Shatner On Dissapointment Not Being in Movie + New Book and Ballet Documentary | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner On Dissapointment Not Being in Movie + New Book and Ballet Documentary August 24, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Books,Shatner,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Creation TV caught Shatner backstage at the recent Vegas con

Bonus Video New Shatner video from Pocket Books on new novel below…

Comments

1. catchupwiththesun - August 24, 2007

gotta love the shat

2. Adam Cohen - August 24, 2007

Set phasers on “bitter!”

Cheer up, Bill. We love ya, but don’t turn mean.

3. Mike J. Hafezi - August 24, 2007

Dear Paramount Executives,

I know how to put William Shatner in the new Star Trek. Spock would go back in time to his and Kirk’s early years at the Starfleet Academy and tell the young Kirk to make the right choices in his life. The point I’m making here is that the death of Kirk was indeed pointless and maybe Spock is warning Kirk not to be aboard the Enterprise B before it encounters the Nexus so he wouldn’t have to end up dying while helping Picard stop Soran from killing millions of lives just to get back. In other words, it’d be too dangerous for an experienced captain to attend the christening of an unfinished successor to a starship he comandeered before. That way, it’d just be that Kirk never died at all. It’s quite logical. As soon as you get this message, tell J.J. Abrams that this would be worthy of all Trekkies to put Shatner in the film without shoving him in. It’s just perfect.

4. Xai - August 24, 2007

I am a little surprised we have not heard more casting news

5. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - August 24, 2007

Jeeze Adam I usually agree with your reasoned posts but how did he come off as bitter or mean ??

6. sean - August 24, 2007

#3

Oh man, exactly the kind of baggage the new movie doesn’t need! If they were going to have older Kirk in the movie, I sure hope they’d come up with something better than that.

7. ZoomZoom - August 24, 2007

#4 As am I. Getting a bit frustrated now! Must be something soon?

8. Jeffrey S. Nelson - August 24, 2007

I don’t see how Kirk and Spock could have interacted as teens in the Academy. Spock served with Captain Pike on the Enterprise thirteen years or so before Kirk became captain. Spock would have been out of the Academy years before Kirk entered it.

9. StillKirok - August 24, 2007

Abrams has said he would try to get Shatner in the movie. Nimoy says the movie would be better with Shatner in it. Let’s see if Abrams lives up to his word.

10. StillKirok - August 24, 2007

Still no edit feature :D

The comments weren’t bad at all. Nothing new, and certainly not denying hope. He wants in. Abrams says he wants him in. So write him in! His comments were hardly bitter. He just continued to express his desire to be in the movie.

The feeling is certainly shared by a significant group of fans.

11. Sleeper Agent X - August 24, 2007

Re 9:

But let’s be clear, StillKirok. Abrams said he would _try_ to get Shatner in the movie. He didn’t promise or give his word about anything.

I hope if things don’t turn out the way you want, you don’t accuse J.J. of being a liar, too.

12. Thomas - August 24, 2007

I’m wondering if maybe the writers have already figured out how to put Shatner in the film and he is already signed on, but the writers are holding off divulging this information.
If this is the case, they may in fact be trying to prevent the circumstances of Kirk’s return from being leaked onto the Internet. But, that’s my own opinion.

13. Fireoftime - August 24, 2007

Well, if Shat ain’t in it, then we know what the name of the next film will be,

STAR TREK XII: THE WRATH OF KIRK
or
STAR TREK XII: SHAT HAPPENS!

Seriously, outside of a cameo, such as a pre Enterprise B launch scene, the producers may see Shatner as a liability to the integrity of the film they hope to make, in that for the past ten years Mr. Shatner has made a carer out of lampooning his own (and by extention Captain Kirk’s) image.
His public image today is that of a portly clown on a lawyer show.

14. ZoomZoom - August 25, 2007

#13 You are quite mistaken! How many people actually watch Boston Legal? No. Shatner IS Captain Kirk.

15. Fireoftime - August 25, 2007

#13 You are quite mistaken! How many people actually watch Boston Legal? No. Shatner IS Captain Kirk.
-ZoomZoom

Well, maybe your right. I hope so.
Captain Kirk is a cultural icon.

16. JC - August 25, 2007

Shatner killed Kirk.

