Interview With Leonard Nimoy – Part 2 |
jump to navigation

Interview With Leonard Nimoy – Part 2 August 2, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,Nimoy,ST09 Cast,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

In the second part of the exclusive interview with Leonard Nimoy, the actor talks about his thoughts on the new Spock (Zachary Quinto), William Shatner not being in the film (as of now) and J.J. Abrams abilities as a director…and ‘technobabble.’

full interview below What are your thoughts on Zachary Quinto as the new Spock?

Leonard Nimoy: When J.J. sent me a compilation of his work on DVD I was very impressed. He is a very solid actor. To find someone who looks right is tricky enough, but to find someone who looks right and is as talented as he is I think is doubly effective. The danger would be to find someone who looks like me, but does not have the sense of the interior life that is necessary for the Spock character. So is it true that you and William Shatner have some kind of approval deal for the new Kirk and Spock?

Leonard Nimoy: I don’t think it is accurate to say we have approval as much as consultation rights. And J.J. did consult with me and it was a very easy call. I don’t know what would have happened if I said “J.J. this doesn’t work for me.” That would have been a yellow flag if not a red flag, but not contractually. It is just a question of mutual respect and understanding of what we are trying to bring to this project. But I think I can remember exactly what I said to J.J. I told him “not only does he look like me, but he has an inner life” – which is essential to that character. So over the last weeks William Shatner kind of let the cat out of the bag regarding your being in the film. He recounted some phone calls between you guys with you ribbing him, but he is known to be a joker so were his accounts accurate?

Leonard Nimoy: Well I didn’t rib him, but what he said was accurate. We spoke on the phone. I had read the script and he asked me if he was in it and I said “no.” And that is pretty much the way it went. You are right he jokes a lot and he said something like “I reached through the phone and grabbed him by the throat” and that sort of thing, but that is just Bill. I know that he is disappointed. I don’t know what the future is. I have no idea what J.J.’s plans are and I know that J.J. said that they are still trying to find a way to put him in the movie, but I am not the person to talk to about that. Have you talked to J.J. about your thoughts on Bill being in the film?

Leonard Nimoy: It is not up to me. I told J.J. that I was with Bill in Philidelphia last weekend and that Bill was disappointed that as of now he is not in the film. He was reported as being ‘furious’ and that is not accurate at all. I think he is appropriately disappointed, but I think he has come to a kind of understanding. After all, and Bill and I talked about this, the fact is his character did die in [Star Trek:] Generations. He said “ya but you died at the end of [Star Trek] II.” And I said “but I was resurrected…that is the difference between you and I.” [laughs] I also said to him that if I had been in Generations I would not have let him die…and that is a fact. I thought it was gratuitous. I didn’t see why…what was the point? I thought it was a waste of a very important character. You have said that you are playing the original and now older Spock and you are saying that Kirk cannot be in the film because he died in Generations. The implication here is that you are playing Spock in a future time period after Generations right?

Leonard Nimoy: You are digging for story points [laughs] you are doing a very good job of it but I am not going to comment any further. Did you see Mission: Impossible: III? As a fellow director what did you think of J.J. Abrams first feature?

Leonard Nimoy: I thought J.J. did a great job. I go to some of these movies today and I have to turn to my wife and say “what is going on here.” [laughs] These movies being made today, like Mission and some of the others…Tansformers which you probably know I was involved in originally. It is amazing to me these back stories are coming out of the closet now. The Mission project, the Star Trek project, the Transformers project…I have been involved with them for a long long time. Anyway, I said to some friends in San Diego that the stories we did in the days when I was involved in making these films and were much more linear than they are today. They are much more complex today. The audiences that go to see these films readily accept the complexities, more than I can frankly. I am not always sure what is going on and what people are trying to do. There is a line in Mission where the heavy says to Tom Cruise something like “it’s complicated.” Where he is explaining to him what the real game is…and I laughed out loud and said “damn right it’s complicated!” That’s true, but in that film Abrams made an interesting choice with regards to the central plot revolving around the ‘Rabbit’s Foot’ or the film’s MacGuffin. It was never explained. I always thought that was a daring choice to not overwhelm the audience with the technology. Which brings up an issue that has plagued Trek over the last decade or so…the notion that has come to be called ‘technobabble.’ Often on the recent TV series and even films the characters would go on and on about polarizing this and re-aligning that as solutions to dilemmas…

Leonard Nimoy: [emphatically] I agree! I agree! I totally agree. At one point during The Next Generation television series I contacted the Paramount television people and said “I am looking at some of these shows and I don’t understand them.” These technobabble scenes where people sit around a table and pour out information that has no dramatic impact – that is not in character. It is just people putting out information to try and explain what is going on, but it doesn’t explain…it is just boring. I think you are right, Abrams did not do that. He kept this thing moving and some of the scenes were absolutely gripping…gripping. When he gets hold of a scene he knows how to milk the drama out of it and that is one of his great talents. So you see similarities with this new movie

Leonard Nimoy: Yah…I am not worried about technobabble with this movie I will tell you that. When I see technobabble my blood runs cold. Well obviously Abrams and his team have a modern sensibility and tend to tell non-linear stories. But in this case we are going back to a 1960s TV show…

Leonard Nimoy: My primary concern is with the characters and the development of them. Abrams is going to tell a story and he is going to tell as story with characters that I am very familiar with. My sense when I read the script is that the understanding and the nurturing and development of these characters is excellent. That is the only word I can think of…Excellent! With that in hand I called him and said exactly that. I said “You have captured these people. I am interested being with them as the audience. I want to see these relationships develop as you have done this. I want to see it acted out. I am looking forward to it and I want to be in this movie.” As far as the adventure itself, there are lots of ways to do a Star Trek adventure. I am sure they are going to do a very meaningful Star Trek adventure. 

PART 1: Read Part 1 of this interview 

(PHOTOS: Albert L. Ortega)


1. Jim Loftus - August 2, 2007

First! Ever!

2. Tim Handrahan - August 2, 2007

First! Great conclusion to an outstanding interview. Bring back SHATNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

3. Jim Loftus - August 2, 2007

“These technobabble scenes where people sit around a table and pour out information that has no dramatic impact…”

Mr. Nimoy, you have read my MIND.

My god. Whatever happended to the true essence of TOS? None of the other series seemed to be able to give that to us. The tactical, clever Kirk and Spock solutions to thwart the enemy… the drama… the tension of saving everyone’s ass at the last second!!! And above all else: whatever happened to the SENSE OF WONDER?

Thanks for the interview, well done! I have so much more faith in this concept now that Mr. Nimoy has expressed his enthusiasm and actual participation. I would give my left nut for this to turn out great. CROSS YOUR FINGERS EVERYONE!

4. StillKirok - August 2, 2007

Very good interview. Would have liked more answers on Shatner, but you tried. Frustrating to know that it’s possible Kirk’s death may have played a role in Nimoy not being in Generations. He’s right of course as to the lack of meaning of the death. But hopefully, he can help convince JJ to make this happen.

Now if you can get an interview with Abrams…. :D

5. Granger - August 2, 2007

Great interview – Nimoy’s wholehearted endorsement of the script is most welcome since he was by far the most thoughtful and critical of the original troika with regards to Trek movie plotting. I love Bill Shatner’s work in Trek (excepting Trek V) but, like Nimoy, I’m not sure how he could play a major role in the new movie given his demise in Generations…and how much he has changed physically since that film. If the Shat does get into the new film, I’d want him to play a meaningful role and not just be in for a brief cameo, and I’d worry that multiple TOS actors getting shoehorned into the film would likely create plot holes, etc.

6. Aaron R. (Spock is the man and Nimoy is ten times as awesome) - August 2, 2007

Yeah no Shat… I figured as much as did many of us here. It is unfortunate but you know thats what happens when you let them kill off your character in a petty way…. Ergh what do you want Shat you ok’d the whole death thing?!?!? Anywho good thoughts from Mr. Nimoy I can’t wait to see what else happens in the Star Trek (2008) saga……. .. .. ..

Aaron R.

7. Robert April - August 2, 2007

#2 “Great conclusion to an outstanding interview. Bring back SHATNER!”


8. lou - August 2, 2007


Why isn’t it coming out THIS christmas? :'(

9. stallion - August 2, 2007

Good interview.

10. Agent 47 - August 2, 2007

part two of this interview was as good as part one :)

@StillKirok………….i really hate to say it, but Shatner simply isn’t relevant to Trek anymore, his Kirk is DEAD!!!! there is no feasible way to get him involved, i’d like him back for sure, but realise it’s a lost cause and simply can not and will not happen :( *Generations made sure of that*

but i’m 100% convinced Shatner will not be anywhere near the Paramount set when filming starts………………..all i hope for now then is a damn good movie with an interesting story to tell :)

11. TechTrekker - August 2, 2007

Boy does he hit it right on the head!

“You have captured these people. I am interested being with them as the audience. I want to see these relationships develop as you have done this. I want to see it acted out.”

I don’t think the movie could get a better stamp of approval. I hope they stick to their guns and tell a good story and not try to “plug in” anything or anyone that will destroy it for the sake of fan pressure. If this story can reach to the average guy off the street and make trek big again, think about the possibilities for the future!


12. StillKirok - August 2, 2007

#10, Shatner is more relevant to Star Trek today than ever. He is the biggest name they can get, and can put more butts in the seats than all of the other actors combined.

It’s not that Shatner is irrelevant to Trek, it’s that Trek without Shatner is irrelevant. The demise of the franchise since Kirk’s death shows that.

And Kirk being dead is the least important fact. You want him back? Write him back. It’s not that complicated.

THE RETURN brought the character back. That’s just one way.

You can deny Shatner’s relevance all you want, but the fact remains that Shatner’s status is still the hottest topic.

13. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

I agree #10 Agent 47! As much as I like Shatner as Kirk I feel his time has passed. He sealed the deal when he agreed to be killed off in the Next Gen era of the timeline. I know we all love Shatner but the way I look at this is you make you bed you lie in it. Kirk with Generations wanted a “meaningful” role and so they gave him a death. Every actor wants to do one great death scene and he took it. What he never realized until far after the fact was that the death was a shallow and petty one not fit for a Star Trek legend this is why he authored his book series to resurrect the character and let him fly again in heroic fashion…. Well thats all good and his books are some good reads but his books are not cannon and the time for a Spock style rebirth from the dead has come and passed unlooked for and not done. I feel that the Shat should sit on his pride and accept that sometimes when you make your bed you just have to lay in it… especially if its a deathbed.

Aaron R.

14. Craig - August 2, 2007

How about Spock attending the launching of the Enterprise F and he starts to think about the time when he and Kirk met on the 1701? Could Spock still be around at that time?

15. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - August 2, 2007

Great interview, summed up my opinion of the Next Gen era (minus DS9)
Love Nimoy!!!!!!!! Great photographer too!!!

16. Dennis Bailey - August 2, 2007

#12 : “Shatner..can put more butts in the seats than all of the other actors combined.”

Errant nonsense. There’s not one iota of evidence or any good reason to believe that Shatner would attract more people to a theatrical “Star Trek” film than Leonard Nimoy as Spock would.

Shatner’s doing very well on TV commercials and free TV. It’s been demonstrated over and over that this means nothing at all in terms of box office draw. Were it otherwise, Hollywood would belong to David Schwimmer and Matt LeBlanc. :lol:

17. Agent 47 - August 2, 2007

@ 12 StillKirok

“You can deny Shatner’s relevance all you want, but the fact remains that Shatner’s status is still the hottest topic.”

i’m not denying Shatner’s relevance to Star Trek on the whole,he’ll always be remembered as the man who played the original James T Kirk :) what i meant was is that he’s irrelevant with regards to this particular film.

heck! i’d jump for joy if it was announced a way to get him involved was found, but i’ve accepted the fact it seems very unlikely that his involvement can/will happen,and again i say i’m 100% certain he won’t be anywhere near this movie

i will indeed see this film regardless because it focuses on TOS crew and characters and i like what i read in the Nimoy interview………..although it seems like a Spock biopic, reading the Abrams article

18. Robert April - August 2, 2007

#10 “Blah blah blah blah blah…”

I’m sorry, I can’t seem to hear you. What did you say?

19. Spike - August 2, 2007

If you think Trek can’t exist without Shatner, you can’t be a complete fan. The concept is boundless. I agree with some of what Nimoy says and not some. For instance, Shatner’s death wasn’t technically “necessary” in Generations, but when is it ever? And the original Trek had technobabble too, so why is it poison now? Spock and Kirk were always hitting a time warp or creating a tachyon bubble or something.

Just because YOU dont get it, doesnt mean what no one would. I’m not an engineer, I’m not supposed to totally get the technics of it, but I was never confused during TNG. What’s with all the TNG bashing these days anyway?

20. Craig - August 2, 2007

I forgot to add the Enterprise F could be a set up for a new TV series if Trek XI is a hit.

21. Michael - August 2, 2007

I want to put in the counterpoint about the techno-babble that some of you seem to hate. 1st off it really should be referred to as Trekno-babble. I realize that in many cases this was overdone but there really is a fine line between them talking over your head and talking down to you by dummying it down.

I for one became an Engineer because of TOS and Scotty. A lot of care has been taken to make the Trekno-babble sound realistic (or at least consistent) to folks like me that hear and use the real thing daily. Imagine a medical show where they are about to perform surgery on someone and they use terms like “I’m gonna cut him right here under the ear” instead of “I’m preparing to make an incision at the cerotic artery”. I for one don’t want the Trekno-babble removed just keep it to the point that is appropriate and required to move the story along.

Technical issues require technical terms especially if the people delivering them are supposed to be professionals. To do any less ruins the credibility to me even more then the star field being visible through the Doomsday Machine. If I can’t believe what they are saying it might as well be Lost In Space.

Remember – our heroes are supposed to be highly trained professionals; they should talk and act like it.

22. Sisko - August 2, 2007

Putting Shat in the film just make good business sense…It will put more butts in the seats like StillKirok said. He is the essense of Trek.

23. star trackie - August 2, 2007

Nimoy gets it.
Berman didn’t.
Nimoy believes JJ gets it.

Things are good.

24. Harry Ballz - August 2, 2007

It’s interesting about Shatner being in the new movie. We’ve all assumed at this point that Shatner will not be reprising the role of Kirk in the film. But, and it’s a BIG but, as of only a week ago at the ComiCon,Nimoy stated in this interview, “and I know that J.J. said that they are still trying to find a way to put him in the movie”. That simple statement speaks volumes. It sounds like as long as it doesn’t diminish the plot, they are STILL working on pulling off Shatner’s return! I’m not even cautiously optimistic, but let’s just say “there are always possibilities” of a last minute solution!

25. Sisko - August 2, 2007

..but if we can’t get Shat then Nimoy would be the 2nd choice

26. Dennis Bailey - August 2, 2007

#18: “#10 “Blah blah blah blah blah…”

I’m sorry, I can’t seem to hear you. What did you say?”

A good deal more than you in this instance, and less childishly.

27. Adam Cohen - August 2, 2007

I love this man.

Everything he says makes sense. Nimoy for president in 2008.

28. Sleeper Agent X - August 2, 2007

A great second part to that interview, Anthony! And I ‘m glad to see many of the posters here are willing to see this movie even if it doesn’t have Shatner!

As for technobabble, I’m relieved this movie won’t have so much of that. But I actually didn’t mind the so-called technobabble on TNG–at least there the tech talk had at least one foot in real science, so for those of us who had some education in physics or astronomy, the technobabble actually was often enlightening.

By the time Voyager rolled around, though, the technobabble truly was just babbling nonsense, though, and was used as a crutch to finding actual solutions. It was insulting to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of actual science. Bleh.

29. StarTrekkie - August 2, 2007

@19 Spike,

I don’t think the original TOS had NEAR as much technobabble in it.

But, I don’t care. I *LIKE* the technobabble. It’s one of the things that sets Star Trek apart from other scifi. They have their theoretical science down!

Other shows have people float in space and think it’s ok if they just hold their breath. *rolls eyes*.
Wait a minute, they basically did that in TNG’s Disaster didn’t they!?!?!?! AAARRRGGHHH

30. Woulfe - August 2, 2007

I’ll field the why not this Christmas question.
Well, truth is Paramount didn’t want to compeate with themselves.
It’d be a bad move on their part if they did, so they aimed for a release next year.
The second reason for pushing the film into next year, Paramount sold and is selling all their Trek stuff thet’s in storage, so to make a new Trek they have to bulid everything from scratch, again !
You don’t want them to rush though it like they did TMP do you ?

– W –
* Lord knows I don’t want them to rush though it like they did TMP *

31. Reklar - August 2, 2007

Good interview. I’m glad they’re not going to be “shunting power to the main EPS conduit” or any of that kind of crap in this movie. What’s funny is that people think that is what Star Trek is these days.: Just a bunch of people sitting around in spandex and talking about stuff that no one in the real world understands or would want to. Watch any original story and you will see practically none of that kind of stuff. Unfortunately TOS was largely ignored or flatout forgotten in the last 20 years.

I’m glad that these people are taking Star Trek back to a sense of adventure and fun and not the “maybe if I *tech the *tech the *tech will go faster” garbage that inundated TNG in it’s later years and all the other spinoffs (especially Voyager) afterwards. It always seemed like a cheap gimick and it really hindered the shows and the characters.

Technobabble was OK in small doses, but when the synopsis of upcoming episodes in TV Guide went from (ex):”Picard and crew must out-think a man with super-human abilities to save the galaxy” to:
“Picard and crew discover a tachyon pulse that affects the starships warp reactor matrix and causes an influx of radiated energy that creates an unstable particle field in the time-space continuum. Meanwhile Deanna gets a visitor from Earth and Data learns to read poetry”. It got flatout boring and pretty weak.

I’m glad they’re going back to character driven ideas and not technobabble ideas.

32. Ivory - August 2, 2007

Glad to hear again that they are still trying to get Shatner in the film.

33. Jason L - August 2, 2007

You know, I have a hard time believing that, at this late date, there is any real question of whether or not “old Kirk” can be included in the film in a narrative sense. If it can be done without damaging the integrity of the story–or if it can’t–then I have to believe that J.J. and the gang already have that figured out. In which case, the ambiguity over Shatner’s involvement is either a ploy to keep us all guessing and surprise us when the film actually premiers, or… Shatner is playing hardball with the negotiations.

I’m not making any predictions or even saying that I believe this myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Shatner IS involved and everything we’ve heard to the contrary is just disinformation. “But,” you say, “that would mean that J.J. and the writers and even Nimoy himself are LYING to us!” >>Gasp!

34. CanuckLou - August 2, 2007

@Jim #3 Amen Brother!

BTW I hear Nimoy has a talent for reading minds!;)

Sense of Wonder! Bring it back!!!

I don’t want another day at the office vibe.

Great interview Anthony – thanks!

35. Sleeper Agent X - August 2, 2007

Re 33:

Or, on the other hand, it’s just as easy to conclude that Shatner is not in the movie, and that while J.J. and his group are still looking at the problem and trying to find a solution, they don’t think they’ll be able to get there.

But by saying now that they’re looking to get Shatner in the film, they’ve laid the groundwork to be able to come back later to say, “we really tried.”

36. DavidJ - August 2, 2007

You know, I think the COOLEST thing about this new movie is just the fact Leonard Nimoy is going to be back in the spotlight again for the next year or so. He completely disappeared off the face of the map for a while, and it’s great to hear from him again.

I can’t wait to see him show up on Leno and Letterman and everywhere else next year.

37. billy don't be a hiro - August 2, 2007

“I also said to him that if I had been in Generations I would not have let him die…and that is a fact. I thought it was gratuitous. I didn’t see why…what was the point? I thought it was a waste of a very important character.”

Nimoy is a very insightful individual.

38. Lao3D - August 2, 2007

You can read a lot between the lines in parts of that interview. Very interesting stuff…

39. Driver - August 2, 2007

I do not want the film to look exactly like TOS. But If it doesn’t, then how can Spock recall something that was not ever seen(on TOS)? The new film is an enigma wrapped around a riddle couched in something or other.

40. Plum - August 2, 2007

Great interview Anthony! Is this a scoop or what!

