve had our fair share and then some (ahem, Trek V?).
I’ve noticed the recurring theme among all of these posts over the past few months centers around the fact those with a blase’ give or take attitude about the Shat’s return, are the SAME group that drank the Kool-aid of Shit Trek for 15 years during the Berman era, effectively lapping up any substandard excuse for adventure that happened to have the label “Star Trek’ attached.
We had to endure that shit for 15 years, so I myself don’t think there’s anything wrong with a little tit for tat. How do you like those apples Kirk haters?
Spock movies….The motion picture, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, all revolved around Spock. The same thing happened to the TNG movie series, they became Data movies.
This is only a spock movie because they got Nimoy, originally it was going to be a Kirk movie. I guess they switched when they didn’t get Shatner.
precisely. We don’t need another spock story. its been like done to death. I dont care how many times they try to tell it.
#91 Josh,
You are gonna have to chum the water more than that to get a rise. I feel sad that you were so poor that your TV didn’t have an off switch for the one channel set.
This is just mind-boggling! For months the BBKers have been posting about how TOS movies were the ONLY ones that were any good! They were all declared masterpieces by the BBK crowd, actually! And what now?
Why, now they’re saying TMP, TSFS, TVH are all kind of blah!
It’s just too much, the level of hypocrisy, contradiction, and outright silliness of the most strident BBKers here…
#92 & 93
You guys must be watching different movies than I am. In no way is ‘The Search For Spock’ a Spock movie. It’s a Kirk movie, thru and thru. Spock doesn’t even appear till the last 10 minutes!! It’s all about Kirk’s choices – to sacrifice his career, to sacrifice his ship, to sacrifice his son. Spock is the catalyst, but it’s quite a stretch to call that a Spock movie.
The Motion Picture isn’t really a Spock movie either. He disappears for 30 min or more of the movie! I can’t say the same for Kirk. The primary conflict in the film belongs to Decker & Ilea (a rarity in Trek for guest starts to be the main focus). The plots of ‘our heroes’ are Kirk asserting himself as Captain and Spock coming to terms with himself. Neither really takes over the other.
The Voyage Home…hmmm, Spock gets some great lines and his return to ‘himself’ is critical, but that’s not a Spock movie either. In fact, it’s one of the only Treks where every supporting cast member gets to shine.
I agree with the criticism of the TNG movies, but it would be more accurate to say they became Picard/Data movies to the exclusion of every other character, not just Data movies. In fact, they were usually split into two quite cleanly – one half focusing on Data, one half focusing on Picard.
Also # 91
You’re making quite a generalization there. I know for me, it’s always been far more important for the film to be good than who is in it. If they have a tremendous Spock story written, I’d hate for them to go back and fiddle with it just so they can squeeze William Shatner in. I love the man, but if the movie is good as a Spock piece then leave it that way.
As for ‘Berman Trek’ and everything sucking after Kirk died, well, I partially agree. DS9 was the show truest to the spirit of The Original Series and managed to break new ground along the way. I agree TNG could be a bit sanitized at times and Voyager was a wasted premise (with a few bright spots). Enterprise was a mistake, plain and simple. I truly believe that was Rick Berman & Brannon Braga’s failed attempt to rewrite TOS. No actor on that show ever seemed comfortable in their role, right up till the end.
The fact is, it’s just as irrational to say the film will only be successful with Shatner as it is to insist he must be left out. If he fits, put him there. If it would detract from the story, leave him out. A very simple solution.
Xai,
I apologize for telling you to shut up. That was a bit over the top of me. Without repeating what’s already been said, I just think it’s silly to lambast people for talking about Trek…even if it is kind of said over and over. And even if that point of view is not shared by the webmaster of this site.
Remember also that a lot of people come into the conversation late or just plain have not had the chance to “get in their say”. I don’t think there is any malicious or coordinated effort to “hijack” anything here.
It’s just a bunch of fans getting all wound up over this film and expressing what they think is going to make it work — or more accurately: what they’d like to see in it.
True, we likely cannot influence Paramount much at this point.
TTM
#97 Thee
Accepted.
We”ll move on from here.
X
I’m starting to wonder if maybe we all have been on the wrong track. Everyone’s been assuming that the movie will be “The Adventures of Young Iowa, oops, James T. Kirk”, but it ’s sounding more like “Young Mr. Spock”.
#70-
Now this chap’s got it. THIS is real debate. This is what’s it’s all about.
Excellent.