17. NCC-73515 - August 25, 2007

re #3:
then kirk could not help picard against soran and as we saw in generations, soran destroys the veridian system. picard would be in the nexus, but there would be no kirk to help him defeat soran.
i strongly recommend the book “engines of destiny”. in this story, old scotty travels back in time to rescue kirk from the deflector control room on the 1701-B just before the nexus energy whip hits the ship. but then the entire timeline is altered: soran succeeds, the 1701-D is destroyed with the entire crew on veridian III – which means that the crew is not there on the 1701-E later in 2373! so there is no ship that follows the borg sphere into the temporal wake – and the borg assimilate earth in 2063.

isn’t that the greatest story ever written? prevent kirk from getting into the nexus and the borg will tekt over the alpha quadrant in the 21st century. and it’s logical!!!

18. uir - August 25, 2007

Here we go again, as Mr. Shatner said:

“Sauve, Debonair, Athletic, Rich.”

Qualities required for the “young” Captain Kirk. No mention as to what is required for a potential “old” Captain Kirk. For starters how about ‘ALIVE’?

#16, a lot of truth to that statement.

#4, yes, only 3 confirmed that we know of. Would also like to know more.

Before all you fanboys start ripping me, you can cool your jets, I’ve heard it all MANY times already. William Shatner is past his prime, he is a little short on most of the qualities just mentioned above. I’ve said me peace in many posts here. Fanboys need not reply. His character died!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You bring back characters from the dead too many times then death becomes an irrelevent plot line.

First priority is the movie, (I think we have that with Mr. Nimoy’s endorsement).

Thanks for the memories Mr. Shatner, it’s time to move on.

488 dtST

19. dalek - August 25, 2007

#13 “His public image today is that of a portly clown on a lawyer show”

And his best friend, who is in the movie, is that of photographer of fat naked women :D

They’ll call you soon Bill. Hang in there.

20. dalek - August 25, 2007

#18 how can Shatner be past his prime? He’s exactly the same age as Leonard Nimoy and he’s still currently emmy nominated for his acting! He’s not laying in a bed waiting to make piece with his maker. And I reckon he could beat you at paintball any day ;)

21. Adam Cohen - August 25, 2007

#5 Yo Garth!

I watched that clip of Bill, and it seemed to me like he wasn’t really smiling when he ripped on Nimoy (the “fat chicks” comment) and asked fans to basically go after Abrams to get him cast in the new movie. That’s where I read bitterness from Shatner. Taking stories of his demeanor on the set from the past 40 years, he can act like a prima donna at times. Don’t get me wrong, I adore the man and his work, but his constant “half-joking, half-serious” schtick about not being in the new movie is kind of sad to watch for me. I remember Shatner being a bit more professional in public. I give Nimoy credit for his graciousness though this– he is definitely a gentleman.

22. Craig - August 25, 2007

I would think we would get some casting announcements in Septemeber. Wouldn’t the actors need time to prepare for the roles before shooting starts in November?

23. StillKirok - August 25, 2007

#11–with all the talk, all the hype, and all the hope, Abrams needs to deliver Shatner. The reaction to Shatner’s original announcement was extremely negative. It will be a bad move for the movie.

Not saying no one will see it, but starting off by ticking off a large contingent of fans is not the brightest move, especially with all the teases.

24. cbspock - August 25, 2007

Kirk didn’t die, modern trek never happened.

25. Waltski - August 25, 2007

Sequels, Possibly a trilogy? The first deals with Spock and the Second Kirk. Shat will be in the second.The third one both Nemoy and Shatner will appear.Or Maybe they could CGI Deforest Kelly, Or NOt !

26. Ralph - August 25, 2007

Shatner seems to be disappointed. And a little serious. Not his usual clowning around. And yes… Shatner killed Capt Kirk. Lets hope JJ Abrams knocks our socks off with his movie and everybody ends up being happy. Gotta love the Shatner.

27. StillKirok - August 25, 2007

Shatner’s been trying to bring the character back for a long time. He made a mistake–but after all he’s done for Trek, it shouldn’t be a lifetime ban.

28. Snake - August 25, 2007

Maybe shat cud appear as a lounge singer at the starfleetbar beltin out rocket man as the young spock watches in awe

29. Jawinka Smith - August 25, 2007

I know it’s been mentioned before, but I think Shatner’s leading us on. He’s being too public about his not being in the film.