41. Harry Ballz - August 2, 2007

We’re looking for a movie with a SENSE OF WONDER=SOW. A sow is a PIG. Shatner is a HAM looking for too much money to be in the movie. A selfish HAM is a very distinctive kind of PIG. So, if one were to invoke logic and SOW is the same as PIG, this proves Shatner SHOULD be in the new film because that’s what we’re looking for, namely SOW (SENSE OF WONDER) which, in essence, is the same as PIG. Everybody got that??

42. Robert April - August 2, 2007


Maybe it is just me, but it seems that most of the BRING BACK KIRK types here want Shatner back – but only if it makes a substantial contribution to the story.

If it doesnt happen I get the sense that there would be great disappointment for BBKers regarding this one single aspect of the movie but that it would not incite a feeling of malice toward the rest of the film.

To the contrary, most seem to think the film will be great even without Shatner.

But I don’t get the same feeling from those who LOATH the idea of Shatner’s return.

If the writers and producers do put Shatner in, will you then say “Oh, they caved in to pressure from fanboys” ???

If the script turned out even MORE awesome with Shatner’s inclusion (backed up by Nimoy’s opinion) would you still refuse to see it?

Your opinion of the creative team seems to be (I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong) that they have come up with a fabulous adventure story that, quite obviously could NEVER have room for Shatner’s participation else it ruin the movie.

I just don’t get all the negativity I am seeing. It is very untrek like.

43. Kevin - August 2, 2007

I never had a problem with the techno-babble in TNG or DS9. Yes, you would expect them talk that way. It was usually believable and understandable. They were using techno-babble in TOS. Trek’s always been science fiction. Roddenberry wanted you to believe that they had fantastic technology in the future. As technology advanced and current understanding advanced, so did the techno-babble. Unfortunately, by Voyager they had taken it to a level where even I (who’ve read just about every Star Trek Tech manual and seen several blueprints) couldn’t make sense of it. One minute, our heroes are in peril then someone spouts some techno-babble you can’t really follow, there’s a beam and the day is saved. I’m sittin’ there going, “what just happened?” If I gotta start pulling out reference material to figure out the climax of a story, that’s not good story telling. Don’t get me wrong, I liked VOY. It wasn’t every episdode that did that, but enough of them.

On bringing back Shatner. I’d like to see it too. You can’t simply ignore Generations and if you want to then you shouldn’t care about ignoring anything. The Enterprise can have a hundred decks (I’m looking at you Shatner), McCoy’s first name can be changed to Dirk and Spock’s a half Vulcan half Selat. You start picking and choosing what to keep and what not and you start pissing off fans ala Superman Returns. The same people that said to just ignore III and IV and start from the end of II are the same people that complain about the movie. The problem is really, how do you make a movie that can stand alone and reference a 13 year old movie? Flashbacks? Explain what happened to the audience? Can it be done w/o taking away from the script they’ve already written? These are the problems that the writers face and that’s why there’s no definitive answer on whether we’ll see Shatner yet. Remain calm. They seem to be working on it… but probably wish they didn’t have to.

I’m glad Nimoy’s onboard. I really have no faith in JJ. He doesn’t seem to know the material and has already said that’s he’s more a Star Wars fanboy. JJ’s nothing more than the current hot director. The writers are the ones I have more faith in.

44. Al - August 2, 2007

Nimoy does not lie and has never played Hollywood games – too old and too rich as he once said – so if he says Kirk/Shatner isn’t in the script, he isn’t. Not to say a way might not be found yet for a cameo, but we know that Nimoy is in this film because it is a role, not a cameo and I think it would very, very, difficult to do that for Kirk too. Don’t forget that in many ways, Star Trek TOS (including the movies) is really all Spock’s story.

45. Robert April - August 2, 2007

#35 “But by saying now that they’re looking to get Shatner in the film, they’ve laid the groundwork to be able to come back later to say, “we really tried.””

This would seem to be the case.


In reply to your reply:

Yeah, I can be a bit on the childish side sometimes. Sorry if it offended you. My “Blah blah” post was like a kid trying to taunt another kid on the playground and was certainly unworthy of a reply.


BTW, your posts often are quite insightful and clearly offer a distinct view of the whole business of making Trek movies.

46. THX-1138 - August 2, 2007

Shatner and Shatner! What is Shatner?

Good Lord, I am so tired of this Shatnobabble. Can we all just move along with this? FOR NOW, HE’S NOT IN THE MOVIE!

I think what we can surmise from the interview is that Nimoy’s portion of this is going to take place after the events in Generations and that they are going to regard those events as canon, at least to the degree that Kirk is dead. Of course, this is just guessing. This would also lead one to believe that Shatner would not be involved on screen as Kirk as his appearance is just too different from how he appeared in Generations. The story was written without him. He seemed to make a choice to have the Kirk character die. He could have said “Hell no!” but he took the money. Abrams and the writers aren’t going to come up with some monkey rigged idea to change all that so we had all better get used to it. Star Trek IS NOT William Shatner. As some people are fond of quoting from Trekdom, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Or the one.” Change the word “many” with “movie” and I think that makes sense, too.

47. Harry Ballz - August 2, 2007

“really all Spock’s story” Oh, really? O.K., I’ll bite. How so?

48. Kobayashi Maru - August 2, 2007

Great interview, Anthony! Like many, I am disappointed with the idea of Shatner not returning, but contriving something just to give him face time will be a bigger insult than B,B&G killing the character because they could. Nimoy was right that it was a mistake in the first place, but at least, we are getting back a James T. Kirk in his prime!

49. Is it just me or is trekkor more embarrassing than trekkie? - August 2, 2007

Ah, how great has it been to hear from Leonard Nimoy again? It’s been forever since we’ve heard from him properly, and while we’ve been lucky enough to have Shatner grace our TVs and cereal commercials for the last couple of years, it wasn’t Trek and he’s moved on now.

Generations really did happen didn’t it? They are respecting canon now, so they are respecting that too – I guess hoping they would cherry pick that too is simply asking far, far too much since only the hardcore of fans is going to get it, let alone most trekkies (I remember over 50% of Americans once claiming that honorific?)

So what chance would the non-fans have of working out a post-Nexus resurrected Kirk?

So wonderful as these last few days have been, it’s making me sad now. I’ve been in denial about James T Kirk meeting an insignificant end on an insignificant planet to a bridge collapsing. But I guess it “really happened” so it’s time to let go.

There’s still “an echo” of him in the Nexus (well, there was an echo of Guinan and she’d been blown away at that point too) but I can’t see any films going in there and pulling him out.

Thanks Anthony for an amazing site, an excellent interview and for helping wake up the fanboy that Voyager/Enterprise and the 2Bs had hammered into the ground.

18 months to go? Can we have a countdown timer on the site now please? :-)

Oh, and fingers crossed they leave the Tall Ship exactly as she is. Though if they want to put in seatbelts, I shan’t complain.

50. mctrekkie - August 2, 2007

#20 / Craig

No offense,but no bloody Enterprise A. B.C. D. E.or F.

those six letters remind me of another six :



It’s a TOS romp

Even I, owner of the Encyclopedia Shatnerica, am coming around that this might be a really good (althouse shat-less) TOS adventure.

I do think there are rumblings (here on this site) of a trek cartoon set in the far,far [Trek] future for ya. Perhaps Enterprise P?

51. DavidJ - August 2, 2007

#39 “I do not want the film to look exactly like TOS. But If it doesn’t, then how can Spock recall something that was not ever seen(on TOS)? The new film is an enigma wrapped around a riddle couched in something or other.”

I don’t see a problem with it. The TOS we saw was just the 1960s interpretation, and now we get to see the 21st century interpretation. In Spock’s mind, the Enterprise and the bridge and the uniforms will have ALWAYS looked that way.

I don’t think even with TMP we were meant to believe that the sets and models of the 60s actually looked that way to their eyes. Or that all the planets the crew visited actually looked like they were made from plaster and cardboard.

52. THX-1138 - August 2, 2007


Well said. Good to see that someone here has a grip on reality

53. Will Cox - August 2, 2007

TOS used technobabble sparingly, and in a more accessible way. For example, In ST:IV we have a scene where the dilithium crystals are breaking down:

SCOTTY: It’s these Klingon crystals, sir. The time travel’s drained them. They’re giving out — decrystalizing.

Spock then forms a plan to collect some high energy photons from a nuclear reactor to use on the dilithium for crystalline restructure. That’s about the extent of technobabble thrown around in TOS. If this same scene had occurred on TNG, it would have played out more like this:

LAFORGE: Sir, the inferior quantum structure of the Klingon dilithium crystals has been compromised by the inverse tachyon pulse generated by our temporal displacement. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do. The subatomic cascading effect is irreversible.

Then Data would chime in later:

DATA: I believe that if we were to procure some highly energized photon particles from one of the nuclear reactors available in this era, they could be released into the dilithium chamber, causing a phased realignment of the damaged crystaline structure, and eventual reconstruction…

TOS presented pseudo-science in a more believable manner that didn’t bog down the story the way it did on TNG and Voyager. Leonard is absolutely correct in his opinion of it, and I hope that the new movie leans more in the direction of the original series and the way it told stories – with emphasis on drama and character development.

54. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

I second the timer for movie release countdown!

Secondly I think ‘Is it just me or is trekkor more embarrassing than trekkie?’ said it best Shatner is dead… Why can’t you just let him rest in piece and be content that Spock will be in the film. Personally Spock was always my favorite character on TOS anyway and I know many felt the same way. Kirk was cool as the heroic captain but common Spock was just simply “fascinating”… Oh and TOS was full of technobabble… Phasers, Shields up, photon torpedoes Jesus have we forgotten (and I am only 24) that these are all originally technobabble terms invented by trek.

Aaron R.

P.S. You want to know what’s funny… All the people throwing a Shatner hissy about his absence in the film and throwing a treknobabble hissy would not say a word if the movie brought Shatner/Kirk back to life with a line like… “The nonlinear energy of his subconseius is still preserved in the re-unification matrix on Vulcan in the septar Subprecessor… Hence forth if we radiate the coils with thermionic translucent radiation and pore de-aging cream from a Orion condor on his body he will then have a post cardiary reaction on come back to life!!!” In short technobabble brings kirk back to life (like in his book with the borg) and you could care less… Funny no?

55. Nexus - August 2, 2007

The movie is nearly two years away. There is more than enough time to put Shatner in.

Bob Orci himself said they only have a first draft done and that there is plenty of time to add stuff in.

Why would J.J. Abrams go out of his way to say they were still trying to get Shatner in the film if they had no intention of doing so?

Shatner will be there.

56. John CT - August 2, 2007

Good interview. Has Nimoy lost his bottom teeth?

57. Sleeper Agent X - August 2, 2007

Re 53:

I disagree. Kevin in 43 had it pretty much right. These guys are professionals and you expect them to use professional lingo, and not dumb it down to a four year-old’s level of comprehension.

I mean, when you watch a medical show like ER, does the medical babble get in the way of the drama? No, I think it sells you on the fact these people are professionals. If they all went around saying things like, “the patient in room 4 has a boo-boo! I need to tinker with his ticker to fix him!” then you wouldn’t be sold on them as being professionals at all.

Similarly, I hope the crew in this new movie don’t resort to saying things like “My gosh, Jim! It’s a giant space amoeba! Like an amoeba you’d see in a pond, except this one’s in space! And it’s huge! Really huge!”

58. Shadow6283 - August 2, 2007

Relevance thereof, personal opinion aside, William Shatner will be in that film. I guarantee it.

Believe it.

59. trektacular - August 2, 2007

At least Leonard Nimoy can act, I used to like Shatner as a kid but boy does his acting blow hard now. Same with a lot of TOS, it was great as a kid but now a lot of it is pretty unbelievable.
TNG feels more respectable (although most of the movies were kinda the opposite) and JJ Abrams will probably keep up that respectability in the new movie

60. trektacular - August 2, 2007

which I might add, I will be grateful for

61. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

LOL Amoeba!!! You hit it on the nose… Please no boo boos in this one we want to know they are trained professionals. You think NASA uses dumbed down words on its missions? Hell no and you know what thank god I like watching NASA press conferences (as a science teacher) and thinking good thing they have people smarter than me running things… Because hell if I could understand it all easily I’d have a different job and be making more money than a teacher…. Now on for a sadder thought summer break is almost over!!! Oh no… … …

Aaron R.

62. Camaro 09 - August 2, 2007

Come on guys. Shatner + Nimoy together again would be history.

63. DavidJ - August 2, 2007

I have a feeling Abrams was just being diplomatic. Unless he wanted to be booed by 10,000 fans who don’t have a clue about the story he’s telling (and then have them create a bunch of negative hype online or launch a bunch of stupid petitions that cause Paramount to force his hand), he didn’t have much choice.

Nimoy probably feels the same way. He realizes the story only works the way it is now, but doesn’t want to crush everybody’s hopes.

64. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

No Camaro 09 Shatner + Nimoy + Kelly would have been history sadly we know that to be impossible…

Aaron R.

65. Robert April - August 2, 2007

#59 “I used to like Shatner as a kid but… ”

Good thing we will have a new actor playing Kirk.

We won’t have to put up with (5 time Emmy nominee/2 time Emmy winner) William Shatner’s terrible acting anymore.

66. Miguel - August 2, 2007


Character driven stories+no technobabble to mess it up+Nimoy liking transformers=

I have excitement for this movie now. I think it’s going to be awesome.

Especially since Nimoy was involved in the two greatest trek movies of all time.

This is exciting now!

67. Camaro 09 - August 2, 2007


I disagree.

Shatner + Nimoy would still be history.

It just wouldn’t be the same w/out him.

68. THX-1138 - August 2, 2007

Shatner+Nimoy would not be history.. It WAS history. It is now time to move on. What DavidJ said.

Also Shatner+Nimoy+Kelly would be more than history. It would be tissue re-animation.

Anyway, Abrams was trying to get all the Shatner fans off of his back by making a diplomatic statement about their efforts to find a place for him in the film. Nobody is saying that Shatner is a bad actor (well, besides trektacular) but Tom Hanks is a better actor and he’s not in it either. It’s because there isn’t a part written in it for him. Why are we failing to see the LOGIC of this situation?

69. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

P.S. Anthony you should have asked about him dieing again in the next film and the emotional impact and finality of it for the franchise. His reaction would have been answer enough even if he ducked the question! I am telling you guys you will be balling after this movie.

Aaron R.

70. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

Oh god if they kill Nimoy like I think then we will have Bring Back Nimoy finatics on top of it!

71. LK - August 2, 2007

Too right. Imagine the boo-fest when JJ tells a room a quarter mile across packed like a can of sardines with sci-fi fans that ‘It’s a great script. Kirk’s not in it’ (which would be what they’d hear).

He never would have gotten out alive.

72. Pizza Hotdog - August 2, 2007

My take for all you guys who want to bring Shatner/Kirk back. I will preface by saying I will not argue the merits of having him in the film for popularity sake, sales sake or for any BBKers sake.

Bringing Spock’s body back via Genesis and his essence via McCoy’s brain, I’ll accept. You get lucky once! But wait….Tasha Yar dies, bring her back in an alternate Universe. Then Data dies in the last movie, but did he? They certainly left that avenue open too.

Well here we go again. I know most of you are thinking use the nexxis to bring Kirk back. Or perhaps some alternate universe?

We are close to the point then from here on, if any character dies, we will automatically think, they’ll bring him back. Death is irrelevant, it will hold no impact.

I was profoundly moved when Spock died in TWOK. Arguably the best Trek movie ever made. The whole package including Spock’s death, makes that movie very diffcult to top. I left the theatre in a stunned (satisfying) silence. I kept thinking to myself, holy shit! Spock just died. That feeling has since not been duplicated. Trek III in my opinion was an attempt to milk the ending of Trek II. As much as we were all hoping to get Spock back….. “The Search For Spock” was pure Hollywood, and for me cheapened the impact of the ending of Trek II.

All the subsequent story lines that have since “brought back the dead’ now makes death an irrelevent plot line. Why bother trying to add impact with the death of a character, when death is meaningless.

If this is to be a new slate and (RE) launch the franchise. Then bringing back Kirk is a precedent I would rather not have. Brink him back with archive recordings, or memories or something other than bringing him back to life. The moment they bring him back to life will be a major mistake I believe JJ should and will not make.

73. Jason L - August 2, 2007

Well, for some reason the last paragraph of my previous post got cut off. I was saying that if all the talk of Shatner not appearing in the film is actually a disinformation campaign, that would suggest that J.J., the writing team and Nimoy himself are all outright lying to us. What I said after that (the part that got cut off) was that I didn’t think too many people would begrudge such a lie on opening night when Shatner suddenly appears alongside Nimoy as Kirk and Spock for one last time and all is set right with the Trek universe. I certainly wouldn’t, assuming of course that his appearance is meaningful to the story and he isn’t just shoehorned in.

On the other hand, all anyone has said is that Shatner is not currently in the script, which doesn’t rule out the possibility that they do indeed have a way to include him and have already made plans to do so. I just find it hard to believe that, with only three months left until the start of filming, they are still casting desperately about for a way to make it work creatively like they make it sound every time they comment on the subject. I am more inclined to believe that negotiations are ongoing or that Shatner is definitely out and they just want to be able to say how long and hard they worked to make it happen.

But that’s just my gut feeling. I don’t claim to be an expert on the script writing process so I could easily be wrong.

74. DavidJ - August 2, 2007

#72, agreed. As bad as the rest of Generations was, I still found Kirk’s death to be genuinely moving, and Shatner gave a terrific performance. I’d hate to see that cheapened even more by pretending it was just “some other Kirk” who died.

75. Michael - August 2, 2007

Look folks – Kirk could still be alive in the ribbon. Would be another way to get him back if needed. It would even be consistant with Generations which I thought was a nice film.

Don’t jump to conclusions on anything you hear from the studio, Shatner or Nimoy. They are all helping to build hype and anything they say can be suspected as just mis-information. Expect it. It’s a long way away and anything could happen.

76. Demode - August 2, 2007

Here is an idea… what if Spock tries to rescue Kirk from the Nexxus… and FAILS!!!

Seriously, imagine if Spock tried to save him, and they he meets “echo Kirk”, who says he can’t leave and that the physical Kirk is dead. Kirk tells him that its ok… that everything must come to an end. You could have “echo Kirk” showing Spock the past while in the Nexxus, showing him how good things were, and that Kirk has no regrets about his death. It would be a nice way of giving the two characters a chance to say goodbye.

That could be an interesting story.

77. AaronA - August 2, 2007

I’d like to see Shatner playing Kirk’s father (or similar mentor) in the earlier years. Even if Nimoy is playing the older Spock in the future, it doesn’t mean Shatner *has* to be Kirk in the movie.

78. Dennis Bailey - August 2, 2007

#45: “Yeah, I can be a bit on the childish side sometimes.”

As can I.

I apologize. :)

79. CmdrR. - August 2, 2007

Great interview. I find myself scanning the gottaShat babble. Read enough to last a lifetime. I am genuinely enthusiastic about this project and am wiling to walk in wide eyed and ready to see whatever they’ve come up with. If I like it (and I really think after reading these latest interviews that I will) then I’ll plop down my ten bucks every two years like the good little geek that I am.

80. jonboc - August 2, 2007

If you all think for one moment, that this story, this script, wasn’t written with the possibility of including Nimoy AND Shatner, then you’ve had too much Romulan Ale.
You can bet the rent that there was a plan for this story to include both Shatner and Nimoy, another plan for adjusting it, should they only get one of the actors on board, and one last contingency for the possibility of both actors refusing to participate. I think Shatner’s involvement simply fell apart at the neogtiating table.
Should the studio and the Shat reach an agreement, it will be back to plan A, which was the script that includes them both. It’s not far-fetched at all, and I’d bet THAT version is already written and ready to go.
You can be sure these guys have covered all their bases. Now it’s up to the negotiating.

And yes. TNG and all the others smothered in techno babble and those who said TOS did as well, and that Kirk and Spock were always creating some kind of Tachion bubble, really need to watch the show and come back with a more informed and accurate opinion.

81. Greg2600 - August 2, 2007

Anthony great interview.