This really sucks and breaks my heart…
TOS Star Trek revolves around Kirk (Shatner), not Spock (Nimoy),who is his good friend yes!……. but NOT now or ever the *star* of Star Trek!!!
I for one wont go if they dont put Kirk in front and centre…Shatner or no…THAT persona of his…. is the lead!….period!
Abrams is going to make a dud, and I am angry and very disapointed by what I have heard so far.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9g10IRMl7yA
:-(
“But we’re making this movie for people who don’t care about Star Trek too. This isn’t about pleasing the fans, this is about making a great film. And to do that, you have to both please the fans and please the people who’ve never seen Star Trek.”
Says it all right there, folks. This was never intended to be a film that catered to your every fanboy whim. Any of you who expects Abrams to make a film that does that is headed for disappointment, regardless of whether Shatner appears in it or not.
Maybe this movie is about the Enterprise. and the crew will be introduced. Spock was first in TOS. So it is only fitting Spock will be the first officer in the first movie. Kirk may be introduced in the end. Setting up an introduction for the second movie. Now that will be exciting.
It would be a big disappointment if Shatner does not come back as Kirk. It would be magic to see him and Nimoy on screen together again, even for a few minutes.
These guys won’t be acting forever, this could be the last opportunity. Make it so!
I think the fact that nearly every new piece of news ends up becoming a Shatner debate shows that he really should be in the film.
Honestly, I dont think he will at this point. I think they’re gonna keep it simple with Spock and thats it. Without Shatner it could and probably will be a great movie. But damn, if they put Shatner in, it would be even better, IMO.
It just kinda feels empty with Nimoy and not Shatner. It feels like something is missing, IMO. I guess we’ll see soon enough.
But like I said, I dont think he’s gonna be in it at all.
This particular news item and associated thread has really perked me up.
First, I’m glad to see that Abrams is thinking about this movie as a work that must stand on its own, not just be another installment in a franchise. Like any film, what this project needs is a strong story and strong direction. Abrams (et al) not only expresses this view openly, but has shown himself to possess the traits necessary to realize it.
Second, I am pleased that the focus may be on Spock, because canon shows that he has a long and storied life even after his resurrection on the Genesis planet. Spock has always been the most fascinating character for me, with a great deal of depth and humanity (heh).
Third, I am pleased that the moderators on this site are admonishing the Shatner advocates, and weighing on the side of strong story and direction – faithful, yes, but with room to breathe.
I have only one thing further to say to Shatner die-hards: if Shatner is such a great actor, essential to any portrayal of Kirk, then would you care as much if T.J. Hooker was reimagined with a different actor? I ask this rhetorical question because it strikes me that you do not care so much for Shatner as an actor, but that you suffer from a failure of imagination, and a fear of the unknown.
I declare again: The Kirk is dead, long live the new Kirk!
Spock is the only actor in TOS that ever showed any subtlety so I look forward to his characters sole appearance without every one else hamming it up, especially Shatner. I bet Nimoy looks forward to it as well
Whats Laurel without Hardy?
Or Curly without Moe and Larry?
The warm and familiar feeling one gets when Kirk and Spock acknowledge their bond, friendship, love for each other that is the core of Trek. It is what sustains the Heart of Trek.
Shatner needs to be in.
I have always enjoyed Nimoy’s Spock since 1966 more than Shatner’s Kirk, but they are a team, and as long as they are still alive and vibrant, they should be paired together at least once more.
Generations was shallow without Spock and Kirks death was not as emotional as Spocks was in Wrath of Khan. The fact the two were together at Spocks death gave it more breath and depth of relevence.
Dear Mr. Abrams,
What exactly do you mean by “This isn’t about pleasing the fans, this is about making a great film”?
1. Can’t you do both? Do you feel that pleasing the fans on the one hand and making a good film on the other hand is a contradiction in itself? What a pity..
2. If you do not intend to please the fans, we should maybe refrain from sharing in the process of this film’s genesis and – we should maybe refrain from buying tickets for it in due course.
109, What he said was whatever they do they aren’t going to please all the fans. Prough of that is just read the earlier post. Noone agees what the film should be about. So they intend to make a film that will apeal to a general audience, I for one say Here Here. And in doing so the film will also apeal to a large percentage of fans, but not to all fan. No film can.
LLAP
trektacular (107): ‘Spock is the only actor in TOS that ever showed any subtlety’
That’s a little unfair to Deforest Kelley, whose beautifully nuanced performance added so much humanity to the team.