30. Ralph F - August 25, 2007

Shat’s not in it because there’s no role for “old Kirk” in the same way there’s not going to be an “old Spock”. I still think Nimoy is playing Sarek.

That said — and I’ve said it before — I think Shat should play a Klingon warlord in full makeup.

31. IrishTrekkie - August 25, 2007

………….so does that mean we should start the letter writing ?

32. Zebecraphy - August 25, 2007

wouldn’t it be funny if this movie turned out to be really, really bad after all of the hype and speculation?
maybe Abrams will really kill star trek.
he’s even confessed to being a non-fan.
here’s hping that it will be brill though with or without the Shat.

and at #14 “You are quite mistaken! How many people actually watch Boston Legal? No. Shatner IS Captain Kirk.”

Boston Legal is one of the highest rated TV shows in America and Britan, with millions upon millions of devout viewers in America and arpund the world.
to those people, becuae of the Shat’s truely brilliant ability as an actor,
he is now Denny Crane.

please, don’t kill me!!!!!!

33. Jon - August 25, 2007

Maybe they should do a Shatner as Kirk TV movie to appease the trekkies.Shatner’s a TV actor again so that’s not unrealistic.As for the upcoming movie…Nimoy is enough(too much in my opinion-let’s see how it’s handled).If the general audience smells another Trekkie film(Which is what the movies were)they’ll stay away.Please!No Shatner as Kirk.Trekkies need to separate the actors from the roles and let the crew be depicted in their prime as was the original vision.

34. VOODOO - August 25, 2007

I will be truly disappointed is Shatner is not in the film as Kirk.

There has to be a way to get him in it.

35. Jon - August 25, 2007

Vodoo,Irish Trekkie,etc. Why don’t you do a letter writing campaign to do a TV movie that resolves the”Generations”Kirk death thing.From my perspective Shatner and the next genners killed Kirk .It’s up to the Next Gen bunch to go back and fix it.You can have your next Gen reunion too in a TV MOVIE and fix canon.(I can’t believe I’m writing this).Anyway…I don’t feel bad that Shatner’s “dissapointed”.He’s the one who saw the the end of original Trek with “Undiscovered Country” being the finale and jumped in with the studio’s plan to bury TOS (and kill Kirk)in favor of Next Gen.So stick with the Next Gen Bill.It’s not fair for You to burden the screenwriters and use fan pressure to get into this one.No disrespect.But what do You expect?Really.

36. Admiraldeem - August 25, 2007

I think we are debating in a vacuum. We don’t know. Has Abrams said no Shatner or just Shatner saying it?

I think JJ knows how much most of us want wild Bill in the film. I lean towards the conspiracy theory.

Les Nessman

37. Hooah Wife and friends » Blog Archive » Star Trek News - August 25, 2007

[…] :August 25: Not any real news, but it seems that Shatner may not be in the movie. But you have to take this for what it’s worth since nothing official has been announced and Shanter being Shatner. […]

38. Greg2600 - August 25, 2007

21 – Adam, that is just Shatner being Shatner. He likes getting the attention.

35 – Would love to see a TV Movie with the living TOS members in it, but I don’t see that happening. Abrams reportedly was given control of the entire franchise (in terms of official productions), and he’s not going to spend what little free time he has on that.

As for the letter writing campaign, I think Shatner was being serious. Abrams went out of his way to calm all down with his statements at Comic Con. So for that reason, I don’t think many people have written or pestered him. If he doesn’t come through on that, then I say he’s fair game, although I don’t think that will accomplish anything.

39. Snake - August 25, 2007

In hindsight i think it wud have beenbest had TNGs 1st film hadnt included any tos cast & had beena stand alone tng film like FC. After all TUC was a sorta cross over film with the peace with the klingons story, worf & kirks final log entry. Kirks fate should have remained a mystrey…..

40. Greg2600 - August 25, 2007

Snake, I would agree, except we wouldn’t have had a chance to see (what in my opinion is the most beautiful Enterprise model) the Enterprise-B. If they had just had the ending be Kirk getting thrown back into the nexus, while Soran falls to his death, and then Kirk climbing out of wreckage on 1701-B to Scotty’s delight, I would have called it the best Trek movie of the 90’s.

41. sean - August 25, 2007

#13

More people than have been watching Star Trek in the past 15 years! Haha. Oooh I’m mean, aren’t I?