“I thought it was gratuitous. I didn’t see why…what was the point? I thought it was a waste of a very important character.”

I think this sums it up for me, as to why people are still so steamed about Generations. Also, for all the people saying Shatner’s time has passed, maybe so, but how about Nimoy? That’s being inconsistent. Either it is good to have them both, or bad to have them both. I truly feel it is better with both of them. Generations and Unification, and for that matter Relics, never felt right. These characters all belonged together. Heck, their life was the Enterprise, they never had a family outside of it.

It appears more and more that Nimoy will appear as Spock post Generations, and do some kind of flashback ala Saving Private Ryan. I would also press on that I just will not enjoy this film without Shatner, should the reason be that Nimoy is appearing post-Generations and Kirk is dead. I realize that is “canon,” but it’s Berman’s canon and having Spock with no Kirk will only remind me of that. So rather than enjoying this movie, I’ll be there aggravated Shatner is absent, and Nimoy is all alone. I know that is fanboy, but I can’t help it, “I am a man of deep feelings.”

My only real big hope is that this film does not take place during Kirk’s Enterprise command. That would, to me, be less appealing than not having Shatner. I am not interested at all in a recast of the 5 year mission. It’s sacred to me, and I do not feel there is anything left to be added to it, with new actors. That’s not fanboy, that’s a matter of reverence. That’s like having some new rock band, even if they are great, recording Stairway to Heaven, and expecting not to get blasted. You don’t redo masterpieces.

82. Jason L - August 2, 2007

On the subject of technobabble, there’s a difference between professionals using appropriate terminology at appropriate times and people just spewing techy jargon in lieu of something that would actually contribute to the story. Most of the time when technobabble was used, I got the same impression as I would if I saw a guy walking down the street while talking to someone on his cell phone: “Approaching intersection at Main Street and 3rd Avenue. Commencing visual scan of pedestrian traffic indicator. Adjusting trajectory to align with crosswalk boundaries. Now entering intersection…” Even if it was necessary to keep up such a running commentary, most people in the REAL world would just say, “I’m about to cross the street. Yes, I’ll make sure I don’t jay-walk and get hit by a car.”

There’s nothing wrong with technobabble as long as it sounds like useful information a real person might actually convey to someone else at that particular time and place. Unfortunately, in the later Trek series, it usually just sounded like stilted and unnatural DIALOGUE written by somebody who could have made much better use of the ever-shorter spans between commercial breaks. If that’s the kind of technobabble they plan to avoid in the next film then HALLELUJAH!

83. OneBuckFilms - August 2, 2007

When considering whether or not William Shatner should be in Star Trek, it should be observed that it is likely an early voyage of the Enterprise.

This being the case, much of the talk here about the Nexus and Generations could be largely irrelevent for the past.

It depends upon which point we see Spock in the future as to how relevent or feasable it is to have an older Kirk in the story.

Having too many balls to juggle would take away from the straightforward storytelling that was a hallmark of the original series, and a necessity for a 1.5-3 hour motion picture.

Perhaps James Kirk would be one element too many for the story, who knows?

I would love to see Bill Shatner once more as Kirk, but the key here for the filmmakers is this:

How do we make a film that works for both Star Trek Cannon, as well as a general audience, and tell a compelling story without prerequisite knowledge?

This film is likely to re-introduce the concept and characters of the original series, and should not get bogged down with complex continuity with Trek cannon.

Kirk is a major lead character for Star Trek, but a general audience would know more about Spock, “the guy with the ears”, and James T. Kirk, who beat the no-win Kobayashi Maru simulator test at the Academy.

I believe telling the story of the Enterprise and James Kirk through the eyes of Spock give the opportunity to ground the film with an Insider-looking-in commentary on what it means to be human, and what the best of humanity is.

With Spock learning about human friendship, loyalty and values, and perhaps a little about himself, could also make Star Trek a great dramatic character study.

It will be interesting to see the genesis of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship that is at the heart of Star Trek.

84. Fortyseven - August 2, 2007

Wouldn’t it be fun to just, I dunno, collectively say “fuck it, let’s just ignore Kirk’s death and go with it”?

Eh? For old times sake? :)

85. Michael - August 2, 2007

Leonard Nimoy’s involvement and enthusiasm for this project are the best news items to come on Star Trek XI. I am finally excited about this. But I very much want William Shatner involved as well. Please find a way to give Shatner an important role in the movie as well.

86. Shove Shatner In!!! - August 2, 2007

I am new here so forgive me if I am too blunt.

Quite frankly, I don’t care about the new actors playing these roles. The film may work but it will never be the same. Let’s face it. They (whoever they are) will NEVER top the original actors who played these roles.

My only hope for this film is that it is used as a device to save Kirk from the poorly written death he was given. There I said what a lot of people are thinking.

I like (so many people in this forum) grew up watching TOS reruns and motion pictures. Kirk took us on so many adventures and gave us so many great memories. It is now time for us help him overcome the fate he was given by weak writting.

How could the people who grew up watching Kirk (or second generation fans like me) be ok with his death when we have one last chance to save him?

People, we may never get a chance to see Shatner as Kirk again. This may be it. How can you be ok with that? His death sucked. There was no point to it. Data’s cat got more of a sendoff than Kirk did. That’s not ok. Don’t you want to try and change that?

Don’t give me this crap about how “we only want a good film” and “Shatner will only be in the way” That is total bullshit.

Another thing. How is Nimoy viable but Shatner isn’t? Anybody who thinks this film is better off without Shatner is F****** nuts. Shatner is one of the hottest people in the business and people love him as Kirk. I think Nimoy himself said it would a better film with Shatner in it.

I am not ashamed to say I want to see the real Kirk alive and well.

Good luck to the new actors who are playing these roles but I really don’t care much either way about them. I didn’t grow up with them and they will simply not mean as much to a younger generation that has many more options.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say… Shove Shatner in as Kirk if it is the only way to save my boyhood hero.

87. THX-1138 - August 2, 2007

Oh dear Lord.

88. snake - August 2, 2007

what about if they had some shat footage from one of the movies and digitaly enhance it to fit in to the required scene? so we see him in his 50s when he still had that striking kirk look with the thick black curly hair.shat of 2day could do voice. i mean whats to stop old spock recalling a brief scene post TOS the movie era? id rather see the sexy 80s shat than an 80 year old shat.

89. anonymous - August 2, 2007

Without Shatner and Nimoy this new movie isn’t going to be good. Could it be possible to make star trek XI a computer animation movie and then put in the voices of Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock? Even though the game was never released, take a look at the intro to Secret of Vulcan Fury.

90. jcvmf214 - August 2, 2007

Once again a spock centered story. Oh well. So much for something new and different . But if this revolves around their meeting overall makes some sense..

The most talked about characters and aliens in all of trek and I don’t know why are the Vulcans and Klingons..

91. dalek - August 2, 2007

I share Nimoy’s dissatisfaction with Generations too and i hope the writers find a way to include Shatner in this film as Kirk.

92. snake - August 2, 2007

what about if they had some shat footage from one of the movies and digitaly enhanced it to fit in to the required scene? then he would have that striking kirk look with the thick black curly hair. shat of 2day could do voice. whats to stop old spock recalling a brief scene post TOS …in the movie era. id rather see the sexy 80s shat than an 80 year old shat.

93. Driver - August 2, 2007

#51 You mean like when Picard holds a photo of his young self in “Nemesis” and it looks just like Shinzon? Or Kirk’s dog Butler, or Antonia. And Spock’s half brother Sybok. And McCoys’ dad. Stuff we never saw in TOS. This new film, if successful, will have certainly pulled off some kind of feat.

94. Robert April - August 2, 2007


You are alright by me DB. :-)

I gotta tell you though, I actually laughed out loud at your reply (#26) to #18 because I KNEW that you would be one to respond to it!

All kidding aside, you provide counterpoint to many of my thoughts regarding this film and make it enjoyable to post here.

95. Still Kirok - August 2, 2007

#16, you want evidence that Shatner can be successful? How about a track record of BUILDING the franchise? Like William Shatner needs to audition. Does he need another Emmy nomination to show his viability? Oh wait, he has one.

What there is no evidence of is Star Trek being successful in the movies WITHOUT Shatner.

The man is an icon, and this is his most iconic role.

There is NO BIGGER name out there than William Shatner when it comes to Star Trek.

It would be HUGE if they brought him in. And it would put money in their pockets.

96. steve623 - August 2, 2007

I felt a little ambivilent about Anthony’s post earlier today, but after reading all this, I have to say, I also wish every talkback on every post didn’t eventually come down to Shatner, pro and con. Can we hammer out an truce? Maybe only fight about Shatner every other new post? Maybe only on even numbered days? Or days beginning with ‘T’ (for ‘Tiberius’, natch)?

97. Dave - August 2, 2007

……And The Adventure Continues Again!

98. Dave - August 2, 2007

……And The Human Adventure Continues Again!

99. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

“85. Shove Shatner In!!!” No comment to you except your sour and negative and attitude is a blemish on you character.

“94. Still Kirok” “What there is no evidence of is Star Trek being successful in the movies WITHOUT Shatner.” First contact was hugely successful and well recieved by fans and critics alike many fans list First Contact as being their favorite Trek movie.

“The man is an icon, and this is his most iconic role.” Icon? How do you get this? I mean go up to anyone on the street and ask them to name the first Iconic actor to come to mind and I promise you will not hear the name Shatner. You will hear names like Sean Connery, Bruce Willis, Al Pacino, Tom Hanks… The list goes on. Sorry I love Trek and I love TOS but Shatner is not an ICON.

“There is NO BIGGER name out there than William Shatner when it comes to Star Trek.” I am sorry I don’t think thats true. His name was Roddenberry.

“It would be HUGE if they brought him in. And it would put money in their pockets. ” Sorry this is not the case…. Need proof look at ST:V that was a Shatner-fest palooza he even directed it and the dismal returns go to show how good it was… Secondly as I have said on this sight I am in the education field and I tell you what. To kids Star Trek is that “Old Fart Show” and guess what to kids the bloated aged Shatner represents that “Old Fart Show” in its entirety. Shatner is no longer young and attractive like Snake pointed out he is old, fat and unappealing to the general public.

Last news flash in case you hadn’t figured it out yet. The actors, writers, and director may play nice to you the Old School Fans but they are not making this movie for you by any means. They are making this movie to draw in a new younger fanbase because face it “our youth is our future”… The old fan base with its negative purist attitude which B&B tried to sell to has been dieing down since the 90’s and it is time to look for new fans.

When your fighting to earn and impress a general audience that could care less about Star Trek and in truth is pained to watch a Trek film the 1st thing you need to do is throw away the old… Throw away the old book and replace it with a new. Because the old is boring and unappealing to everyone but the waning core of fanboys. They are putting Nimoy in the film for you fanboys to make you happy because they know he will draw you in. Don’t be fooled though this will be about a new hipper, edgier, sexier (than TOS ever was if we are lucky) crew to try and suck life back into the franchise with new blood.

The way I see it is you can have one of two outlooks… Change your purist straight edged unwaivering fanboy attitudes and accept that the new ringmasters are going to try and give you a fresh breath of new and fun Trek although it may be a bit different than what you think it should be.

Or… The second option is that you can remain steadfast in your negativity and opposition and refuse to change with the times and accept the new. Guess what happens to people and cultures that refuse to change with the times and accept the new… They become extinct.

Aaron R.

100. Thomas - August 2, 2007

I personally think a story told from Spock’s perspective would make for an interesting character study. It could be an opportunity to observe both human foibles and the “better angels of our nature”. This does not meant the story has to play out like Spock’s biopic, but it could help us to understand how Spock came to respect, and ultimately befriend his very human captain.

101. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

Need truth of how unappealing Shat is to the general public look at the dismal failure if that gameshow he hosted… No one wanted to see a fat bloated shat dancing all over the place… ::Shudder::

Aaron R.

102. Thomas - August 2, 2007

With all due respect to you, Aaron R., I always thought Shatner’s game show failed not because of Shatner, but because nobody wanted to see an overblown rip-off of “Deal or No Deal”.

103. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

And please stop ranting about emmy nods… The day the Academy considers Shatner for an Oscar then I will be impressed… Look at who has one Emmy’s Maura West, Jordan Clarke, Erika Slezak, Chad Brannon, Christine Lahti, Kathy Baker, Roseanne Arnold (yeah shes an Icon)… Need I go on… No one in hollywood cares if you get an emmy its the Oscar that counts…

104. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

I don’t apologize usually but in this case I will… Sorry about my bad spelling when I get on this site I tend to type fast and get to in a hurry and heated to care…

Aaron R.

105. Xai - August 2, 2007


well said.

106. Still Kirok - August 2, 2007

Shatner is currently on TV. When the Academy starts nominating TV shows for Oscars, we can talk. Meanwhile, Shatner is a 2 time Emmy winner and a 5 time nominee. It’s an award for acting excellence.

You can Shatner bash all you want, but the man has been in the business for 50 years, and is still going strong.

He will bring people to the theater because like it or not, Shatner IS the big topic. Shatner IS what people are talking about. His absence is getting as much news as Nimoy’s presence. Nimoy WANTS him in the movie.

He sure doesn’t need to audition.

107. Still Kirok - August 2, 2007

Oh, and First Contact was very overrated. It also had the largest budget to date, and when you adjust for inflation, it’s right in the middle–not even close in grosses to the first 4 original series movies.

In Star Trek, there is no bigger icon than William Shatner. The so called A-list actors you named all are good actors, none will appear in Star Trek XI, and none ever created a character as iconic as Kirk. Not even James Bond.

Nimoy knows this too, which is why he told Abrams the movie would be better with Shatner in it.

108. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

I am a fan of Shat I just hate people who play like he is more than he is… And Shatner has been in many movies and never nominated and I am sorry to tell you this but TV actor is not half as prestigous as movie star…
I point again to his failed game show as proof of his non popularity…

109. Pizza Hotdog - August 2, 2007

William Shatner as Captain Kirk

William Shatner as someone who should not be playing Captain Kirk

Not enough CGI at ILM to turn back that much time.
Time to hang em’ up Billy!

110. Xai - August 2, 2007

#105 StillKirok
No one has said Shatner’s out yet, that’s direct from Abrams mouth. Nimoys’ said that it’s not up to him and defers to Abrams.
It’s still an unknown. but I think we’ll know within a few weeks either way.

111. Tim Handrahan - August 2, 2007

And I would be willing to bet anything that Nimoy himself may be instrumental in finding the solution for having Shatner in the film. These two are not just any actors playing a random character. They are, as quoted by director Robert Wise himself in ST:TMP, LIVING LEGENDS!


112. Pizza Hotdog - August 2, 2007

Better closeup

113. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

Hotdog thank you for illustrating my point… He is not handsome or attractive anymore…. Doesn’t even look very heroic in that last shot does he…

Aaron R.

114. Sean - August 2, 2007

I don’t think the movie will fail or succeed based on Shatner, but I think those pics are quite unfair. If you saw his recent convention appearance with Nimoy, Shatner has lost a great deal of weight and looks pretty damn good.

115. Kevin - August 2, 2007

>”It would be HUGE if they brought him in. And it would put money in their >pockets. ” Sorry this is not the case…. Need proof look at ST:V that was a >Shatner-fest palooza he even directed it and the dismal returns go to >show how good it was… Secondly as I have said on this sight I am in the >education field and I tell you what. To kids Star Trek is that “Old Fart >Show” and guess what to kids the bloated aged Shatner represents >that “Old Fart Show” in its entirety. Shatner is no longer young and >attractive like Snake pointed out he is old, fat and unappealing to the >general public.

>Last news flash in case you hadn’t figured it out yet. The actors, writers, >and director may play nice to you the Old School Fans but they are not >making this movie for you by any means. They are making this movie to >draw in a new younger fanbase because face it “our youth is our >future”… The old fan base with its negative purist attitude which B&B >tried to sell to has been dieing down since the 90’s and it is time to look >for new fans.

Allow me give a little history lesson to the good educator. The 90’s was the heyday of Trek. It was piloted by B&B as so many posters here enjoy bashing. TNG and DS9 actually brought in a lot of new young fans. I was one of them. Those shows not only survived, but brought in all kinds of new, younger fans while still respecting canon. TNG was the highest syndicated TV show ever. Still to this day, it’s ratings have not been touched. It even led some fans to start watching TOS. Unification was one of TNG’s highest rated episodes. So it’s clear that the best way to run Trek would be to bring in both new fans and old. Alienating the old dying breed would be a mistake and not one I believe the creative team making this movie will do.

116. steve623 - August 2, 2007

This has become the Aaron R. thread. You’ve more than made your point, sir. I’m reminded of an old expression about belaboring a deceased equine (as opposed to pursuing some wild aquatic fowl).

117. THEETrekMaster - August 2, 2007

It can definitely still be a very good film without Shatner…but I still think I’ll walk out of the theater feeling like something was missing if he’s not in it. That’s pretty much the way Unification felt to me as well.

I am optimistic about the film either way….I believe it’s going to be ten times as good as Nemesis. At least I hope it is.


118. RJO - August 2, 2007


119. trektacular - August 2, 2007

Give it a rest with Kirk, Shatner is a joke now

120. trektacular - August 2, 2007

btw I think Aaron R has hit on the head, audiences don’t want to see unattractive people playing attractive characters, this could even be a bigger reason why Insurrection and Nemesis failed where First Contact didn’t. The TNG crew were looking pretty ragged by then too.

121. Dennis Bailey - August 2, 2007

#95: “It would be HUGE if they brought him in. And it would put money in their pockets.”

You keep saying this. You have yet to defend it with facts or logic.

If this film is as “successful” as the last three “Star Trek” films that featured William Shatner the studio is going to be *very* unhappy. :lol:

122. Formerly Todd Ramsay, but I edited my name, hastily, to meet a firm release date. - August 2, 2007

Anyone with a memory will recall that plotlines for the Trek movies have always been very guarded. I will bet a paycheck that the Shat will appear in this new film, and his presence will be denied by everyone up until the moment the theater goes dark on the premiere. Wait and watch.

As for the sidebar anti-Shat stuff, some find it hard to accept that Trek is TOS first and foremost. The other spinoffs had their moments, but they just don’t occupy the same cultural status, or carry the same emotional attachment.. Someone mentioned Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks. With all due respect, they are small potatoes. Kirk and Spock are contemporaries of The frigging BEATLES. They are the Beatles of TV. Some have passed away, like Scotty and McCoy, but there are still two Trek Beatles alive; the two MAIN ones. It would be a shame to not try and get them together again before another is lost. All I’m saying.

123. Stanky McFibberich - August 2, 2007

108 Aaron
“I point again to his failed game show as proof of his non popularity…”

I don’t watch Boston Legal, but it seems to me that Mr. Shatner seems to have a lot of popularity from that.

124. trektacular - August 2, 2007

TOS officially ended with Trek VI, anything else involving them has only been a treat to the fans. In the end the new film will be a new version of the old show, but still new, the old show for all intents and purposes is over and can never really be replaced, BBK people need to realize this

125. Shadow6283 - August 2, 2007

I say Shatner’s in.

Just wait for the announcement.

126. trektacular - August 2, 2007

Oh who am I kidding, I love Shatner, bring him back!

127. DavidJ - August 2, 2007

Holy crap, enough with the Shatner talk! This place is starting to sound as retarded as AICN.

128. Mark - August 2, 2007

What’s a cerotic artery?

129. cap10kirk - August 2, 2007

good interview Anthony. So a Spock centered adventure. so Shatner will no be in it. He will not Play Robin to Spock’s Batman. The Writers could put in Joseph KIrk (Kirks Alien Shatnerverse son) to Play Robin. That way we know he was resurrected. Shatner can be in Star Trek XII(45th Anniversary Picture (2011)) Of course they would have to film the Shatner Scenes Summer 2008 (Post Production Time)creating a buzz that Shatner could be added to Star Trek 2008. If XII is not Greenlighted then Paramount could make a direct to DVD of Shatner’s final Kirk Appearance to Recoup the Money they Paid to Shatner.

130. Camaro 09 - August 2, 2007

Jesus Christ, just Bring Back Kirk

I’m sorry I just wanted to get in the middle of this.