I don’t see why a film built around Spock can’t be ***about*** Kirk. It allows a non-linear narrative, perhaps detailing Spock’s meetings with Kirk down the years, meaning we don’t have to see every minute of Kirk’s life prior to the start of the show.
This movie is gonna suck, trying to attract non star trek fans? Are you nuts Abrams this movie should be for star trek fans period. Enough of this trying to please everyone shit. Make it for us or F off!
83. THX-1138 … “OK I posted a challenge, #66 to be precise and I see that none of the Shatner-files have bothered to take me up on it.”
Hi there, THX! :) The reason no one took you up on it is because it wasn’t worth considering. It’s a stupid question, frankly. No one ever said William Shater is a huge box office star. We all know he’s not George Clooney. What I and many others have said is that he IS the most recognizable and popular actor in Star Trek history, we wish he could somehow be worked into the new film, and there is no doubt in my mind at least that he WOULD have some positive effect on the publicity and the box office. Does that mean the movie will flop without him? Of course not. I am hoping it will be a big hit whether he’s in it or not, I think we all are.
You say it is your “privledge” to share your thoughts here. Well it’s mine and everyone else’s too. So stop getting your Voyager panties in a twist over our opinions. :)
107. trektacular … “Spock is the only actor in TOS that ever showed any subtlety so I look forward to his characters sole appearance without every one else hamming it up, especially Shatner. I bet Nimoy looks forward to it as well.”
No offense, but your statement is idiotic. Shatner, as much as anyone, laid the foundation that all of Star Trek is built on. Your attacks on him, calling him a bad actor and so forth, are uncalled for, and you’d be hard pressed to find many who agree. He is an awesome actor, and he proved it time and again in the original series.
I’tll be fascinating later on after the film is released learning about some of the unused ideas they bounced around on how to bring Shat in.
The Generations debacle just festers with age.
It’s good to know that JJ&RO visit this site- there are lots of good ideas floating around, and they’re gonna need as many as they can get.
Once again I ask, B&B bashing, anyone?
Not a Spock movie, an NCC-1701 movie is more like it.
~ Film Opens ~
Spock is overseeing the launch of a new Enterprise [Gabe's ship perhaps]and remembers fondly the launch of the Enterprise from many years ago.
Flashback to many years ago.
We see NCC-1701 in drydock April is there for the launch & shake down cruise, Pike is there as well along with Spock.
Yadda yadda yadda
- W -
* You get the idea, i’m sure *
#100 Shadow
It’s too late to throw gas on that discussion. We’ve settled it. But I am sure there’s someone here that you can “debate” with.
I agree 115 Woulfe. This will be similar to the hiatus of Tos. They bring back Star Trek with The Motion Picture. It was about the introduction of the Star Ship Enterprise and Spock. While Capt Kirk was the catalyst. I believe Capt Kirk will be the catalyst with his late introduction.
I also believe Matt Damon would be the perfect Capt Pike (even as Kirk if they ever brought back TOS).
Here is a link to the history of the early Enterprise and could very well be a spoiler. If they follow this story line. I would be pleased.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Robert_April
Apocrypha-(definition:writings or statements of dubious authenticity)
In the books Final Frontier and Best Destiny, both written by Diane Carey, it was stated that Captain April was born in Coventry, UK. In addition, it was stated that James Kirk’s father, George Kirk, was the Tactical officer of the Enterprise during April’s captaincy.
In the book Crisis on Vulcan, written by Brad and Barbara Strickland, Christopher Pike is April’s First Officer.
April makes several appearances and is often referenced in the Star Trek: Early Voyages comic series. The first issue “Flesh of My Flesh” establishes April commanded a USS Tiberius for three five-year-missions prior to commanding the Enterprise, J.M. Colt and Jose Tyler served under April on the Tiberius. In the same comic April is seen walking Christopher Pike to the Enterprise in spacedock, and in another scene set two years later it is established that it was under April’s recommendation that Chris Pike recruited Spock to the Enterprise crew. The forth issue “Nor Iron Bars a Cage” states that April, then a Commodore at Starfleet Command personally reassigned J.M. Colt to the Enterprise to take up her position as yeoman. In the final story in the Early Voyages series, in the comics Nemesis and Thanatos, April, then an Admiral, returns to the Enterprise to temporarily take command whilst Captain Pike conducts and undercover mission. This story was never concluded as the series was cancelled, April’s questionable conduct in the story might explain why he was once again a Commodore in his later appearance in “The Counter-Clock Incident”.
More on Capt April from the same web site.:
Robert April was perhaps most famous for his stint as the first captain of the USS Enterprise. April was born in 2195, and would later marry his beloved Sarah.