#19

Being fair, very few people have followed Nimoy’s photography career. On the other hand, millions are familiar with Shatner’s self-parody.

Honestly, for all the clout people think Shatner might bring, I can see what the reservations might be on the part of the filmakers. Shatner is well-known, but he HAS been parodying his self-image for the passed 15 years. In the public perception, he’s seen in a generally comedic light. If Abrams is going for a serious tone (and given most of his work, I’d say he probably is) then Shatner might be seen as a liability. I don’t say that with malice towards Shat. He’s hilarious on Boston Legal (and about the only tolerable aspect of the show any more).

#30

It’s been blatantly stated by Abrams, Quinto and Nimoy himself that he’ll be playing Spock, not Sarek.

42. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 25, 2007

This has been brought up a few times, but IMO, anyone who has concerns that Shatner might not fit into this new film because of Boston Legal and his other humorous roles just doesn’t grasp the whole concept of acting very well!

SO WHAT if he’s done more comedy than drama over the last 10 years? He’d established himself for 4 decades prior to that as a dramatic actor. And no matter how popular BL or Priceline ads are, Captain Kirk will always be his signature role. If a viewer seriously can’t enjoy a well-scripted, well-directed performance by William Shatner as Captain Kirk in Star Trek 2008 without being reminded of Boston Legal – that’s the viewers problem, and no one else’s.

I can see how, to the filmmakers, Kirk being dead might be a bit of a problem (not unsolvable though). But the fact that Shatner the actor is known these days for a comedic role shouldn’t even enter the equation!

43. enterprisingguy - August 25, 2007

I would prefer Shatner NOT be in it. He will hog the screen and divert from the whole effort of starting fresh. Even if it’s not really a reboot but a restart we need a break from the old!

And unless Shatner was made to get back into some sort of shape he will only serve to remind us that those glory days are gone!

I choose to remember Kirk at the top of his game!

44. Anthony Pascale - August 25, 2007

Zebecraphy

you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. JJ Abrams has never said he is not a fan of Trek, in fact just the opposite. He has stated that he is mostly a fan of TOS and TNG…and even sits down to watch the shows with his kids. He did say that he was a bigger star wars fan, but hell sometimes I like star wars more too (shocking!). Also the writers (orci and Kurtzman) and the producer (Lindelof) are uber fans of trek.

All that being said…Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennet who are considered the saviors of Trek in the 80s knew nothing of Trek before being brought in

But no…Abrams is a fan

To those who must chant ‘shatner is kirk’ I am sorry to break it to you, but Shatner was Kirk. A new actor is Kirk. Shatner is like Connery. A beloved actor who used to play Kirk. Nimoy will be the same after this film.

45. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 25, 2007

#44 … I respectfully disagree, sir. You are right of course in the literal sense – the role will be assumed by a new man. But as of this moment, Shatner has been Kirk for 41 years, still is, and likely always will be. I really hope the right actor is chosen for the role. I want this to work, and I look forward to seeing what he does with the part. But it would be quite a stretch to assume that whoever this new actor is, he will surpass Shatner as THE definitive Kirk. At this point, we can only hope the new actor will play the role at least 3 times.

46. StillKirok - August 25, 2007

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree as well. Shatner IS, was, and always will be Kirk. James Bond was created in books. People had their image of Bond well before Connery. Shatner made that character.

Anyone else will be the next Kirk, a replacement, but will ALWAYS be in Shatner’s shadow.

And it will be far worse if Shatner isn’t involved to pass the torch.

No matter how good the actor is, and I hope they make a great choice, the character will always be associated with Shatner. Same with Spock/Nimoy.

That said, I believe it IS certainly possible for another actor to have success with the role, but Shatner iwll never be reduced to some guy who used to be Kirk.

47. Jon - August 25, 2007

Shatner(& TOS actors) were lucky.In that they had a very vocal fan base who equated them with the Characters (Could not separate?).As a result of this they had the(unheard of) opportunity to portray the characters into middle age and retirement and death(Kirk).These characters were meant to be portrayed in thier prime.Very rare circumstances.Actors being so closely identified with their roles.I think this was chiefly driven by trekkies and the actors who were able to stoke them.But for Trek to continue and appeal to the audience in general it has to go back to depicting the characters as they were originally written,in their prime.The general audience will smell a trekkie film if they see Shatner coming back from the dead (again, gee,just like Spock)and stay away.They could care less about some convoluted plot about bringing him back from Veridan 3 .