That shove Shatner in post #86 is a classic..

131. Camaro 09 - August 2, 2007


They never said Shatner will not be in it.

As a matter of fact J.J. Abrams said he will do everything possible to get Shatner in.

No worries about the Shat. He’ll be there.

132. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

“122. Formerly Todd Ramsay, but I edited my name, hastily, to meet a firm release date. – August 2, 2007″ I was ok with your post until you started comparing Shatner and Nimoy to the Beatles… Whats next Kirk is compared to Jesus? Really now….

As for this being my thread (steve623) that is not the case…. This was becoming the thread of people crying havoc at no Shatner and I just had to respond… I am sorry but I still feal that no Shatner is a blessing to this film… It may be a blessing and a curse in ways but still has its advantages.

Stanky – “I don’t watch Boston Legal, but it seems to me that Mr. Shatner seems to have a lot of popularity from that.” —-That show had ratings before and would still have ratings if Shatner left the show today…

Kevin – “Allow me give a little history lesson to the good educator.” LOL thats historical… (Spelling intended) Kevin I am 24 and DS9 by far is my favorite show look at my name it always has a Captain Sisko reference. While I respect TOS and look forward to its re-imagining (god some people just wet themselves because I said re-imaging) I know all to well what it means to be a younger fan of Trek. As a younger fan who has grown up into a man with people bashing me all my life about Trek and my like for said franchise I have come to greatly understand the general audiences dislike of Star Trek sort of a keep your enemies close and understand their ways thing you know. And when I became a teacher (being a uber observant follower of the human condition anyways) I took careful note of my own Students reactions to Trek… Off hand comments about posters on my walls of Kirk Spock and Mccoy different things said to me directly about Star Trek and so forth. What I know and know for sure is that the old Trek formula is dead. Kirk is representitive of the old. What the next generation (punn unintentional) needs is fresh, sexy, edgy, etc etc (New BSG opposed to old is same way) and even if these things are done you know what the bottom line is… I fear Star Trek as a franchise may be beyond repair with the next generation of veiwers which would make any movie with any cast a futile effort as Trek would then be doomed to go extinct as I commented on earlier.

Aaron R.


133. VOODOO - August 2, 2007

Who said the following to J.J. Abrams?

“Star Trek XI would be a better film with William Shatner in it?”

A/ Still Kirok
C/ Dennis Bailey
D/ Xai
E/ Leonard Nimoy

The answer is (E) Leonard Nimoy.

Doesn’t that say it all?

134. Finnegan - August 2, 2007

Aaron – There is no such thing as Boston Legal “before” Shatner. He has been on that show from the start. In fact, he was a guest star on the Practice episodes that led to the spin-off (for which he was nominated for a guest star emmy).

135. Cerberus - August 2, 2007

Generations should not stop Shatner from being written in as Kirk for one last time. Any necessary backstory could be briefly referenced in dialogue.

Watch Star Trek II, Star Trek III and then Generations (or at least fast forward through to the key scenes). It is jarring — Kirk’s pointless demise diving for a remote control does not fit the character or the franchise. Generations is not a favorite of many TOS or TNG fans, no harm would be done by giving Kirk the happy ending he deserves.

136. Sleeper Agent X - August 2, 2007

Re 133:

“Doesn’t that say it all?”

No, it doesn’t.

You left out that Nimoy is leaving it up to Abrams to see if there’s a way to get Shatner in it or not. And you left out that Nimoy thought that the script for XI was so great he absolutely wanted to be a part of it, even though there wasn’t a part for Shatner.

THAT says it all right there, my friend.

137. Kevin - August 2, 2007

Aaron R.- they tried fresh, young and sexy. It was called Enterprise. Sexy is not enough to bring in younger fans. Rebooting and violating canon pisses off hard core Trek fans. In the end, no one watches it. Now, if you can do young and sexy, plus bring in original cast members and not violate canon you have a much more diverse audience and better chances at making a success. I realize that everyone here is concentrating on the original cast members and he (they) will probably not have very large parts. The bulk of the movie will more than likely follow the new cast. That’s fine. The way it works, is you get the hardcore fans’ butts in the seats along with the casual movie goers. You give them the chance to except new actors portraying these roles so they’ll come back for more. You keep in mind that a total reboot will not bring in the fans and the name Star Trek isn’t going to bring in the captain of the high school football team.

Whether you like it or not, Star Trek will always be associated with geeks and nerds. It’s sci-fi and- it’s thinking man’s sci-fi. If you have the IQ of a Whopper, you’re not going to get it. That generally makes stupid people mad when someone intelligent gets something that he can not. I have no desire to see Star Trek dumbed down to some WB/CW pretty white kids with problems show to appeal to the popular kids. If they wanna do “The Real World: Enterprise” no one’s gonna see it. Not the fans because… well let’s face it, that idea sucks. Not the popular kids, b/c it has to do with Star Trek.

138. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

Sorry 134. Finnegan I am not a fan of long drawn out court shows like Law and Order, Ally McBeal, or even Boston Legal they are not of interest to me so I guess my shows are off a bit.

“Kirk’s pointless demise diving for a remote control does not fit the character or the franchise.” —— If he cared about the character and not the dollar signs Shatner would have refuse this arguement is now mute since its obvious he didn’t care at the time and probably still doesn’t care… I promise all Shat sees right now are dollar signs!!!

Kevin – “Aaron R.- they tried fresh, young and sexy. It was called Enterprise. Sexy is not enough to bring in younger fans.” —- Sorry someone thought Scott Bakula was young edgy and sexy? Did I miss the staff meeting?????

As far as what else you say Kevin it needs to try and bring in everyone even the Jock quarterback. Hey are you badmouthing people that like sports because I happen to love all sports???

139. Kevin - August 2, 2007

Aaron R. again- actually yes, there were lots of people who though Bakula was sexy. I didn’t see the attraction personally, but I knew people in their early twenties who though Bakula was hot. Not to mention Jolene Blalock, Linda Park, Anthony Montgomery and Connor Trinneer. These people ran around half naked half of the time and Blalock wore clothes similar to Seven of Nine (another attempt at using sex to bring people in).

And on the sports thing, I’m stereotyping just as much as you have been. Is it entirely accurate? No. Neither is saying that all young people look at Shatner as being nothing but old and Star Trek is for old people.

You’re in your twenties, I’m in my twenties. Still relatively young and with many years ahead of us. If you can enjoy DS9 and I can enjoy TOS through VOY and even some of ENT as they got CLOSER to something resembling what Trek was, why can’t a new generation enjoy something that fits in with all of those shows and movies? We both came in late in the game. Trek had been around years before we were born. But we still discovered and enjoyed it. We learned what had transpired through out the years. Shatner and Nimoy weren’t sex symbols during the eighties and nineties but still found success in Trek. They were still filling those roles as TNG was enjoying all it’s success.

And one more thing, just because you don’t like Boston Legal doesn’t mean it’s not popular. I don’t watch it anymore either, I like Fox’s Sunday night line up too much. I acknowledge the fact though that it is popular.

140. Leonel - August 2, 2007

Awesome job on the interview, Anthony!!

I’m a fan of the Shat and confess the Shatnobabble (thanks, #46 for that!)is starting to get a little tiresome. How about adding some sort of meter to the site that tracks each reference? Wait a minute – that might encourage more.. How about automatically closing topics when a certain threshold is reached..

Anyway, I digress. I agree with others who’ve stated this before. What better stamp of approval could JJ Abrahms et al get? Thanks for the interview and site!!

141. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) - August 2, 2007

Kevin- your post was thougtful and provocative. After all we are just Star Trek fans all alike, aren’t we? I’m done with the discussion over weither Shatner will appear in the film or not. So, Live Long and Prosper. You have some very good points.

Aaron R.

P.S. I think its time for a hug…..

142. April R. (I am a fanGIRL!) - August 3, 2007

Look seriosly intense, bordline, rabid Trek fans (this means you too husband!) I love the Shat. He is and will forever be a HUGE part of what is Trek. However, I am interested in seeing this series go through a revival and gain a new younger fan base.
J.J Abrams and team is a way to achieve this goal. They have a unique storytelling style that draws in the current generation of movie goers. Their names and reputation alone will draw the average movie goer. Better yet, they also have what seems to be a reverence for all that is Trek, as well as, it’s fans. This can only be GOOD!
If Shatner is in the film in a meaningful fashion that doesn’t completly disregard previous cannon then great, but if they are just shoving him in there to shove him in there I’d rather due without, thanks.
As for those who have made comparisons to Shatner and Nimoy being like the Beatles. May I please have some of whatever you are smoking?? Seriously, Trek has its place in popular culture it can be considered iconic and all of that, but it is simply not the same as the arguably most succesful band of all time.This is why we fans of Trek get such a bad rap as geeks and nerds and the like….due to dilusions of grandure by the few…it’s pure craziness.

Until next time. \\//_

143. Captain James B. Quirk - August 3, 2007

Shatner? HMMNNMNN? there are those that degrade the Shat and diminish his contribution to Trek… See TNG and *Enterprise* fans ie, DB.

I’m not a Bring Back Kirk guy, but he is THE icon of Star Trek. There’s no debating the fact that one of the first things that people world wide think of when they see Star Trek is Captain Kirk AKA William Shatner.

Shat is the Shiz-Nit! I’m loving that Nimsy’s attached, but I still think that the Shat will bring more viewers.

Shat has bankabilty, he’s a name and an icon of Star Trek that may not even be eclipsed by Nimoy.

Yeah, they killed off the Kirk in Gen, bad move, bad writing and bad plot device that served nothing!

Wait? They killed Spock. Are you going to tell me that there’s no way to bring back the KIRK! Sorry, but we’ve seen everything else…!

Kirk epitomises Trek! You can’t tell that to some of the KS Slash people, but it’s true.

Did you ever think that they are messing with us? Look what they did with Spock. No one knew until the movie hit the screen and we all know what a prankster Shatner is.

Yeah, Shat’s comin back, it’s in the cards. How can you not have Shat and have Nimsy and the Enterprise..?

If you are going to re-boot Trek, you should at least cover what the morons did in Gen and let the Kirk reboot his horrible death.

Jesus, he died falling off of a bridge!!!!!

144. Al - August 3, 2007

Shatner must hate the way Nimoy has kept his hair.

145. April R. (I am a fanGIRL!) - August 3, 2007

I just want to point out that between the end of TOS and TMP Shatner has actually admitted to living iin his car and working crappy jobs due to lack of work. Other than TJ Hooker and Boston Legal..okay and you can count Rescue 911 if you must he has not been that comercially successful. I’m willing to bet that most of his financial stability comes from the royalties from TOS syndication combined with the hefty chunks of change he gets for convention apperances.


146. Captain Kirk Trek Modeler - August 3, 2007

Is this the same April that stoled my very verbage to start her new business with the help of REL and friends?

Greetings and Salutations…indeed!

Back to the Shat topic. The man is most well known for that one Character, in which he embodies the life and spirit of the Horatio Hornblower character in which he was originally developed (stolen) by GR.

147. April R. (I am a fanGIRL!) - August 3, 2007

What?? I don’t think so…….

148. Jay - August 3, 2007

the bring back trailer shows us a way in which we can bring back kirk!!! lets do it!!!

Mr Nimoy is a living legend, he has put so much into this franchise, i just hope that this new film honours that!!

149. StillKirok - August 3, 2007

#145– so basically, you’re saying that other than 3 hit TV series’, Shatner has not been successful. I guess you have a point. In fact, outside of founding a multi-billion dollar company, Bill Gates hasn’t done anything either. And if you ignore keeping the country together and being President of the United States, Lincoln’s life was a complete failure. At the same time, take away his baseball career, and what did Babe Ruth ever do?

Look–no one is asking for canon to be tossed out the window. It’s clear Abrams is respecting that. But the character of Kirk deserves a happy ending, and Shatner, the icon of Star Trek, wants in to finally fix Generations. Nostalgia sells. Stallone played a 60 year old Rocky and is playing a 60 year old Rambo. Harrison Ford is coming back as Indy. And Nimoy will be back as Spock. Shatner should get the shot. Everyone will win except those who just live to bash Shatner. And even they will win because they will pay to see the movie just to bash him.

No one will get more mainstream attention for this movie than the return of the Star Trek legend, who is currently still on top.

Shatner + Nimoy = $$$$

It’s only logical.

150. Big Al - August 3, 2007

BRING BACK KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He doesn’t have to say ANYTHING about his death, just the fact he is alive at an older age on screen says enough!!! We dont NEED an explanation, we can use our IMAGINATION!!!!


151. Big Al - August 3, 2007

BRING BACK KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He doesn’t have to say ANYTHING about his death, just the fact he is alive at an older age on screen says enough!!! We dont NEED an explanation, we can use our IMAGINATION!!!!

152. Admiral Kent - August 3, 2007

Man, as Nimoy gets older it’s almost scary how much he looks like my Grandfather whom I was close to who passed in the mid-80s. Weird.

Otherwise, I’m looking forward to this more than ever before!

153. Big Al - August 3, 2007

And let me say this to all you trek fans, I am a DIE HARD fan of the original crew, and I dont like any other trek- simply because of the technobabble. Sorry, im not a nerd, and I sort of hate all the other shows because if I say im a fan of star trek (or they see my dvds), they think its so dorky… when TOS was anything but, it was twilight zone in outer space. I finally convinced a few friends to watch some TOS episodes, and they thought they were great.

All the Trek shows that came after TOS ruined it. TNG was OK, but it never touched TOS.

So, as I was saying, BRING BACK KIRK!!!!! NO EXPLANATION NEEDED!!! Why do we need to know how he was brought back?? Or if he even died?? or whatever the hell.. it can be ANYTHING, hell it will be fun to debate how he was brought back… so dont give us this, he died garbage as if the spock return made ANY sense.. at least we wouldnt have a LAME explanation, we would have NO EXPLANATION AT ALL!!! :)

Yeah, BRING BACK KIRK so I can watch my TOS in peace knowing he didnt die like an idiot.

154. Big Al - August 3, 2007

one MORE thing, its not about SHATNER, yeah he made a stupid choice.. its about KIRK!!! Everyone involved messed it up, so now is the chance to get it right for the CHARACTER!

155. Cervantes - August 3, 2007

Yay for Leonard…and yah for no technobabble too… ;)

156. Iowagirl - August 3, 2007

It’s fantastic to see Spock again! Now bring back Kirk.

No Kirk – no magic!

157. RaveOnEd - August 3, 2007

For crying out loud in a bucket! Isn’t this thread about the NIMOY interview?!?!?!?!

Jesus, can you folks leave it be about Shatner for a while? I was hoping to come in here this morning and read some more conversation about the NIMOY interview, and all I see is more “Bring Back Shatner!” or something to the effect of it not being Trek if Shatner isn’t in it.

Kirk is my childhood hero, and James T. Kirk will be in the freaking movie! I was originally hoping that Shatner would be in the film, but seeing how folks here carry on about it, I could care less right now!!!!

158. GraniteTrek - August 3, 2007

You know, the technobabble thing is absolutely correct – and have you noticed that the best episodes of most all the series are the ones that don’t have it? TOS didn’t do technobabble that much; TNG’s “The Inner Light” had little or any of it; “The Best Of Both Worlds” had only a little bit (ironic considering they were dealing with a technological enemy); DS9’s “The Visitor” and “Far Beyond The Stars” only had a little bit. Since I wasn’t a huge fan of VOY I can’t list a best episode (sorry). The last season of ENT had arguably the best that series offered, and the better episodes had little or any technobabble (such as “The Forge”). All of these episodes had characters and relationships and examinations of the human condition at their central (well, except the ENT episode maybe) and that’s what made them good.

159. Jim J (Denny Crane)) - August 3, 2007

Either way, THE SHAT or not, I’m there…especially with Lenny in it. THE SHAT would make me even more excited, though!

160. StillKirok - August 3, 2007

#157, point taken, but in this part of the interview, he talked about Shatner being in the movie, and THAT is the big topic. THAT is the point of concern. THAT is the demand.

Nimoy also wants Shatner in the movie. He is on record as saying the movie would be better with Shatner. You can’t blame people for talking about that which they are most passionate about, and the Shatner issue is a cloud hanging over Abrams right now. He needs to make this happen because only then will people be able to focus on other things.

Without Shatner, this movie will be a disappointment no matter how good it is. Too many people want to see Shatner return as Kirk.

And I also agree about the technobabble. It has its place, but it was far too important in the latter shows.

161. Justin - August 3, 2007

Abrams says the movie is anchored around Spock (old and young). Nimoy says old Spock makes a real contribution to the story.
Everyone agrees the srcipt is excellent.

Therefore, there are two possibilities for Shatner being in the film.
1) They will have to significanly re-write the script
2) a cameo

The first option is unlikely, and we fans should be rooting for that option becasue the re-write almost certainly wont be better.
The second option won’t please anybody.

Eventually Abrams is going to have to admit that Kirk will not be in this film. He has to know this by now. Why string us along? Better to get it out now and move on.

162. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

#106: “like it or not, Shatner IS the big topic. Shatner IS what people are talking about. ”

No, Shatner is what a few obsessives on Trek message boards are talking about.

You want to know what the public in general cares about? Go check out Entertainment Weekly’s lengthy interview with Nimoy and Quinto and Abrams. Shatner’s name doesn’t come up, period.

You can try the “oh, who cares about the morons who read EW” dodge, but that’s not addressing the point: those people know who they’re selling their wares to, and it’s the general public that supports popular entertainment in a big way in this country. The news of a new Spock is interesting; they don’t care one way or another about Shatner.

Paramount would rather have another “First Contact” than another ST 5 or 6, BTW. Of course, they’d much rather have a film far more successful than any of those, which is why they’ve hired Abrams and are letting him do as he thinks best.

163. ZoomZoom - August 3, 2007

#162 what a load of cobblers.

164. star trackie - August 3, 2007

Of course they aren’t talking about it in EW. But if it were announced tomorrow that Shat WOULD be in the film, EVERYONE would be talking about it………even more than they are now. And EW would be first in line. THAT is the point of bringing Shatner aboard…if at all possible. (a contingency already thought of by the writers, believe you me). If you can’t grasp that, I can’t help you.

165. New Horizon - August 3, 2007

Shatner had his chance to pass the flame in Generations. Nimoy ‘wisely’ side stepped Generations and waited for a more appropriate film. If Shatner had been thinking, and not agreed to kill off Kirk in Generations…then I would have been glad to see him pop into the film. This desperate grasping at straws to resurrect the character is truly short sighted. I think it’s enough to have Nimoy as Spock to tie the story together….and through him, Kirk WILL live again, through a different actor. I really don’t want to see JJ’s film weakened because of a silly notion that the film can’t be successful without Shatner in it. If the film is well done, it will be a success. Struggling to get Kirk into the story is just going to get this team off on the wrong foot, we don’t want Trek to keep repeating the same damned mistakes. The approach they are currently taking is plausible. I hope they don’t go off the deep end and ruin credibility by resurrecting the dead again. It was ridiculous enough with Spock.

166. Dom - August 3, 2007

Dennis (162), what’s with the Star Trek VI hatred? I get frustrated by the obsessives too, but why do you spend so much time talking up TNG Trek in an anti-TOS fashion? Surely that’s just stoking the fire in what is already a pretty silly fight!

By the way, the link accompanying your name takes me to a page with links to sex, hardcore sex and ass sex!

167. RaveOnEd - August 3, 2007

All I have to say is, if Abrams and the production team pour their time, energy, emotion and everything into making this movie, it does them proud and makes good money, all the whiners here have to say will be, “Shatner isn’t in it, so it was lousy”.

Don’t be surprised if they (Abrams, et al.) decide not to do another one for reasons close to you folks threatening and demanding – it ends up in the hands of another Berman to make the next film.

168. Shadow6283 - August 3, 2007

Now, THIS is much more entertaining…

169. Buckaroohawk - August 3, 2007

All right, I’m gonna say this, and it will be the LAST thing I write about Shatner in regards to the new Trek movie. I really hope Abrams or one of his crew is still reading this thread.