During the 2240s, April would oversee the construction of components for a Constitution class at the San Francisco Naval Yards. The vessel would later become the USS Enterprise and his first command. April later commanded the Enterprise from 2245 to 2250; his wife Sarah would serve as his chief medical officer.
Following the end of his five-year mission, Commodore April became a respected Federation ambassador-at-large for the next twenty years, until 2270 when he was forced to retire from Starfleet. Exceptional circumstances made Starfleet reconsider its retirement policies, however, and he continued to work for the service. (TAS: “The Counter-Clock Incident”)
More on April, Pike and Spock’s interactions.
http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/scifinder/a/Robert_April.php
Some sources list the character as Robert T. April, including the official Star Trek website, maintained by Paramount Pictures. Most of April’s appearances in Star Trek novels give his background as English, hailing from Coventry. April also wears various cardigan sweaters over his Starfleet uniform, due to a rare blood disorder which causes him to feel slightly chilly most of the time. Commander George Kirk, father of Captain James T. Kirk, serves as April’s first officer in the early years of the Enterprise. One young adult novel, however, (”Crisis on Vulcan”) portrays Pike as the first officer under April when Spock visits the ship.
Could it be possible that the character of James T kirk (old or young) don’t appear at all in the movie ?
PS : My blog has nothing to do with star trek, sorry !
ralph…and others
please do not cut and paste large passages from other sites here…that is frowned up. and dont post over and over replying to yourself.
the links are enough…and you can do that in one post
Sorry Anthony. Glad you participate.
Hey, is it possible that reports of Shatner not being involved are just a ruse so that we will be more generiounly surprised when we see him on screen, or that we will have less idea of what’s going on.
re:123
Didn’t they do that with The Motion Picture? Nimoy was rumored to have not signed on.
Shatner_Fan_2000
Hi Buddy!
No, you’re wrong, pal. Do a little asking around and see who the more recognizable figure from the original series is. The reason nobody took up the gauntlet is because I am right. If you don’t agree, PROVE me wrong. I am not a Shatner hater; rather I am a strong disliker of fools who talk out of their….lack of knowledge. Star Trek is bigger than any of the actors in it. That’s why, at some point, none of the originals will be in it. You can not watch if that is your wish. I choose to let the new direction of the Trek world stand (or fall) on it’s own merit, and not necesarily have it depend on the events of the past. Frankly this whole “Shat must be in it” debate is coming off like a bunch of one-note-Johnnies. If you are such big Shatner fans, then take up the reigns and make fan films. Ask him to star as Kirk. See how far that get’s you. But please try to bring something new to the table with the debate. As far as Voyager, I didn’t see much of it. Not my cup, if you know what I mean. If I’m not to be concerned with your opinions, why are you so concerned with mine? And why are you interested in the state of my panties, for heavens sake? I’ve said it before, but I think that there is a faction of Star Trek fans that have a bit of a Shatner-crush. Hell, one person posting on this site has gone so far as to say that William Shatner does not just portray a hero, he IS an actual hero! I think that we are getting carried away with all this “Is he or isn’t he” debate.
I would think that getting a Star Trek movie where previously there was none to be had would be a positive conversation point, but apparently not. It has turned in to yet another point of conjecture and dis-unification among the fans.
Ask yourself: Is the glass half empty or is it half full?
Nimoy only jumped on when Paramount decided to do a feature instead of Phase II.
Everyone’s expecting Shatner to be included. Abrams can be the master of the UNexpected.
Would it really hurt to leave him out? Really…any efforts to resurrect Kirk will ultimately be branded as contrived.
He’s DEAD, and that’s not JJ’s fault! (And, yeah, this is a Spock thread.)
THX-1138 – hear, hear.
#125 THX,
First off, your comments about BBKers don’t apply to me, since I’ve already gone on record saying I want this movie to be a success regardless of Shatner’s participation, and am looking forward to seeing it opening day no matter what. The glass is looking QUITE full to me at the moment, thank you very much. It was partly due to your vigorous anti-Shatnerism that I felt compelled to speak up. Now onto (dismantling) your specific points:
“Do a little asking around and see who the more recognizable figure from the original series is.”