Leave Kirk dead. In fact, the opening scene should be at Kirk’s funeral on Earth after the Enterprise-D crew returns home from Veridian III. Digitally insert Dr. McCoy and Scotty into the scene as Spock speaks to the assembled crowd to recount the events leading up to his first meeting with them man who would become his closest friend. As he begins the tale, the scene fades, replaced with the new actors in the roles.

Anthony is right. Enough about whether or not Shatner will be in this movie. He does not need to be. Star Trek has done fine, and will do fine, without him. If the new movie does indeed capture the essence of the characters we know, and it puts them into a story that engages and challenges us, that’s all we should need. We shouldn’t care if Shatner’s not in this movie, as long as the CHARACTER of Kirk is.

The bickering from some fans to “bring back Kirk” has been pointless and inane for over a decade now. A truly ridiculous waste of energy and time on their part. I’m tired of these fans and their immature coddling of the Kirk character. If they won’t accept his death and move on, then let’s leave them in the past where they belong.

That’s it. The Shatner discussion regarding this film is now closed for me. Enough already.

170. Robert April - August 3, 2007

#169 “That’s it. The Shatner discussion regarding this film is now closed for me. Enough already.”


171. Robert April - August 3, 2007


But if you change your mind, we “Shatner as Kirk” fans will be here ready to engage you in friendly debate! ;-)

172. Thomas - August 3, 2007

I agree with Big Al. One could argue the merits of bringing Kirk back without a strict explanation. Any attempt to offer an explanation (especially if it got too technical) would confuse new audiences. The hardcore fans would likely punch a hole in it, saying, “Why did they do this, when they could’ve done this other thing instead?” This seems like one of those things best left to the viewer’s imagination, where it will be imminently more satisfying.

173. StillKirok - August 3, 2007

People can try to downplay the significance of Shatner as only something “a few obsessives” care about, but that’s simply not the case. The man is one of the most famous people on the planet, and his return would bring more mainstream attention to the film than even Nimoy. He gets mainstream attention all the time.

And one example of Shatner not coming up doesn’t mean anything. The story of Shatner not being in the movie was broken by the mainstream media before Shatner even made a video. And Abrams comments on Shatner was in the AP coverage of Comic-Con. Same article.

As for Paramount having another First Contact than ST5 or 6, maybe, but ST5 was a fluke, and ST6 had a much lower budget than FC.

Paramount would much rather have a ST6 than a Nemesis or Insurrection.

TNG had one moderately successful movie. TOS had 4 homeruns and one moderately successful movies.

Paramount would much rather have a TOS result than a TNG result, especially over the last few years.

That’s why Berman got the ax.

And no matter what no one can downplay the draw of William Shatner. The man MADE Star Trek. Even Nimoy gives him his due.

174. Admiral_Bumblebee - August 3, 2007

#162 And what do you think will happen if Abrams announces that Shatner will be in the movie as Kirk? Do you think EW won’t cover this news? I think it will be an even bigger news than having Nimoy on board.

Shatner as Kirk is the one everyone thinks about when Star Trek is mentioned.
And I also believe that it would be shortsighted if Shatner won’t have a part in this movie as old Kirk. It would be an analogy: Young Kirk and Young Spock… Old Kirk and old Spock.
If it woulf just be young Kirk and young Spock and old Spock there is something clearly missing here. The possibilities of showing them both as young and old people are endless. This would make a great movie, but if one of the wheels is missing the car cannot move forward.

Another thing, if you want to voice your opinion about something and want to be heard you have to shout it out lod and often. That’s why the Shatner-fans are repeating their opinion over and over again. And rightly so!

175. Robert April - August 3, 2007

Regarding Nimoy and Quinto. He really hit his stride during the movie era in regards to his portrayal of Spock. After so many years of developing the character it will be interesting to see how Quinto plays off of that.

I think that the Spock in this movie, as to be played by Nimoy, does not necessarily have to follow established canon. If there was to be a radical reboot that would reset the Trek universe, Nimoy’s Spock could be “reset” as well.

It would be as if there NEVER WERE red bridge railings or short miniskirts.

(Oh, man, I loved those Trek babes when I was 12!)

176. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

# 99. Aaron R. … “Shatner is no longer young and attractive like Snake pointed out he is old, fat and unappealing to the general public.”

No one is asking you to date him. Your remarks are narrow-minded and just plain wrong. You keep saying Shatner is not popular; that alone invalidates every other argument you make. Let’s see … let’s count the ways he is unpopular …

He’s headed into his 4th season in a hit show and winning or at least being nominated for Emmys every year.

Multiple tv specials on very diverse channels have been centered around his persona recently – the History Channel’s “How William Shatner Changed the World”, TV Land’s “Living in TV Land: William Shatner”, Comedy Central’s “William Shatner Roast”, and Spike TV’s “William Shatner’s Invasion Iowa” to name just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

He is the spokesman for a series of popular, funny ads that have beeng going on for many years.

He released an album to good reviews in 2005 and his books continue to sell well.

He continues to pack houses at Star Trek conventions where people wait hours to see him and get his autograph.

He is a frequent and popular guest on Conan, Kimmel, Letterman, Leno, Stern, Larry King and most of the nation’s other top talk shows.

And his face is recognized all over the world, synonymous with Trek. To much of the general public, he IS Star Trek. You can argue that he shouldn’t be in the new movie, that’s fine. But saying he’s not popular shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

177. Trekgeezer - August 3, 2007

I’m constantly amazed at Trek fans. They dance about extolling the virtues of the wonderful Utopian future that GR created, but at the same time they can be some of the most closed minded people on the planet. This silly attitude of “I won’t watch it if it’s like I want it to be” is enough to keep any smart producer or writer away from fan forums.

I am 52 and have been a Trek fan since it’s debut on NBC. I waited anxiously for every film, I became a fan of TNG & DS9. I consider Voyager and Enterprise as lost opportunities really expand the franchise.

I ‘ve taken notice that no one has even mentioned Dr. Leonard McCoy in all this. I am of the Harve Bennett mindset. Star Trek is about the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. These three guys are the heart of TOS. The casting of these three is probably the most important and daunting task these film makers have ahead of them. Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly had a unique chemistry that will be very hard to duplicate because it was fate the first time. Finding that chemistry on purpose will be very hard to do.

I sincerely hope that the character or McCoy does appear in the film.

As far as things like props, uniforms, ships and the like I’m sure they will do a good job of making them recognizable but different at the same time.

So, have your little arguments about how they can get Shatner in the film , why he shouldn’t be there, or what things should look like.

I’m going to wait until they actually start making the movie and some real news starts coming out before I make up my mind about whether the film is going to work or not .

178. RaveOnEd - August 3, 2007

#174: “Another thing, if you want to voice your opinion about something and want to be heard you have to shout it out lod and often. That’s why the Shatner-fans are repeating their opinion over and over again. And rightly so! ”

…to be regarded as annoying, is that what your goal is?

Message for you folks: unless you have a financial or creative stake in this movie (and don’t give me the “well, I’m going to see the movie, so I have a financial stake in it” crap, you know what I mean – you are not paying to make this movie in the first place), nothing, NOTHING you do will make something happen.

You know what made TMP? It sure as hell wasn’t fan pressure. It was Paramount seeing what Star Wars and Close Encounters did to science fiction (financially and creatively) that changed them from making Phase II and going theatrical release.

If they find a way to get Shatner in the movie, it will happen. Abrams is smart enough to not compromise a good script (and even the future of new Trek productions) just to satisfy the squeaky wheels.

Another morsel of agony for you: there are not enough of you to break this movie financially with a boycott. Protest a theatre? Regular movie goers will either laugh and walk past you to get a ticket, or not even bother to see the movie at the theatre because it’s being stalked by weirdos. You won’t go see it? Fine. Not enough of you to make the film a flop.

Are you that short sighted to realize that the film will not be made into your fantasy, at the risk of making the film a hack job, and maybe even spell the end of any more Trek films, series, etc.?

You folks are greedy. Simply greedy. And you call yourselves fans of a universe that accepts all. No matter what you say to counter that one will spell bulls*&t to me.

(rant mode off – for now…)

179. Tom - August 3, 2007

great interview.

let’s all not forget that it is just great to have this much passion out there for this film. It is great that we are all able to share our views on something we all love , which is Star Trek. So i do not get annoyed when people keep mentioning Shatner. I think that is wonderful. Let’s all keep talking about anything related to this movie. Shatner, Nimoy, Quinto, Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, Burke..anything. We are all stakeholders from Paramount , the writers and fans on down. It will be entertaining and fun. Just as it is to talk about the movie.

180. Anthony Pascale - August 3, 2007

to the ‘shatner must be in it’ fans
repeating that statement over and over and over in every thread will do nothing but continuinly divert threads and annoy me.

the film makers want him in it and are working on a way. NO amount of comments on this site or any other will make ANY difference.

so be patient and stop turning every discussion into your pet project please

181. RaveOnEd - August 3, 2007

177 – I mentioned McCoy in another thread, saying how I didn’t think it would be right to keep going on and on about Shatner, while the third member of the heart of TOS is no longer around and it won’t be the same anyway.

Know what happened? It got ignored and trampled over by the Shatties.

182. sean - August 3, 2007


A level-headed lifetime fan. Shocking!

183. Harry Ballz - August 3, 2007

#175 “It would be as if there NEVER WERE red bridge railings”
Gasp! Say it isn’t so! Mind reeling…..can’t accept concept! The room is spinning, everything is going black……..or is that RED????

184. Devon - August 3, 2007

Anthony I hope this isn’t the same lines of the “Shatner must be in it.” Personally I’m not for shoving him in there. I would want it to be meaningful and actually contribute to the story. Or at least if he’s in there tastefully (ala a Flashback scene, etc.) Kirk is dead and that is the whole problem. If there was something about resurrecting him somehow (maybe like Star Trek: The Return) then that would be great, but then it would be a movie about Kirk, which seems to not be what the new movie is about. However, I am hopeful in this team’s efforts, but either way, as long as they make a great film and stray away from the derailment of Rick Berman, then I’m happy.

I have EXTREME confidence in this team and the way things are headed, unlike anything I have felt since maybe “First Contact” and how DS9 ended up being. If I have any more thoughts I’ll post.

Anthony these are terrific interviews and I look forward to any in the future that you can gather up. Leonard’s interview shows promise for this film. Things are looking promising and this site is to thank!

185. Kahless - August 3, 2007

didn’t one of the writers say he was a fan of technobabble and hoped to incorporate it into the script?

186. StillKirok - August 3, 2007

Star Trek III was not about Spock.

It was the comraderie and the friendship that had 6 people risking everything just to bring back their friend’s body. It turned out circumstance led to their friend being alive, and Kirk risked everything for the sake of his friendship, losing his ship in the process.

David would have died with or without Kirk’s being there.

Trek III embodied the spirit of Star Trek brilliantly, and Nimoy had such a small on camera role.

It was essentially a Kirk story, with the friendship of Kirk and Spock being the focal point.

There’s no reason we can’t have a similar concept worked into this movie.

Kirk did the impossible for Spock. His actions on Genesis, were both human and emotional, but absolutely not logical.

The first thing Spock said to Kirk was “you came back for me.” Kirk said, “you would have done the same for me.”

A young Spock hijacked the Enterprise just to give his former captain a chance at a decent life.

Would an older Spock do any less? Spock’s loyalty and friendship is just as strong as Kirk’s, even if his methods would be different.

Spock would research what happened to Kirk, and logic or not, he would find a legitimate means to help his friend. After all, there are always possibilities.

Nimoy suggested he wants Shatner in the movie. He knows it’s not his call, but he wants it. So does Shatner.

Scripts can be changed. Plenty of time to work Shatner in, and it would only improve this story.

Nimoy’s return is great. Shatner’s return would be through the roof.

This interview is incredible. It can have Kirk’s return and still be Spock’s story. Just like ST3 was about Spock’s return but was Kirk’s story.

Friendship–that’s what this is about.

187. Harry Ballz - August 3, 2007

Well said, #186! That really nails the logic of it shut once and for all!

188. JC - August 3, 2007

Working in Shatner would be a corny plot hinderance.Old Spock is enough.

189. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 166:

Hello, Dom! I don’t see how what Dennis said was so anti-TOS. And I certainly wish you were just as vocal about all the TOS fans who are against TNG around here–although at times you seem like one of them!

Welcome back!

190. Formerly Todd Ramsay, but I edited my name, hastily, to meet a firm release date. - August 3, 2007

132. Aaron R. (Sisko joins in the chant R.I.P. Shatner) – August 2, 2007
“122. Formerly Todd Ramsay, but I edited my name, hastily, to meet a firm release date. – August 2, 2007″ I was ok with your post until you started comparing Shatner and Nimoy to the Beatles… Whats next Kirk is compared to Jesus? Really now….

Aaron R.: Mission accomplished! I got you to respond to me! Just being a bit outrageous. All in good fun. I appreciate the kind words about the rest of the post. I really think it will be a big “buzz builder” to have the big Kirk surprise. Realistically, Trek has only a few weekends to make its mark when it opens next Christmas. Its opening weekend has to be big, and it is not guaranteed. November 2008 will see James Bond 22, Harry Potter, a new Tom Hanks/Da Vinci/Ron Howard prequel, and Adam Sandler has a movie opening the weekend before Trek. Lots of competition, and Trek movies don’t have the longest box office legs. It has been “get in, get out”.

As many have probably mentioned before, when adjusted for inflation, and total tickets sold, ST TMP is still the highest grossing Trek, with Voyage Home, Khan, Search for Spock, First Contact following. Having Shatner wedged in there “couldn’t hoit”!

191. Fuzzy Peaches - August 3, 2007

#186 StillKirok. If there is one thing most people do NOT want, is being told the same story again. The last 2 movies were retreds. Same shit different title. They sucked ass because the stories sucked ass. And Not because Shatner wasn’t in them. They just sucked ass.

It’s time to clean house. Get over it.

You said “There’s no reason we can’t have a similar concept worked into this movie”

We don’t want another Star Trek III with Spock bringing Kirk back to life. This will piss off the masses, and will not garner a new fan base. Paramount knows this. Therefore Kirk is not coming back.

This franchise needs new blood, new ideas or this next movie is going to be the last if it caters to fanboys.

Kirk is dead! RIP, see you later, good bye, so long.

192. Data_Lives_in_B4 - August 3, 2007

The Next Gen crew deserved a better send-off than “Nemesis.” Stuart Baird didn’t know what the hell he was doing.

Next Gen was never about the action. It was about the emotional/intellectual drama. Picard was more cerebral than Kirk. Next Gen was (IMO) a sort of a “back-door reboot” (because all they did was move forward in the time line w/o “erasing” Kirk and crew) geared toward sensibilities of the 80s-90s.

That’s the Trek I was introduced to, so I will always be a fan of Picard and crew.

Because I had no real attachment to Kirk, I really liked “Generations.” It was IMHO the best Next Gen movie.

But, here’s hoping that J.J. Abrams’ version of Trek will still be good.

193. Harry Ballz - August 3, 2007

Someone seems fixated on the phrase, “sucked ass”. Now, what would Freud say?

194. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

164. “Of course they aren’t talking about it in EW. But if it were announced tomorrow that Shat WOULD be in the film, EVERYONE would be talking about it………even more than they are now.”

Now, now – the observation was made that Shatner was what “everyone is talking about.” When I point out that people *aren’t* talking about it, claiming that if things were different they *would* be is not a valid counterpoint. It’s an unproven hypothetical.

166: “what’s with the Star Trek VI hatred?”

What hatred – because I pointed out a fact about the relative success of the films? I don’t particularly care for most of the TOS-based movies, but that’s got nothing to do with what was more successful and less successful for the studio.

If you wanted to talk about Star Trek *5* hate – well, maybe. ;)

173: “The man is one of the most famous people on the planet.”

Get a grip; that’s absolute unmitigated nonsense. He’s a well-known actor who’s in fashion recently, not an international mega-celebrity. He would never be offered the opportunity to star in a big-budget non-Star Trek movie because he’s not that much of a draw. If he were half the star you keep pretending he is he’d be fighting off studio movie offers (hint: he’s not, and you can’t get away with claiming that he secretly is but is turning them down to devote himself to TV).

Arguing for his *necessary* inclusion is really his fans asking the studio to give him a hand-out to humor them – when in fact he’s successfully doing a lot of TV and commercial work and doesn’t need this at all.

“As for Paramount having another First Contact than ST5 or 6, maybe, but ST5 was a fluke, and ST6 had a much lower budget than FC.”

Ah – the movies with Shatner were all “big successes” – except that when someone points out that it’s not true, there’s special pleading and excuses to explain that. Got it.

195. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

Something else that everyone ranting about Shatner needs to keep in mind is that no one involved is saying everything that they know about why he’s not in it – not Abrams, not Shatner, not the other producers .

Moreover, no matter how this is solved, they probably never will tell the whole story. Negotiations over things like salary, and strictures that may or may not be placed on the producers by the studio, simply aren’t for public consumption. Business is not done that way.

Nonetheless, the participants are all asked leading questions over and over, and they can either ignore those questions or give partial answers or gloss over things – it’s not surprising that everyone’s answers don’t match up with what people think they know about the situation, because there are always things that cannot be said.

196. Camaro 09 - August 3, 2007

Dennis Bailey

I think it is fair to say William Shatner is the Tom Cruise of the sci-fi genre. LOL. All kidding aside. You know what I mean. He is important to the genre.

Dennis, do I detect some overall negativity towards William Shatner on your part?

I have noticed in many of our posts that It seems you always go out of your way to say he isn’t important to the new movie and down play his popularity.

Why do all these people continue to bring him up if nobody cares?

Very few people outside the Star Trek internet community even know there is another Star Trek film coming. I’d be willing to bet those same people would love to see Shatner back.

My point is I don’t thing your comment about EW magazine is really fair.

While some people go overboard about his return. You seem to go overboard in the opposite direction. It seems you just want to shoot down all the fans who want his return.

ps: Please don’t take offense. I always enjoy your well thought out posts on any other subject.

197. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re: 196

Dennis never said _nobody_ cares about Shatner. He’s just pointed out–correctly–that Shatner isn’t the be-all and end-all when it comes to this movie–as so many of the Shatnatics on this site have claimed over and over ad nauseum.

I don’t see the “hostility” you claim to see–but speaking for myself, after reading so many repetitive posts, I’m getting a bit tired of the Shatnatics.

You see? You aren’t winning anyone over. You’re just annoying when you go too far like this.

198. star trackie - August 3, 2007

195- True, I’ll concede the pont that the media, in general, is not addressing the issue of Shatner not being in the film. And there really is no reason for them to. That would be like chatting up a storm about Mark Hamil when discussing the Phantom Menace. He’s not in the picture, so what’s the point in the media bringing it up?

But, you infer that, because he isn’t in the movie and isn’t mentioned in the interview, no one is interested. You say:

“You want to know what the public in general cares about? Go check out Entertainment Weekly’s lengthy interview with Nimoy and Quinto and Abrams. Shatner’s name doesn’t come up, period.”

Well, neither did the name of Paris Hilton, but people are very interested in her. (for better or worse!) The absence of Shatner’s name in the interview has nothing to do with the general interest in him or Kirk, or a lack of interest. It simply means they didn’t discuss him, nothing more.

One last theory to toss into the ring. Since McCoy was clearly alive during TNG, I think this is going to be a very very elderly Spock, way beyond the TNG years, which I love. The faces of the elderly have such character and experience in them, they are far more interesting to watch onscreen than the latest cookie cutter Ken and Barbie. Watching a very old Spock will be an amazing progression for the character and the actor.

To have an archive of one actor’s portrayal of a character over many decades, in real time, is rarely, if ever, seen. Or has it ever been seen? I can’t think of an example off the top of my head. Can’t wait!

199. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

Negativity toward Shatner? I’ve never even met him.

#196: “Dennis never said _nobody_ cares about Shatner. He’s just pointed out–correctly–that Shatner isn’t the be-all and end-all when it comes to this movie–as so many of the Shatnatics on this site have claimed over and over ad nauseum.”

Exactly so. And, like “Sleepr Agent X,” I find the continual repetition of exaggerated claims about Shatner on the part of people who clearly have convinced *themselves* to be tiresome.

I won’t be disappointed if Shatner is in this movie, and I won’t be disappointed if he isn’t. There’s good reason to believe that these folks will make the best “Star Trek” movie they can no matter what restrictions they’re given, and that it will probably be very good indeed. I’m more than happy to leave them alone to do what they think best.

200. Ralph - August 3, 2007

I think Leonard Nimoy showed his loyalty to William Shatner as he did as First Officer to his Captian. By Nimoy’s opinion of not letting Shatner die in Generations.
Even though Shatner has a commanding presence, he needs advisors to steer him. So that he can make the proper decisions. I believe Shatners off screen antics shows that he is more inrerested in being popular, rather than have a commanding presence which is brought out in the movies.

201. Shadow6283 - August 3, 2007


Who’s trying to win anyone over? Whatever their motivation, the passion thereof, I surmise they’re offering an opinion, however different it may be from yours or mine. I, too want Mr. Shatner, a friend of mine, to be in the movie. I believe that ultimately, Mr. Abrams will find a way to do so, and that’ll be the end of it.

That aside, it makes no difference to me whether or not you find the idea particularly palatable pro or con. I’m not here to convince you or anyone else, whether in the name of self-interest or whatever. Think whatever you like, for whatever reason, and allow others the same privilege.

202. VButler - August 3, 2007

I have noticed that in the middle of all this hot and heavy “Shatner” discussion, there has been no mention of who will/can be the young Kirk. That’s what I want to know! They can get creative and have Shatner in the film another way. I would enjoy seeing him in the film playing Kirk’s father, or a mentor Admiral. Kirk is dead, long live Kirk!

Now, a change of subject! As an “original fan”, yes, I’m over 50, my greatest fear is that they can’t get the right look and feel of the pre-original film. I never really cared for “Enterprise”. They have to just go for it and put in all the primary colors!

203. StillKirok - August 3, 2007

191–I’m not saying the exact same story. Friendship is a theme that runs rampant with Kirk and Spock and it’s the biggest strength of Star Trek.

Kirk deserves a better ending than Generations. The character deserves to ride off into the sunset. And after putting up with Berman for all this time, the fans deserve Shatner and Nimoy together one last time.
Shatner is far more than a “well known actor who’s in fashion recently.” He has been around for more than 50 years, and just because he doesn’t command 20 million paydays, doesn’t change how well known he is.

You can underestimate his fame all you want, but it doesn’t change that he IS a megastar. He is all over the place, and in Star Trek, there is no bigger celebrity.

Shatner would bring in the money for the movie. There’s no denying it without burying your head in the sand.

204. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

#203: “Shatner is far more than a “well known actor who’s in fashion recently.”

That is exactly what he is – no more, no less – and hysterical protestations that he’s some kind of superstar do not make him so. :)

205. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 177:

You’re a bit older than me there, but I started with TOS in reruns in the 70’s and embraced the whole pack to follow: Voyager and Ent. had moments, but I’m with you… missed opportunity. I posted a thread similar to yours some time ago about how some fans actually “dis”embody the whole idea of Trek by being close minded. You’re right on man! I’m with you on McCoy too, always was my favorite…

re 192: TNG sooooooo deserved a better send off than Insurrection AND Nemesis. TNG was solid, but suffered from some bad direction in the end. It breaks my heart. To all those TOS elitists, your closed mindedness about the greater Trek Universe leaves you out in the cold to some great characters and stories… too bad.

re 194 & 166: I actually always thought Trek 6 was over hyped and for me it fails on many levels. The movie looked right, but felt wrong. tmp thru voyage home & first contact embody the best movies to me.

Doug L.

206. Kev - August 3, 2007

Royalties from TOS syndication? That’s $0 now and for the last few decades. I think they got three repeats or something ridiculous like that. And now there’s talk of getting rid of residuals for everything.

207. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

How about … “He is a well known actor who’s in fashion recently and is by far the most popular and successful of all the Star Trek stars.” That work?

208. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007


Sure, that would work fine.

That said, at this point “most popular Star Trek actor” is a relative thing – and a far, far cry from “mega-famous guy who will put butts in the seats and make the studio big bucks.”

The plain fact is that nothing and no one associated with the name “Star Trek” has been sufficient to guarantee theatrical ticket sales since about 1986. That alone is enough to motivate the folks in charge to give Abrams a lot of room and back him in doing what he thinks best – whether than includes any or all or none of the actors who’ve appeared in “Star Trek” before. :)

209. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

How bout Kirk is more widely recognized than Shatner. Kirk is the icon. The rest of the world knows Kirk, we know Shatner… Doug L.

210. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

And that might be true too, worldwide. Shatner may be better-known in the U.S. and Canada than Kirk, though, because he’s currently on free TV and commercials as either himself or another character.

211. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

This would be one of those “who want’s to be a millionaire” early round questions that someone would invariably screw up.

Who played Captain Kirk?

A) Sean Connery
B) Roger Moore
C) William Shatner
D) Roger Ebert

;) Doug L.

212. Tim Handrahan - August 3, 2007

i am wondering if the movie will have Spock just having gone to the funeral of “Admiral McCoy” and realizing that he is all alone now starts to remember way back when. Or he could discuss it with his Captain Kirk hologram (Shatner) whom Spock has programmed with many memories except for how it all began………..

213. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

Wow Still Kirok man give it a rest you have said you piece. This is a futile arguement like when your agrueing with your siblings about something… You’re not going to sway anyones oppinion in here!!! Same as I could rant and rant and make arguements to you and not change your mind. We need to just accept that there are people of both mind sets and shut up. It’s like liberals and conservative trying to sell their politics to the other side… it just doesn’t work. Not to mention the fact that (I know its because you’re passionate about your beliefs) you get a bit rude in your posts which can be hurtful and drag the whole thread down because then people (myself included) get rude back… Comments like “burrying your head in the sand” and some of your other comments could be considered rude and hurtful dude… and for what your not going to change anyones mind with this campaign and even Anthony said for you guys to chill and yet you still continue… Deep breaths people. Lets accept that your beliefs are different than mine and stop pushing them upon other people arrogantly lest we start to look like that CHUD guy from the video clip. God Bless you Still Kirok for you passion to Trek but you have to give it a rest now as does everyone….

Aaron R.

214. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

# 208 … “The plain fact is that nothing and no one associated with the name “Star Trek” has been sufficient to guarantee theatrical ticket sales since about 1986″

I’m aware of that. And in spite of it, Shatner is currently maintaining a level of visibility and fame that is nothing short of remarkable, especially for a veteran of 50 years in showbiz. I love Nimoy and Stewart, but they run a distant second to Bill. It could almost be said that at this point, with the sorry state Berman & co. left the franchise in, Shatner is bigger than Star Trek. Almost. As fans, we should all be proud of him.

Which is why I and many others feel it makes all the sense in the world to exploit that and work him into the film. He’d be a great man to have on Abrams’ already strong team. And even if in the end he doesn’t add millions upon millions to the box office totals, I am certain that his presence WOULD help in attracting attention to this movie.

215. Anthony Pascale - August 3, 2007

here is why the Kirk obsessors are really starting to get on my nerves….I feel that it is insulting to Mr. Nimoy. Here we have two in depth articles about Mr. Nimoy and we have a film that truly uses him and his talents. He talks about directing and his role and his endorsement and yet some people cant take off their ‘shatner or bust’ blinders. It means a whole lot that Nimoy agreed to be in this film. Bear in mind he wouldnt go into Generations…a film Shatner had no problem with…and have you seen the first version of his death scene…something Shatner readily filmed and seemed OK with.

It is fine if you don’t like it, but to ignore Nimoy is insulting, and to put the burden on Abrams and his team to ‘fix’ something that Shatner himself is at least somewhat responsible for is just too much

We get it…you want him…so do I. He may be in the movie or maybe not but no ‘logic’ put forward here will make it happen and it just seems to be a constant derailment at this point from about half a dozen or so people who ONLY post about shatner in the film now…over and over and over and over.

I hope that Star Trek is more to you than that. But can you just give it a rest…I will be doing a shatner story on Monday and you can all go to town in that one if you must

216. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

Tim I like your hologram idea that is wonderfully clever… I forgot about that device for storytelling… Good idea..

Aaron R.

P.S. Not These are the Voyages Spock in holodeck fantasy just talking to hologram Shatner maybe he even has emitters in his study or home you know… Death scene at home with hologram Shatner “Brilliant” wow I would cry especially if it is like DS9’s the visitor.

217. Doug L. - August 3, 2007


That’s an opinion not a fact… I don’t think Shatner’s presence will make any difference in the box office. And as a veteran of 50 years he sure has a lot of crap on his resume’. It took a series of Priceline commercials in which he semi lampooned himself, to bring him back to the fore.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Shatner as Kirk, but I think this movie is better off without him. Kirk is dead, and for agreeing to play that role he’ll have to suck it up and move on. Nimoy was smarter than that as the interviews indicate.

Doug L.

218. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

My point, since you seemed to have missed it, is that very few actors (can’t think of any at the moment, except for Clint Eastwood) who have been around 50 years are as famous and well liked by the public as Shatner. His fame is, as I said before, remarkable.

219. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

Still getting chills thinking about that Hologram idea! Crazy… Nimoy on death bed calls upon Shatner hologram to remember the early days before he dies… Shatner doesn’t know hes a hologram thinks he is Kirk. They talk and get the whole story out of Nimoys system and he dies slowly and memorably with Shatner unable to help his friend this one last time because hes just a hologram and comes to that realization. The story ends with the realization that Spock is the last of the TOS era to die and they are all together now in the great beyond…..

Chills when I think about the ramification of that… So bittersweet and beautiful to the fullest extent of human expression.

Aaron. R.

220. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

The older TOS dies but the new TOS actors live on for the next film…….

221. ZoomZoom - August 3, 2007

#215 Shatner news on Monday then? Excellent- I’ll be back then.
But that in no way implies I’m not happy about Leonard. Cos I’m ABSOLUTELY thrilled, and enjoyed the 2 part Interview. Thanks TrekMovie for pulling another one out of the bag for us. ;)

222. Shadow6283 - August 3, 2007


I’m one of those “TOS” Elitists you spoke of. Always have been, always will be, no matter what direction the winds of popular opinion may be blowing in at any given moment. No, I do not like TNG, DS9, VOY and especially ENT, and that’s that, and I don’t care what part of the Trekverse they occupy, then or now, or who doesn’t like it. Period.

Who says I or anyone else has to be open-minded to “great stories and or characters” as you termed it? Chicken and biscuits as they say. That’s the beauty of choice. It’s just that–choice. Personal taste, nothing more.

If you like it, fine. Go watch it to your heart’s content. I’m not here getting in your way or to sway your opinion either yea or nay regarding the subject in question. Allow others the same privilege.

223. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 218:

dude, i didn’t miss you’re point at all. You missed mine. I think you waaay over rate him. -d

224. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 215

You make a good point, Anthony. We _are_ incredibly lucky to have Mr. Nimoy involved as much as he is in this project, when I thought he’d given up the ears long ago. I really do respect his talent and he’s brought so much to Star Trek–it just wouldn’t be Star Trek without what he brought to Spock and Vulcans in general.

Having him in this movie is a great thing, and for some people here to dismiss him and state that his movies are boring or old hat is incredibly disrespectful. If TOS movies were great, then Nimoy is a very big part of the reason they were great. His enthusiasm for XI’s script gives me more real hope than anything else that we may get another quality Star Trek movie again.

Thanks again for getting this interview with Nimoy, Anthony. It really was a coup!

225. Still Kirok - August 3, 2007

Actually, a hologram idea would be awful because it wouldn’t resolve Generations, which is the big reason to include Shatner. The idea is to use Shatner in an event that would accomplish something. A prequel, clone, other character, or anything else doesn’t do that.

Anthony–you did a great job getting Nimoy involved, and sorry for the constant pro-Shatner posts, but it’s more than half a dozen people. It’s not like the other side isn’t chiming in as much.

But one thing is certain, Shatner brings the attention.

The issue is the big one. But out of respect for the site, I’ll table all Shatner discussion in this thread.

226. Harry Ballz - August 3, 2007

Anthony, I don’t appreciate my earlier post being removed. A lot of people on this site have used far “saltier” language in their comments! It was a simple “tit for tat” pun!

227. Tim Handrahan - August 3, 2007

Aaron R-Glad you can see where I was going. It would the ultimate (and most fitting) farewell for the LEGENDARY CREW OF THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE!

228. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

agreed tim agreed

229. Dom - August 3, 2007

Hi Sleeper Agent X!

Howzit going? I’m just about back on a level. Too much travelling in too few days.

As for the nature of the discussion.For what it’s worth, I’d love to see Shatner back and think that the team in charge should do their best to find a way to slip him in there unless it completely unbalances the film. If they can’t, so be it. I’m sure they will if they can!

Part of what makes Spock work as a character is having Kirk (or McCoy) to bounce a performance off. Look at how deathly dull Spock was in TNG, for example, or how dreadfully ineffectual that weird-looking geezer in New Voyages is without a decent Kirk!

Oh and I’m not TNG bashing. TNG bashing sucks. I don’t have an issue with TNG and its spin-offs, although certain of the people in charge have annoyed me down the years.

The biggest problem, for me, with TNG was throwing in token appearances by TOS characters. I loathed it. The TNG writers never really got a handle on TOS characters and, frankly, the TOS and TNG teams’ shows and films are just too different in feel for crossovers to work.

McCoy’s appearance as ‘the Admiral’ in Encounter at Farpoint was a bit of whimsy for the first episode of a potential spin-off series, but it should have been left there. It was pretty clear from the outset that TNG was a new sci-fi show Roddenberry had created, along with David Gerrold, that had then had the Star Trek moniker and a few designs and references thrown in to get it sold. But the shows from TNG onwards have little or nothing to do with Star Trek (TOS, as it became.)

And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. TNG stands perfectly well on its own as a sci-fi series. You don’t need to have seen TOS to understand TNG. On the other hand, extensive knowledge of TNG is helpful and sometimes essential to understand DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Berman claims he never watched all of TOS and, for the most part, that didn’t matter.

The times it becomes a weakness are when TOS and the TNG-verse cross over. As a fan of TOS, I could perfectly accept that there was new stuff being made under the Trek moniker, even if I was frequently irritated or disappointed by it. The Sarek story was nicely written and allowed a minor TOS character getting explored a little more. That said, the story would have worked just as well with a different character in the Sarek role, as it was well-written!

But then they put Spock in Unification and his single episode turned out to be deathly dull. Then Scotty turns up in an episode that ignores the whole fascinating concept of a Dyson Sphere in order to get James Doohan to play drunk and regurgitate the ‘green’ joke! It showed a disinterest, bordering on contempt, for TOS characters, seeing them as a cheap way to boost TNG ratings (as big a criticism as you could make, really!)

Worse than that, we have the abortion that is Generations which sees Shatner, Doohan and Koenig sell out their characters for a few quid, not even fighting to make their dialogue sound right for their characters. Good on Leonard Nimoy and Deforest Kelley for turning down the film!

I had always been a Star Trek fan up until Generations. I had been willing to accept there were a couple of shows out there using the Star Trek name that didn’t fit with my concept Star Trek, but Generations was the moment I felt like my Star Trek was taken away from me.

TOS characters sounding like TNG characters. Kirk lobotomised in the flashy plot-device effect, then thrown off a cliff at a whim, because certain TNG people seemed to feel that they literally had to bury TOS. You can easily imagine Rick Berman opening his flies as Kirk falls to his death and peeing over the cliff edge.

Whatever happens, with Leonard Nimoy’s support, I feel like there’s the first ‘proper’ Star Trek production in 16 years. His presence in the film, the keen intellect and understanding of what made Star Trek work can make this film the true ‘passing the baton’ film Generations could only hope to be.

I remain all in favour of more TNG-verse stuff if people want to watch it. The TNG-verse is rich and complex and, guided by the right people, still has a great deal of potential. But the Star Trek: TNG tales need to stand separately from TOS. No more crossovers, no more gratuitious back referencing. Generations was the crossover that went too far. It needlessly damaged TOS . . . and TNG!

Welcome back Mr Nimoy. We’ve missed you . . . badly!

230. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

223. Doug L. “dude, i didn’t miss you’re point at all. You missed mine. I think you waaay over rate him.”

Do I? Perhaps you need to scroll up and read post #176 (and by the way, a lot of stuff was left off that list). Or maybe just make note of all the participants on here who’ve said they want to see him back. Tell you what, why don’t you provide some solid evidence that the man ISN’T wildly popular right now. Then we’ll talk more.

Anthony, I do not wish to annoy you, so until Monday I will limit my posts to responses to those who directly address me. That cool?

231. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 229:

I can see how some people might find “Unification” dull (although I didn’t, myself) but I thought “Relics” was fantastic!

I don’t see how Scotty could have possibly been more true to his character than he was in that episode. It was also funny! And yes, the Dyson Sphere was cool, but I much preferred seeing Scotty adjust to being in the 24th Century and his conflicts with Geordi. Leaving the Dyson Sphere a mystery piqued the imagination as well, which isn’t a bad thing to do every now and then.

232. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 222:

Thanks for your insinuation that anyone broad enough to appreciate more than one incarnation of a concept is merely being swayed by the winds of popular opinion.

I wasn’t impugning your tastes. By all means man, enjoy your show.

Doug L.

233. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 230:

I read 176, and nothing on that list really sways my opinion. Narrating specials on B stations like the History channel, and packing houses at Star Trek Conventions doesn’t really put him up there with Clint Eastwood or Sean Connery.

Yes you’re right, he is popular right now, but show me any movie beyond Star Trek that he A-listed? – or that was a wild success? He has a good series now and he’s good on it. Perfect for him. But I’m not sold on your theory.

Anyway, I am very excited about Nimoy’s comments on the script and I really do look forward to this movie. Let’s hope it starts a whole new ball rolling.

Doug L.

234. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

p.s. Just one more thing! If Shatner ain’t in this film as Jim Kirk, then I DEMAND that Charles Napier return as Adam the space hippie, so he and Spock can embark on their 24th Century Farewell Tour! Who’s with me??

“Yeeeaaahhh, brrrother!!”

235. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 229

Nicely put. dl

236. Doug L. - August 3, 2007

re 234:

now you’re singin’ brother! dl

237. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 3, 2007

233. Doug L. …

I’m glad you said that. Eastwood and Connery are excellent examples. You are right of course, Shatner never has been a FILM star on their level. He made his mark (and history) in television. But I daresay that on the fame/recognizability meter, he IS their peer. Star Trek has been airing all over the world for 4 decades. At one time or another, nearly everyone has seen it. And him. Not many properties have such broad appeal. Speaking of which, “narrating specials on B stations like the History channel” just proves my point. The History Channel. Comedy Central. Spike TV. TV Land. G4. ABC. Syndication. No matter what the nature of the programming, everyone wants him. And many put his name in the title of the shows! Does that not tell you something? Shatner OWNS.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but how you can say he’d add nothing to the movie is beyond me.

238. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

I assume, and have assumed all along, that Shatner will wind up in this movie at some point.

I suspect – and it’s completely conjecture based on long observation – that business issues are the sticking point.

And I like Shatner fine – just no more or less than I do dozens of other actors.

I simply don’t care whether he’s in the film or not. It matters little to either the success or quality of this movie whether people who’ve been associated with “Star Trek” in the past appear in it.

And obsessive fans of *anything* are tiresome when they get hold of a bone or a nit and won’t let go of it. Consider that some folks have gone way beyond wanting him in the film; without knowing anything about it they’ve already got a short list of things that *must* be addressed in some way if he is.

Getting their way is not the real answer to this kind of thing, but medication often is.

239. David Brewer - August 3, 2007

Ok, so the new TREK film is a prequel to TOS, excellent.
It is rumoured the film maybe about the 1st mission. Wasn’t the 1st mission with Captain Christopher Pike and Spock?
What about the Enterprises’ earlier captains: Robert T April and even Archer

240. Hoi Polloi - August 3, 2007

I really don’t understand why JJ and crew can’t take a cue from George Lucas and have a short animated series leading up to and tying into the movie. It could explain how Kirk has returned and at the same time be a great promotion for the movie. Plus, anyone who says “How is Kirk alive, I thought he died?” can be referred to the upcoming DVD release of the cartoon short series. More money in Paramount’s coffers and no need to waste film time on an explanation. Problem solved.

241. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

The movie should be able to stand alone. A movie that requires information that isn’t in it in order to be appreciated and understood is less good than one that doesn’t.

242. Camaro 09 - August 3, 2007

I agree with post #240.

It seems most people want to have Shatner back. That would be a cool way of doing it + hyping the film at the same time.

The Matrix films have done it so have Star Wars,BSG…etc

243. Camaro 09 - August 3, 2007

Dennis 241

There you go again. If anyone even brings up Kirk’s return there you are to shoot down the idea.

244. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 242:

How do you know most people want Shatner back, Camaro? And don’t give me any crap about “all the posts here.” You and I know it’s the same six people posting over and over again.

Most people probably wouldn’t care whether Shatner is in the movie or not.

Re 243

And if a few obsessed fans keep bringing up the same idea over and over again, what’s wrong with shooting down the idea to restore a little sanity and balance to the site?

245. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007

I refuse to get sucked into this arguement about Shatner as much as you tempt me with your idiotic posts that you just wont stop doing…. Its actually making my stomache upset how rude you are being to this site and to Mr. Nimoy. Anthony even told you multiple times how rude you are being. Sickening people just give it a rest.

Aaron R.

246. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 244:

And just for the record, I’m fine if Shatner is in the film or not. But I want J.J. and his team to make that decision, not the obsessive fanboys here who are DEMANDING all sorts of “fixes” at the expense of the story.

247. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

No, I don’t.

The suggestion that there ought to be a series of something leading up to the movie to “explain” things for the audience is a bad one, IMO.

That has nothing to do with whether Shatner’s in the film or not. Wait and see – if Shatner is in the film it will be done with no such “lead up series.” The two ideas are completely separable.

What other people read into my posts, or what annoys people, is for the most part not my proper concern and I doubt I’ll be explaining it again soon.

248. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

That was relative to #243.

249. Captain Robert April - August 3, 2007

Know this: There shall be no peace until Kirk lives!

250. Sleeper Agent X - August 3, 2007

Re 249:

So…who exactly are you threatening, there?

251. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

#250: :lol:

252. Shadow6283 - August 3, 2007


And it’s always easiest when it’s so patently obvious.

Enjoy my show, indeed. IDIC, remember?

253. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

There is no definition of any value by which one can be an elitist in regard to something like “Star Trek.” Specific tastes are not the same as high standards. ;)

254. Trekgeezer - August 3, 2007

Hey RaveOnEd, looks like we are buried in the maelstrom. Hopefully if this site gets a real forum some calmer voices will be heard. For Mr. Orci and company’s sake I hope so , because I know all this ranting and raucousness will surely turn them away, as well as those level headed fans that visit hear.

255. Dennis Bailey - August 3, 2007

Well, when there’s a forum people can have their own topics for such things rather than everyone’s concerns being lumped into the most recent.

256. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 3, 2007


257. Xai - August 3, 2007

wow…. it’s a shame that this thread became a load of crap. I doubt that 25% of the posts even addressed the topic and it’s devolved into a mud-slinging mess with a few off to the side jeering them on.

Maybe we can have Anthony repeat his #215 a few dozen times in each thread as a counter-point to the drum beat already present in all the posts.
This is getting silly…on both sides.

258. Chuck Amuck a.k.a. Shran - August 3, 2007

A great interview. Well done, Anthony, and many thanks.

As for the Rabbit’s Foot… it was just a really expensive bunny appendage. ;)

As for the comments on this thread… wow. Just skimmed over them, mostly. I saw something about someone believing all the comments here are coming from only six people repeatedly posting (or something stupid like that) because s/he couldn’t handle a bunch of people disagreeing with his/her view. That made me laugh. Apparently, there’s some denial that most of the fans want Shatner in the film or something? Eh, whatever; s/he can believe what s/he wants to, I guess, regardless of what most fans actually say (here and off site). I, too, would like to see Shatner in the film, but if it doesn’t work out, oh well. C’est la vie. As long as it’s a good movie, honors the characters, and fits into the Trekverse as promised, I’m peachy. :)
John Graffeo

259. Kirky - August 3, 2007


260. Big Al - August 4, 2007

Guys, I think/hope I speak for everyone who wants a shatner appearance in the film when i say WE WILL STILL SUPPORT THE MOVIE 100%, i see NO EXCUSE for not including him, even in a “cameo” (would a 30 second cameo, of an older kirk clearly showing he has aged from generations but not giving us an explantion be so bad? we dont need an explanation)

Anyways, BRING BACK KIRK, but as a HUGE TOS fan (the others are 99% trash) I will support his movie and im counting the days!

Hey, if Kirk lives, that leaves the story of how Kirk returned for another time and another actor in the far future if these movies succeed… whats so wrong with that? Yes, we CAN have our cake and eat it too.

261. Dom - August 4, 2007

I only ever post as me. I follow the Shatner edict of having a life! If I was making a sixth of the posts here, I’d never sleep!

I’m sure Anthony has a pretty darn good idea how many people post here, based on IP addresses and so on!

262. Big Al - August 4, 2007

Hey Pascale, I just found your article looking up Star Trek XI on yahoo, ive never even posted on a message board relating to Star Trek before, and to say those that want kirk back are just a few obsessives, well pal you are wrong.

We all love Nimoy. I am a TOS nut and I will support the film 150% (up 50% from my previous post). I am in nirvana because they are bringing back the original crew, THE ONLY GOOD STAR TREK CREW to anyone outside your nerd kingdom.

263. Big Al - August 4, 2007

For those of you clowns putting down people who want Kirk back, who is stopping you from talking about something else? Have your own conversation and skip those about bringing Kirk back.

Why is this a “bring back kirk” vs. everyone else board???

Anyone crazy who won’t go see the movie because Shat isnt in it IS NOT a fan of TOS. I’m happy TOS is back. But why all the hate??

264. Big Al - August 4, 2007

And Pascale, I notice A LOT of the people posting are lifelong TOS fans. These arnt people who normally visit Star Trek message boards. We left a long, long time ago…. so respect our opinion. There is a reason TOS movies destroy anything TNG put out. And TNG was the ONLY trek series that even came close to TOS level (but it was still like MLB- AA club)

265. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

re 263 and others:

I want to answer your question, because i find myself thinking about it too… “why all the hate?” I mostly see the hate coming from one side, even in relatively innoccuous comments…

I suggested earlier in this thread, that a lot of people who are fans of the original series only, might be missing out on a lot of good stories because they were unwilling to open up to the expanded universe. I got harangued for that by a poster who essentially told me to mind my own biz…

On the other side of the coin, the most rational arguments try to tell me TOS is king and everything that came after is crap. That “WE ALL KNOW” how the movie will fail if Shat isn’t in it… etc etc…

The way I see it, I’m suggesting there is a lot more Trek to enjoy out there, while others are suggesting that I have poor taste in liking TNG. (in your case, I know you only pointed out the movies specifically and mostly I agree with you on that point, even though I loved First Contact)

Anyway, your post was good natured, but a lot of others seem to go on and on with a very single minded and closed minded idea… I can do without these, though unfortunately it often fires me up to respond and defend my thoughts and all the other shows i like. In the end, I’m like, I love TOS too, how come you hate everything else…

I prefer to have a discussion with people who don’t view the world (Trek or otherwise) as being strictly black and white, when there is so much more depth to consider.

Doug L.

266. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

re 263.

i was really just being humorous with my choice of words, but you got me curious if in fact it applied by definition. I think it works. :)

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

267. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

While I appreciate all of the actors from TOS, I really believe of them all Leonard Nimoy had the best grasp of who and what they were all about. I think he brought that out in spades in his directorial efforts for Trek 3 & 4.

His endorsement of Zachary Quinto, JJ Abrams and script is a huge relief, particularly because of that understanding of character dynamic. I think we’re in for a great film, and look forward to more info coming our way soon!

Doug L.

268. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

post 266, was referring back to post 253. sorry for confusion. dl

269. Dom - August 4, 2007

Hi Doug L. Although I frequently got annoyed by the TNG-verse, there are certainly many, many good stories out there. As I’ve said in the past, killing off a major TOS character badly in a spin-off is where a lot of the TNG ‘hatred’ comes from among TOS fans. I don’t hate Kirk’s death in Generations: I just find it a bit pointless.

In the same way, I think the new Doctor Who show is mostly shoddy, cheesy and overrated. I pprefer to see it as a kind of alternate universe to the original show. That said, episodes like Blink are among the best Doctor Who productions I’ve seen in any era!

270. Sleeper Agent X - August 4, 2007

Re: 265

I agree, Doug L. It’s disingenous for BBKers to ask “why all the hate?” when most of the hate comes from their side. Some of them can’t talk about bringing back Shatner as Kirk or a TOS adventure without spewing a lot of just nasty comments at TNG or other aspects of Trek–it’s like they’re so insecure they need to prove to themselves TOS is superior by dissing all other Trek!

Also, all this BBK stuff has gotten WAY out of hand. Lately we’ve gotten threats, people acting like they need to instill “lessons,” and all sorts of other nonsense. I keep asking the people who do this stuff, “who are you trying to threaten, who are you trying to lecture?” and I never get an answer.

But obviously, with the uncertainty over whether Shatner will be in the film or not, the BBKers feel the need to manipulate the outcome, and even if they won’t declare it (because it would just sound too silly) in their hearts they believe they can bully J.J. and the other members of his team into doing their bidding. In their minds, the ends justifies the means, and if that means hijacking various threads and acting in the ugliest behavior possible, so be it.

Some of the posters here are scoffing at the idea this is only just 6 people posting over and over. Well, if you’re referring to one of my posts with words to that effect, I got that number from one of Anthony’s posts, #215:

“it just seems to be a constant derailment at this point from about half a dozen or so people who ONLY post about shatner in the film now…over and over and over and over”

And yes, Dom, I do agree Anthony would have the best idea of how many people are posting here about the subject (although I don’t think you can just go by IP addresses…some people are undoubtedly posting under different aliases, probably from different sites). But whether that number is six or twelve or whatever, in the end there is just a handful of people doing this.

“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.”

Those are J.J.’s words. He’s got his own vision about how to carry out this film. To which the BBKers are essentially saying, “Yes, but we’re entitled! We’re owed! Any other concerns are secondary to ours!”

But who’s got all the power here? I think it’s J.J.. And I just know he’s going to make this film his way. I’m certainly more excited to see what he’ll do with Trek, than any of the mostly horrible fanboy concepts of what Trek XI should be.

271. jonboc - August 4, 2007

#265, I’ve seen all the other Treks, and while they were competant TV, I never considered them Trek. Why? Because theblueprint for STar Trek, IS Star Trek, and the spin-offs were created with a completely different mindset, both on the screen and in the behind the screen production.

Out of litereally hundreds of hours of TV, there are only a handful that I think could pass as Star Trek. Not that they are bad, they just aren’t STar Trek…not in look, not in style, not in story. I’m excited about this movie because, after 20 years of watching shows that had Star Trek in the title, I might actually see a movie that lives and breathes the words rather than just put them on the screen.

Yes, yes, i know, its ALL Star Trek. So some would say. Some….but not me. I don’t consider it all Star Trek, any more than I consider the GIrl from UNCLE to be The Man From UNCLE or CSI:Miami to be CSI. STar Trek is unique and it’s expected that fans of one may not be fans of the other, because they are not even CLOSE to being the same. Not in the appraoch to storytelling, not in the music, not in the look and style of the show. I watched all the spin-offs, and was often entertained, often bored, but never made the mistake of thinking I was watching Star Trek.

I’m excited about this movie because it has no ties whatesover to the Trek of the last 20 years. It’s a new team that seems to understand what I said about STar Trek NOT being like the shows of the past 20 years. And with Nimoy’s stamp of approval, it only underscores that the production team understands the difference of STar Trek and the spin-offs. Now, the 24th century gang is upset, and understandably so. A movie that returns to the feel of TOS is drastically different from what theyve seen for the past 20 years has to be unsettling. But it’s that very return that makes me feel great. That is why there are such strong opposing opinions here. The spin-offs and Star Trek are like night and day…and so are their respective fans.

272. Harry Ballz - August 4, 2007

Do you remember how impassioned Kirk could get when communicating a point to various alien cultures? Maybe the BBK crowd are simply emulating the same approach. In a Kirk-like fashion they are grabbing the other posters by the arms, pulling them close and, in an adamant and determined tone, try to sincerely compell them to reconsider their position. By sheer strength of will they are trying to sway the masses!Yeah, that must be it! All I can say is good luck with that!

273. Sleeper Agent X - August 4, 2007

Re 271:

Said like a gentleman, jonboc. I can certainly deal with people not liking TNG or the othe spinoffs. Irrational hatred towards those spinoffs vented at any moment even when it’s not germane to whatever the topic of discussion is, is just embarassing behavior by the perpetrators.

Also, if you’re going to criticize a show you don’t like, you’ve got to be prepared to deal with criticism of the same fashion aimed towards your favorite show. Dom, I respect the fact you don’t enjoy TNG so much–but lately you’ve acted offended when people dare to point out TOS movies didn’t necessarily rake in huge amounts of dough! Shame on you, friend. If you’re going to dish it out, you need to be able to take it, as well.

274. Shadow6283 - August 4, 2007

I’m one of those long-time “TOS” Fans who’s never cared for any of the newer series. I don’t hate them. I just don’t like them. How plainly can it be stated? If someone else does–FINE. Go ahead and watch them. What’s stopping you? Oh, wait. Gotcha. I see. Okay…

It’s easy to see the rationale behind that contrivance. Folks crying “hate” aren’t fooling me. Most of it’s coming from from people who pretty much grew up watching the newer shows and never really cared about “TOS” anyway, and you can read the subtle [and not so subtle] animosity toward it, and especially Bill Shatner in their posts, no matter how much they claim they just love “TOS.”

Do they really think anyone believes they would be bleating about how much they love it and how much they respect Bill Shatner if Abrams were making a TNG Movie and ENT was still in production? The sole reason they’re behind it is because that they’ve got nowhere else to go and they may as well get on the bandwagon and wear out their welcome again by splitting hairs and parsing every single nuance of every imaginable facet of CT to the subatomic level just like they bled Modern Trek to death over the last 20 years until it was deader than depleted uranium.

That will not happen this time with this Trek.

275. JON - August 4, 2007

By bringing in Nimoy and Shatner they are killing the opportunity to re-make/re-invigorate Trek.As a fan I’m dissapointed at the lack of originality here.They keep going back to the little old TV tube to satisfy a bunch of old trekkies who’d see the movie anyway.I,for one,would like to see a toatal rethinking that is unencumbered by the past.

276. Harry Ballz - August 4, 2007

I’ve never heard of a “toatal rethinking”, but it sounds original!

277. Shadow6283 - August 4, 2007


Quit pulling your own leg.

Toatal rethinking. Must be Aztec or Incan. :P

278. Jeannie spock - August 4, 2007

Great interview!
Leonard Nimoy is echoing everything I (and most ST fans) have thought for years. None of the movies really showed much of the relationship of the charactors we have come to love. The Voyage Home came the closest. It seems now that we are finally going to get the movie that Nimoy really wanted to make. Good on you Nimoy!
Pershaps a shame Shatner not in it – well I always thought Spock was the pivitol charactor anyway.
In previous films, the ones Nimoy was heavily involved in were always the best – Shatner always seems to put some spanner in the works for whatever reason I don’t know – but it is true.

279. Jeannie spock - August 4, 2007

By the way – doesn’t Nimoy look fit and healthy these days.

280. Aaron R. (Fanboys unite: "New Sisko Movie!") - August 4, 2007

Yes I was thinking that to Nimoy has kept himself in such better shape than Shat. I met them both at last years Las Vegas con you know the big one and my honast to god thought was this… “Jesus Shat is getting big… I bet he’s the next to go before Nimoy…” Not that I want Shatner to die that would be a terrible day but they are all aging you know and thats just the thought that came to mind from seeing their physical condition in person. Plus I wonder if Shat is on some sort of drugs or medication because when he was at the Con he seemed kinda out of it and then when he does those Shat Vision vids he kinda sometimes seems a little slower and in lala land or something. Not trying to insult but I just worry about the old captain you know. I still remember meeting Doohan and thinking the same thing and then look what happened… Nimoy on the other hand still seems to have the mental accuracy of a vulcan and that makes me happy…

Aaron R.

281. Dom - August 4, 2007

Hi Sleeper Agent X.

273: ‘Dom, I respect the fact you don’t enjoy TNG so much–but lately you’ve acted offended when people dare to point out TOS movies didn’t necessarily rake in huge amounts of dough!’

Erm . . . where did I get offended? I know some TOS-based Trek films didn’t rake in the dough! Hell, I never went to see Star Trek V at the cinema myself!

Are you referring to what I said in 166: ‘

‘Dennis, what’s with the Star Trek VI hatred? I get frustrated by the obsessives too, but why do you spend so much time talking up TNG Trek in an anti-TOS fashion? Surely that’s just stoking the fire in what is already a pretty silly fight!’

I can’t read any personal offence in that post: I’m stating that I think the whole TOS v TNG ‘war’ is silly. Dennis doesn’t like STVI and I asked him why and he replied! Where do I read ‘offended?’ I just can’t see it!

273: ‘Shame on you, friend. If you’re going to dish it out, you need to be able to take it, as well.’

I haven’t ‘dished’ anything ‘out’ that I’m aware of. I told you before that I come here to chat, not pick fights (which, incidentally, you seem to enjoy doing!!! ;))

IMO, the original crew peaked in their roles in STIV in the mid-80s and it was downhill after that. However, STVI was an very solid send-off, conceived by Leonard Nimoy, and I would have accepted that TOS was over had Paramount not dragged pointlessly Shatner out for another film!

The mistake they made, in hindsight, was not making a couple of animated Trek films with the voices of the original team. But TOS was at an all-time popularity low in the mid-90s. Then the supporting actors from TOS got envious of the ‘big three’ because they hadn’t had the ensemble cast opportunities TNG had afforded its cast, meaning that they started Shatner-bashing left right and centre. It made the whole of TOS look like a joke – a bunch of fogies picking walking stick fights with one another. It was a sad time to be a fan of the original Star Trek!

Leonard Nimoy’s intelligence and superb understanding of what makes Trek work is something I’ve missed from Trek down the years. Clearly he’s worked with the writers on getting the script in order and making sure that Spock is portrayed accurately. I’m intrigued to see how he’ll be handled in the film.

I mean, given Spock’s slower aging process, it’s feasible that the older Spock scenes could be taking place as late as even the 26th century, long after Picard and co are dead! Even if Kirk was resurrected post-Generations, he’d still likely be dead (again) by then! Whatever happens, I’m thrilled that Leonard Nimoy’s back. His opinions on Trek pretty much reflect my own. Even if this new film proves to be his last appearance as Spock before the camera, hopefully, he’ll be about to offer advice for a couple more movies yet!

282. Sleeper Agent X - August 4, 2007

“Whatever happens, I’m thrilled that Leonard Nimoy’s back. His opinions on Trek pretty much reflect my own. Even if this new film proves to be his last appearance as Spock before the camera, hopefully, he’ll be about to offer advice for a couple more movies yet!”

Well said, Dom.

Now if we could just get the other five posters like you to shape up, we’d be making some real progress! ;-)

283. VOODOO - August 4, 2007

I am excited Leonard Nimoy is back and I am going to keep my comments about Kirk/Shatner to myself until Monday.

Anthony has promised a Shatner story where everyone can pile on.

284. VOODOO - August 4, 2007

Sleeper Agent:

I’m not going to argue the point today,but there are many people who feel the same way Dom does.

285. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

re 271

I get your points and the distinction you make. Your right about all of that. There are two comments I would make though.

1) It IS all Star Trek, even if it’s different. It’s a bit like Massachusetts saying Texas isn’t part of the United States cause it’s different. We’re all under the same umbrella.