In another thread on this site, someone posted the results of just such a poll. In response to the question, “Who’s the most famous character?”, the response was apparently:
“79% said Captain Kirk (then 15% Spock and the rest didn’t know any of the characters names)”
That sounds about right to me. But even if not, you misconstrued what I said in my original post, because I clearly referred to Shatner as “the most recognizable and popular ACTOR in Star Trek history”; I was not making reference to characters. You told me I’m wrong without even bothering to mention who you think the most popular character is, but I’m assuming you meant Spock. I don’t doubt that Spock is very well known and in the 60’s and 70’s might have even been the most well known, since the careers of both Nimoy and Shatner were in their early stages. But as the decades have passed and Shatner has continued to remain so highly visible compared to his co-stars, that has changed.
Second, I’m sorry, but your “challenge” question of, “Please name all the box office smashes decided by William Shatner’s appearance in the last ten years” is still irrelevant. We’re not talking about films in general. We’re talking about Star Trek movies, almost a genre unto itself. William Shatner has never been as big of a box office star as I’m sure he would have liked. He was made an icon via the medium of television. But I repeat, he IS the #1 star of Star Trek. You can choose to debate that point if you want, but that would be … unwise.
Third, when you say things like … “If you are such big Shatner fans, then take up the reigns and make fan films. Ask him to star as Kirk. See how far that get’s you. But please try to bring something new to the table with the debate” … YOU are not bringing anything new to the debate. We’re intelligent people stating our preferences, we’re not delusional. Why don’t you take up a collection and pay him not to be in it? Or better yet, pay us all to stop talking about him, since you can’t deal with it?
Fourth … “one person posting on this site has gone so far as to say that William Shatner does not just portray a hero, he IS an actual hero!” And that bothers you, huh? My response to that is, it depends on what your definition of hero is. No, Shatner isn’t saving lives like a doctor or a fireman. However, it might also be said that a 75 + year old man who is not only not relegated to the sidelines, but is giving old age the middle finger and taking life by the horns as he continues to relish every new experience – whether it be race car driving, raising horses, playing paintball, acting, venturing into music, writing, directing, or whatever else he’s up to – is something of an inspiration. He also does a lot of charity work.
“Shatner-crush”? You bet your pointed ears!
I agree that music cues should at least pay homage to those from the original series. So much great music has not yet made it to cd, such as suites from “Metamorphosis” and “Who Mourns for Adonis?” And all the fight music from season two. Eeb pleb nista…
Re 125:
Well said, THX! Yeah, that post about “Shatner being a hero in real life” floored me, too. It just shows you that some of the people so worked up about Shatner have difficulty seeing him apart from the roles he played. It isn’t healthy, either.
I love the fact Shatner is living life to the hilt. Good for him. That doesn’t make him a hero by any stretch of the word.
#125, #128
Does it matter?… All the screaming on the internet isn’t going to change minds. He’s either asking too much in $$ or screentime or they aren’t willing to pay what he’s worth or he’s not important to the story and didn’t or won’t write him in for their own reasons.
MY point? The bickering is getting old in my opinion.
Start a new round on Monday.
OK, 2000, OK.
The polls: Anthony hinself has alluded to the fact that they are somewhat “hardcore fan skewed” and hardly scientific. Go out on the street with a picture of Spock and see if Joe Public can identify the character. On a separate occasion take a picture of Kirk and do the same test. Do it for real.
As to my “vigorous anti-Shatnerism”. Please to cite an example on any of my posts that are anti Shatner. Anywhere. That kind of ridiculous statement is what robs your argument of credence and credibility. Kirk WAS my biggest hero groiwng up. When I was a kid, he was the character I always got to be when my buddies in our imaginations would land on “strange new worlds” and save the galaxy from our older sisters.
Your assertion that Shatner is the #1 draw is, frankly, quite debatable. Again, it is all going to be in the opinion of who you talk to, but I would just go over the data of my suggested query and see what you come up with.
And, yes, the Shatner fans have been coming off like a whiny bunch of parrotts. Every time something comes up on this site to discuss, someone invariably says that if Shatner isn’t going to be in it, they won’t see it. That is, quite simply, a stupid thing to say. And by the way, I would wager that the rest of us here couldn’t care less if you see the movie or not. Pay you all to stop talking about how you are upset with the Shatner situation? Hell, if I could get the rest of us who are tired of the droning to pool our money together, we might have more than enough money to get Shatner IN the damn thing!
And I think it’s great that William Shatner can do with his life whatever he likes and that he may be “inspiriational” to others. But a real life, true blue hero? C’mon! That is an insult to all the brave people who defend the innocent and serve to protect the public at large like the military, firemen, and policemen. Let’s be careful about how we bandy about such phrases so easily.
I have nothing at all against the BBKers. To be honest, I hadn’t heard of them until this site. That is the first time I have even typed “BBK” in my life. Up til now, the only BBK I had heard of came with fries and a drink at Burger King. They seem to have their own website and launch most of their information from there.
So being a fan of the work of William Shatner isn’t the problem. It’s when it get’s in the way of other peoples’ discussions and acts as the only thing the rest of us can comment on that it get’s to be a problem. Can we not just talk about Leonard Nimoy’s participation in the new film without it turning into grousing about how JJ Abrams is ruining Star Trek by cutting out William Shatner? Good Grief, let’s move it along!
Yes, in my earlier posts I was ranting. I readily admit it. But as far as things I write here, I will gladly take up an honest discussion with whom so ever take humbrage. If I am wrong, you bet that I’ll eat crow
132. THX-1138 … sigh. Here we go again.
“they (the polls) are somewhat ‘hardcore fan skewed’ and hardly scientific. Go out on the street with a picture of Spock and see if Joe Public can identify the character. On a separate occasion take a picture of Kirk and do the same test. Do it for real.”
That poll I described was done FOR REAL. It was conducted amongst Joe Public. Do you really think Trekkies wouldn’t have been able to name any characters other than Kirk & Spock?? Hello … are hailing frequencies open?
“As to my ‘vigorous anti-Shatnerism’. Please to cite an example on any of my posts that are anti Shatner. Anywhere.”
If you insist. It was after the THIRD time that you dropped in “challenging” Shatner fans to name his box office successes that I decided to respond. I figured you wanted me to, after repeating your challenge 3 times! A challenge, by the way, that you now seem to have abandoned, because you finally realized it made about as much sense as asking, “How many Star Trek films has Brad Pitt been responsible for the success of?”
“Your assertion that Shatner is the #1 draw is, frankly, quite debatable. Again, it is all going to be in the opinion of who you talk to, but I would just go over the data of my suggested query and see what you come up with.”
We’ve already been over this. Shatner IS the #1 Trek star. You’re insinuating that it’s Nimoy, but, sorry, ‘fraid not. I love Nimoy, but he is NOT as well known as Shatner. Especially now, when he (Nimoy) has been retired from acting for years. Where do you live, Rigel 7? I live on E-A-R-T-H. :)
“Every time something comes up on this site to discuss, someone invariably says that if Shatner isn’t going to be in it, they won’t see it. That is, quite simply, a stupid thing to say.”
Hmmm … did you read post #128? Reason I ask is because in it, I said (in English), “I want this movie to be a success regardless of Shatner’s participation, and am looking forward to seeing it opening day no matter what.”
Are we done now?
DavidJ – August 2, 2007:
“Hell, here we actually have an example of Abrams RESPECTING the canon that people seem to cherish so much (by acknowledging that Kirk has died) and people still aren’t happy! ”
I doubt many cherish the pointless, idiotic plotting of Generations, aka Rick Berman and his cronies trying (and failing) to pass-the -torch/bury TOS in the same stroke.
Something tells me that this movie has to be more then Old spock reflecting on his younger days and meeting Kirk and crew for the first mission, etc, etc, etc,…..so on…..and so forth. I think it has to do with Old spock actually interacting with the young spock, and that era in some way or another. commentary from JJ and Quinto give me that impression/
Someone posted that Nimoy only wanted to come on board after Star Trek phase 2 became ST-TMP
I think that is not correct, AFAIK it was Robert Wise that wanted to know what was missing when he came on board. As soon as he knew that there was an ongoing legal issue between Paramount and Nimoy, something to do with Nimoys likeness as Spock on a UK billboard advert for Heinekin lager, Robert Wise essentially said “sort it out”
It was done and it was after this that Leonard Nimoy was in. This is a much shorter version of what I have read in the past, but my time is short at the moment… :)
No. I will say what I like. But I won’t take up any more of your precious emoticons. I think we are looking at two different sides of the same horse. I do respect your opinion, I just believe that you are wrong.
Next issue.
#22 Oceanhopper
I very much echo ALL your views there…
The colourful uniforms, and no Klingon of Romulan “terrorists” please…give us something new…
#55 Steve Moss
I truly hope you are wrong in your “time travel” suggestions…as that’s one dead horse that has been flogged too many times…
what is wrong with setting a movie after the periods we’ve seen so far? What’s with this prequel mania? It didn’t work for Enterprise either. Only the fans watched that. What makes paramount think that this prequel will be watched by non-trekkies? I would like to know what happened after the Dominion war and the return of Voyager… wouldn’t you?