2) I also really don’t hear the “24th Century” crew complaining that a TOS movie is being made… I hear a bit of disappointment only that the last two movies stunk. Show me the TNGers who are complaining that this movie is being made??

Doug L.

286. JC - August 4, 2007

276,277.Total rethinking

287. Shadow6283 - August 4, 2007


Who cares what they think?

288. Chuck Amuck a.k.a. Shran - August 4, 2007

Let me just say, I am totally psyched that Nimoy is going to be in this picture. I was already excited about it before, but ever since it was officially announced that Nimoy would participate in the film, that excitement has more than doubled. I cannot wait to see him back on the screen as everyone’s favorite Vulcan and can’t wait to see how they use him in the story.

For all those still talking about bringing back Kirk: give it a rest, will you? If he’s in, he’s in; if he’s not, oh, well. Abrams is going to do what’s best for the script, the fans, and the actors, and if that means that Shatner doesn’t appear, then we’ll have to deal with that. There is absolutely no reason to think that the movie won’t be as good if Shatner isn’t in it. Let them make the film the way they think is best and I doubt any (or many) of us will be disappointed.

And whoever said that all other Treks besides TOS is “99% trash”… well, obviously, you’re wrong, but, whatever. Although, I will admit, the technobabble got to be a bit much. ;)

Anyway, THEY’RE BRINGING BACK SPOCK!!! Let’s celebrate! (*grabs a Vulcan lute and starts jamming*)
Arch Whiting

289. Chuck Amuck a.k.a. Shran - August 4, 2007

*Whiting was born in ’36, not ’26. Sorry. Ok, as you were. :P

290. Shadow6283 - August 4, 2007


Whoever said it was trash? Those in contention, especially me, made it quite clear that they didn’t like it, then or now. Oh, quite unlike others here, who, comes the dawn, suddenly have “rediscovered” their love for “TOS” after all these years, wonder of wonders, once they realized the die was cast and they could jump on the bandwagon.

Sposck’s back. Fine. Great. Now, let’s see about bringing back Bill Shatner and we’ll go from there.

291. trektacular - August 4, 2007

BBKers are as annoying as Shatner himself, makes sense

292. Doug L. - August 4, 2007

re 290…

You’re right. I give up. I own up that I’ve masked my secret love for TOS all these years in a veil of Next Generation darkness and I’ve finally seen the light of the individual and unique greatness that only Bill Shatner can deliver to the franchise.

You win. Let’s all hope this movie just doesn’t get made…

Unbelievable…. dl

293. Xai - August 4, 2007

#290 Shadow,
I believe you called William Shatner a friend in a previous thread. Perhaps you should help him and the producers come to terms… and perhaps get him on here for an Anthony interview?

294. Xai - August 4, 2007

Why do we need a story? Just open a commnt board and you all can “pile on”. This KIRK vs. NO KIRK vs. I DON”T CARE IF HE”S IN IT argument is OLD… it’s the same old sh*t on both sides saying the same things. The nacelle cap thing was more interesting and even on topic at times


295. Julian - August 4, 2007

Well, when I first heard about the details of Trek XI, I wasn’t too thrilled about it, but after reading about Nimoy’s positive comments it sounds encouraging, I’m very excited about it. In regards to Nimoy’s comments about Shatner’s death being gratuitous, yes it was. Prior to Generations release, it was already common knowledge that Kirk was going to die, I was just hoping that it would have been a far more heroic death than the final product. But I guess sometimes heroes in real life die in uninteresting and unglorious ways, which is what made Kirk’s death probably more realistic, but not necessarily heroic. Still, William Shatner is very much alive and well, in fact, he’s doing great these days!

Therefore, I see no reason why the writers can’t bring Kirk back in a very inventive way. Sure, he doesn’t look the same as he did in Generations but so what? He looks great for his age, besides, it’s nothing that a good make-up artist can’t fix to make him look like he did in Generations anyway, so that’s no problem. I just hope that the writers don’t bring Kirk back in a cameo, his role has to be a substantial one. And even if the writers don’t resurrect Kirk, they can at least have him appear in a holographic form just like Superman’s father Jor El in Superman Returns. If the writers choose this option, it would make the movie even more realistic, proving that heroes die too, just like Sheridan in Babylon 5.

I’m predicting that this new movie will be one of the best ones yet, but it will never have the same exact magic because we’ve lost DeForest Kelley several years ago. It would have been great if he were still living and being offered a possible appearance in the movie as well, but alas, it will never happen. Seen in this way, the magic as we once knew it is gone because Star Trek will never be the same without McCoy alongside Kirk and Spock. McCoy was the emotional one, Spock was the logical one, and Kirk was the one who had elements of both that kept them together, they were the big three. And just imagine if Shatner had passed away before Trek XI was going into pre-production? How would fans have reacted if Abrams went ahead and hired Nimoy to return as Spock? Would fans still see the movie or not?

Anyway, I hope that writers do bring back Shatner for one final adventure with Spock, but if they don’t I’ll still be there on opening night because Abrams is now in control of Trek and from what I’ve been reading, the franchise is in good hands. Star Trek, may you continue to live long and prosper. :)

296. Shadow6283 - August 5, 2007


Xai, whether this query’s sincere, or as I suspect, a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm, my answer is this: Bill Shatner’s one of many stars I’ve formed friendships with in my time, some passing, some long-term. However as with all my professional acquiantances, I DO NOT discuss matters of this nature with any of them, and they, in turn, extend the same courtesy to me.

Leonard Nimoy, his best friend, who I do not know, would be best suited for this task. When Mr. Pascale interviewed him, I notice he didn’t make an overture to do so either, and rightly so. It’s not his place or his call, and in Hollywood circles, it’s strictly de rigeur to do so. If he didn’t offer to do it, why would I?

It would ill behoove me to presume to ask him to submit to an interview in any capacity, given this context. It’s not my responsbility, but Mr. Pascale’s to do so, if he so desires, and through the proper channels. He doesn’t require any help from me. If he wants an interview, that’s what agents or publicists are for, and I’m certain he knows that without any intervention on
my part.

I’m here solely to discuss the new Trek movie and engage in discussion with other fans, and that’s all.

297. Fireoftime - August 5, 2007

I’m guessing that the film will start with an old Spock speaking to a younger person(s) about his joining the Federation and his relationship with Captain Kirk. In other words, a flash-back style movie.
Focusing on a ‘present day’ ( as in centuries from now) Spock, as the lone survivor of the old crew will give the story dramatic depth, as he retells their story and first adventure.
Where Shatner may come into it, is in a more ‘recent’ flash-back, as in days before he was thought to have been killed in Generations, or even right after the Enterprise was decommissioned in Undiscovered Country.

298. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Re: 296

“However as with all my professional acquiantances, I DO NOT discuss matters of this nature with any of them, and they, in turn, extend the same courtesy to me.”

So you work for an “escort service,” eh, Shadow? I hope you’re the madam, ’cause you’re too surly to be one of the girls… :-D

299. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 5, 2007

EW is not the pulse of public opinion–or specifically any kind of accurate meter of Trek fandom.

Like it or not, Shatner (and/or his most famous character) is one of the most recognized cultural icons of the past 40 years, while others have come and gone as fads, flash-in-the-pan/flavor-of-the-moment performers, Shatner manages to keep flying in one way or another.

Regarding Trek as popular fiction, aside from Nimoy and his Spock, only Shatner/Kirk & Kelly/McCoy can be called the faces of the franchise; from the way the franchise is genrally packaged by the PTB, (including merchandising). Furthermore, it is NOT Picard, Riker, LaForge, Crusher, Data, Troi and Worf that the John and Jane Q. Public thinks of, and it is most certainly not Sisko, Dax, Janeway, Tuvok, et al most think of when they see the title “Star Trek,” so let’s be absolutely clear and HONEST about the importance of actors and/or characters to a franchise and how they are percieved.

300. Shadow6283 - August 5, 2007


You’re one of those rare chaps who imagines himself clever, but in truth, is about as smart as a billiard ball, and so intellectually crooked that I bet you have to fold yourself into bed at night.


301. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Re 299–

I’m willing to bet EW’s got a better shot at being the “pulse of popular opinion” than you do! What are your credentials, buddy?

302. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 5, 2007

NO flaming intended AP, but Shadow6283 succinctly pointed out the obvious about a certain member…

…however i’ll add that until Sleeper Agent produces EW’s data claiming all knowledge of Trek fandom’s preferences, you are arguing for the sake of argument. Do they (EW) know YOUR Trek preferences? The next million fans’ preferences? Have they carefully visited innumerable Trek/sci-fi/comic conventions, websites, etc. to get significant numbers proving what you seem to believe is their accuracy regarding popular opinion? Have you proven their accuracy? I think not, otherwise you would have posted that information with ease instead of your ad hominem-laced comment. EW is just another rag reporting on the assorted goings-on of entertainment–that does not make the rag the voice of all things Trek.

303. JB - August 5, 2007

Why has Anthony let this off topic flame fest go on for so long?

304. Xai - August 5, 2007

#296 Shadow,
Given our history of “disagreement” I’ll allow you the comment about a “thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm”. However, it wasn’t.
You mentioned it and I asked, taking your statement at face value. I respect that you know the bounds of your friendship with these people, and I do not.
Asked and answered.

305. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Re: 302

At the very least EW gets feedback in terms of letters and emails from their subscribers, if nothing else.

Again, what kind of data do you have access to at your fingertips? If you don’t even have that much, EW still has a better claim on being the “pulse of public opinion” than you.

306. Doug L. - August 5, 2007

re 300

Man, you really come off a little foul attacking people like that. You make a lot of broad assumptions, poorly backed up, with a closed minded and pompous demeanor. And what was sarcastic about post 293?? Looked pretty clean to me.

Now I’m guilty of an attack too, but Shadow… you can seriously use a superiority complex & paranoia check.


307. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 5, 2007

305 (Sleeper Agent X): The burden of proof fell on your shoulders the moment you supported EW as a source; to reiterate, you–acting as the de facto representative for the publication–has not DISproved my original post. Now own up, or give it up if you cannot say that EW has collected/experienced–as I have–decades of encounters with Trek fandom, and understanding what is the percieved face of the franchise…and Berman’s era is not, whether certain individuals choose to believe it or not.

308. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Re 307:

Oh, that’s not going to work as a dodge, CG! I asked you what your credentials were first, remember? All your posts thereafter have just been evasions.

It’s pretty clear you’re demanding that EW achieve some pretty high standards, but at the same time you’re exempting yourself from any of those standards whatsoever.

Whatever credentials EW does or doesn’t have, they still look to be more substantial than yours.

309. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 5, 2007

308: No dodge here–the burden of proof rests on you, as you are the person pumping EW’s dubious value, so if you are going to step in the arena and issue ad hominem blather about another member by TAKING A STAND AS THE DEFENDER OF THE SOURCE in question, you sure as heck better be prepared to PROVE their alleged vast knowledge about the pulse of popular opinion amongst Trek fans, otherwise, you ARE presenting arguments for the sake of it, when no evidence exists to support them in your manner!

310. THX-1138 - August 5, 2007

The official scorekeeper has called this thread off on account of boring. All parties are to report to their respective locker rooms and towel off. The new topic of debate shall be how pointy should Spock’s ears be and what a violation of canon they are. Also the new movie will reveal that Spock’s first name is going to be “Timmy”.

311. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Your attempt to dodge the question here is blatantly transparent, and doesn’t fool anybody, CG.

You’re the one making all sorts of claims, here. “Burden of proof,” as you call it, therefore rests on you. All I did was ask you a question, which you still haven’t answered.

312. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

Re 310:

Fine with me. This _is_ getting old. ;-)

313. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

And post 311 is meant to follow 309.

314. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 5, 2007

311: Nice try, but lacking substance or evidence; If you bothered to actually read my posts, my proof was already posted, hence my telling you time and again that the burden falls on you and your oh-so-all-knowing EW….again.

I wonder why J.J. Abrams/CBC/Paramount decided to reboot using TOS characters….could it be that the world was so burned by Berman’s collective bad joke that the franchise was a shattered mess in the garbage can? Could it be that the last two TNG movies, Voyager and Enterprise disrespected the intelligence (and tolerance levels) of Trek fans so much that TOS–most culturally valued Trek was the only hope of revival?

315. Chuck Amuck a.k.a. Shran - August 5, 2007

I think this War of the Words can end now. For clarity, that means there should be no more posts on the subject. Demanding credentials of one source or another has nothing to do with Nimoy *and* the new film. If neither of you have anything to say on *those* subjects, then this discussion should end, now. It is, after all, an enormous waste of time for BOTH of you, as well as for those reading this thread… assuming they didn’t abandon it about 100 posts ago.

316. Sleeper Agent X - August 5, 2007

It already is over, Chuck!

317. trektacular - August 5, 2007

Compassionate I would blame Paramount over Berman, they were the ones who kept pumping out trek shows regardless on whether there was a desire for more.

318. Doug L. - August 6, 2007

re 317 & 315

I would blame Paramount AND Berman… Paramount kept pumping em out and Berman was creatively exhausted… ;)

Doug L.

319. Harry Ballz - August 6, 2007

Hey, remember how in Star Wars, Yoda’s ears drooped down to signify his advanced age? Let’s hope they don’t do the same with Spock! Yikes!

320. THX-1138 - August 6, 2007

I don’t know about ears, but I have noticed Harry Ballz.

Drooping that is.

321. Harry Ballz - August 6, 2007

Wow, a verbal slice from THX-1138! I’m honoured! I feel like I’ve made the “cut”!
You also reminded me of the old Joan Rivers joke where she says, “when you see an older man sitting on the toilet, it looks like he’s making a cup of tea!”

322. THX-1138 - August 6, 2007

Aw c’mon, Harry. I’ve pitched a couple your way before. Of course having me as a slicer (?) on the site is hardly an honor. Just ask Shatner_Fan_2000. I don’t think he (or she, I’m sorry) cares for me all that much. I’m kind of a hack. The Joan Rivers line is fu-nny!

Spock with droopy ears and green hairs poking out. Quite a sight.

323. Marc Klein - August 6, 2007

Kirk dying in Generations wouldn’t have anything to do with Trek 11 seeing as we no nothing of it (except that it’s early in their carrers). Although, producers said that Kirk died as a way of passing the torch to TNG.

Anyway, when Trek begins filming in Novmber, it will conflict with Boston Legal so if they somehow find a way of putting Shatner in, it would have to be around his shooting scheule of Boston Legal since Denny Crane is a main character.

324. Harry Ballz - August 6, 2007

#323 “it would have to be around his shooting schedule of Boston Legal”
Hey, I’m a big fan of Boston Legal, but if they figure out a way to sandwich Shatner into the new film, I’m sure they can work it out. After all, there are some episodes of B.L. where Shatner is hardly in it, other than to “bookend” the show with Spader at the beginning and end. For that they could film ahead of time. Besides, the Shat wouldn’t have a big part in Trek XI so, really, how long would it take to film his contribution? IT CAN BE DONE PEOPLE!!!

325. Greg2600 - August 7, 2007

re 314 – They are not rebooting, but certainly remaking. The reason they are supposedly using the same characters is because they are the characters who are established and are known. The ground work has already been done. Berman simply did not like TOS, and I think always feared that his work would never be judged properly with TOS hanging over it. His treatment of Capt. Kirk in Generations is a prime example. Kirk is basically an afterthought, a large cameo who he kills off. Now that he is out, Paramount feels that TOS can be made over again. While that’s well and good for Paramounts bottom line, I don’t feel that is in true spirit of Star Trek.

re 323 – That’s why producers make big bucks, to work around conflicts. Besides, if Shatner were in the movie, he, like Nimoy, would only require a few days of shooting time.

326. PH - August 14, 2007

I have see all of the movies and read many of the books associated with Star Trek. Although I loved Shatners role in the original series and again in Wrath of Khan (especially) and read the RETURN as well as other books based after that timeline, I do think Kirk’s role is over. Call it fatigue factor but we have to move on. The Next Generation showed we could. Vulcans can live 200+ years so a Spock from the future makes sense. The Star Trek universe revolves around going boldly where no man has gone before.. lets not repackage William Shatner again and again.. Sopranos and Seinfeld had it right– go out on top. Spock never really the attention he should have. Also (to a lessor extent) The thing I always liked about Patrick Stewart is that he stays in shape for the role.. Kirk was very physically active in the books and the fit with todays Shatner doesn’t make sense..

327. Wally Fields, Eichlerholic - August 22, 2007

I’m really not interested if Shatner returns. Current Shatner is great at Denny Crane.. but Nimoy ages better. PRecisely because Vulcans SHOULD look old. Adds that patina of wisdom. Besides, Kirk would be long dead by the time Spock looks even remotely old. Nexus or not!
And, let’s face it, Spock has, and always had, the most depth. He was the most 60s of the Trek Denizons.
“Yes… in my opinion”

328. Wally Fields, Eichlerholic - August 23, 2007

I think I thought of a cool context for the later Spock. Knowing he’s getting on in years, “they” send a young Vulcan to interview him. Being the later, emotion-embracing Spock, he immediately grins, embraces the uncomfortable one, and welcomes him into his home.

“They sent you to talk me off the ledge, haven’t they?”
“A human phrase. Vulcan High Command doubtless thinks I suffer from Bendii syndrome”
“that thought has occurred to them, Sir.”
“…that I cannot control my emotions…rather than that I simply CHOOSE not to. Has it ever occurred to you, that emotions can be eminently logical?”

..and so it goes, hooking the audience into later Spock’s line of reasoning. Perhaps the ‘flashback’ to early Spock would be meant to illustrate Spock’s point.. maybe early Spock failed at something, from trying too hard to be logical.

And after trying to charm the young Vulcan interviewer into seeing his point about emotion.. they end up developing a kind of friendship, a sort of ‘friendly disagreement’, debating relationship. Spock says things like “Now, surely you must at least consider my viewpoint. To dismiss your elders, who have so many more decades of experience and learning, would be illogical”

In the end, the interviewer seems impervious. Until Spock dies, in front of him, and the emotion is wrenched out of him.

329. Timothy Wayne Thomas - August 29, 2007

I believe Berman is left out in the cold. WIthout Gene and others bringing the rear where Berman is left out in the cold. This Movie is going to be great but the fan films don’t do it honor but I still love watching them. I think Star Trek will be around for along time to come. We need more Fan Films that tries to take Paramount and CBS to task and promote a bigger vision with other shows that don’t even have anything to do with Star Trek but will help the fan films get some out the leather into the process. I think Jeff Quinn would have been a great replacement for Spock. But they had to choose the more seasoned actor from Heroes. If I have anything other to say I think I’ll post it later.

330. hiutopor - September 17, 2007

Hi all!

Very interesting information! Thanks!


331. Jim Brown, Orlando, FL - December 7, 2007

You GOTTA know that if Shatner is cooperative, and there is any way that JJ, Paramount, and the other Powers That Be can agree upon a format and role, that Kirk will be in this production. It simply will not be legendary without it — and IMHO, if there’s anything that Abrams wants to take away from this effort, it’s a truly Star Trekkian-legendary quality to the film!

332. Just an Old Phart from long ago - December 29, 2007

My friends and I used to gather around our black and white television set as it was the only one in the neighbouthood that has a good enough antenna to pick up channel 3 from Syracuse Ny. We sat in aw. We watched, and loved and believed. In all the years that have passed since that faith in the ultimate triumph of man over adversity, of humans over any obstacle, of good over evil, has never failed or faded.

I am sure that the “Spock” we loved so long ago will not let us down after all those years. Peace and long life.

333. SF-writer - August 11, 2008

If you want Kirk back, just go into the Nexus and pull him out again… He exists there forever and when he leaves, he’s only a copy. If that doesn’t work for you, have him play a relative of himself… This is not complicated at all.

334. JR Miller - December 16, 2008

Totally what I was thinking! – They left themselve an out with the Nexus – Kirk could totally come out at any point in time, easily. Even 10 years from now, an old Kirk could come out and save the new Kirk – unbeknownst to the young Kirk, as the age would easily hide the fact that it is himself 60 years down the road!

– Now that would be a death scene worth killing off the old(er) Kirk for! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.