48. sean - August 25, 2007

#42

“If a viewer seriously can’t enjoy a well-scripted, well-directed performance by William Shatner as Captain Kirk in Star Trek 2008 without being reminded of Boston Legal – that’s the viewers problem, and no one else’s. ”

If enough viewers can’t seperate the two, then it becomes the filmakers problem too. In fact, if too many people have an issue and it effects the box office, then it’s the fans issue because you don’t get any more Star Trek.

Being pigeonholed may not be fair, but it’s a real issue. For the same reason people might have a hard time with say, Will Farrell in a serious role, some might have a difficult time with Shatner. In fact, the Trek stigma followed Shatner for a long time to the point where few people could look at him and not think Kirk. He worked so hard to shed that particular image that now the reverse seems to be in place.

I’m not saying Shatner can’t do drama anymore – in fact a recent episode of Boston Legal featuring footage from an old movie Shat did as a youngster (can’t think of the title right now) showcased the fact that he does know how to walk the line quite well. I think what worries me (and others) is the fact that last time Shat put on the uniform in Generations, he seemed to play the role totally OTT. Now, I don’t know if that was partly due to the fact that he believed that was the last time he’d be playing the character or not, but I def don’t want to see that overblown version in this movie.

49. RandyYeoman - August 25, 2007

god the shatner worship is so tiresome…and that ‘bond started in books’ argument is so incredibly weak. What percentage of Bond film goers read the books…same with Superman and Batman movie goers….Probably less than 10%. To everyone else Connery was bond, Keaton was Barman, Reeve was Superman. And guess what? In each case people embraced the people that followed.

I love Shatner as much as the next girl, but he hasnt been Kirk for 15 years. I am ready for the new one just like I was ready for the new Superman as much as I love Chris Reeve

I think the worshipers need to let go. Just like batman, superman, bond and other franchises…they are bigger than one man. This cult of Shatner does not do any good for Trekdom and really makes us look bad

50. Jon - August 25, 2007

49 I think they’re afraid to let go because it will make them feel obsolete.Sorry if that’s a little tuff,but chew it slowly.

51. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 25, 2007

49. RandyYeoman … “god the shatner worship is so tiresome…”

Then you might consider looking elsewhere than a Star Trek website’s latest Shatner thread! Just a thought, if it bothers you so. And I don’t think StillKirok’s point was weak at all. He was saying that because Shatner has been the only actor associated with the role of Kirk for 40 years, he is naturally much more indelibly linked with the character than all the Bonds and all the Batmen. He’s absolutely right. Michael Keaton or Adam West didn’t create Batman. Batman had existed since the 30’s. Shatner as much as the creators and writers of TOS is responsible for the creation of Kirk.

“And guess what? In each case people embraced the people that followed.”

And we’re hoping that’ll happen in this case. StillKirok and I both said that. All we’re stressing is that the new actor will never replace Shatner as the definitive Kirk. That’d be next to impossible, unless he continues playing the part for decades. And that … probably isn’t going to happen.

“This cult of Shatner does not do any good for Trekdom and really makes us look bad”

Right. Because as Star Trek geeks discussing these old shows online, we’re already SUCH a cool bunch. Sorry to spoil that rep for you!

50. Jon “I think they’re afraid to let go because it will make them feel obsolete”

Speak for yourself. I am not afraid, and it would take a lot more than an entertainment franchise to make me feel obsolete. We’re passionate about it because we love it. Try to wrap your head around that.

52. Jon - August 25, 2007

Shatner Fan. Seems like You’ve BONDED with Shatner’s interpretation of Kirk.a new generation of theatre goers don’t .Rendering You…obsolete.I respect Your opinion though,and understand Your point of view as that of an older fan or trekkie.

53. Dennis Bailey - August 25, 2007

#24 :”Kirk didn’t die, modern trek never happened.”

Neither did the original series. It’s all made up.

Gotta agree with #49.

54. Jon - August 25, 2007

…Shatner hasn’t been Kirk for 15 years.Wow isn’t that about the age of the target market for blockbusters?A whole generation of kids who don’t know Shatner as Kirk.Well, except from their parents.

55. trektacular - August 25, 2007

Shatner wrote 28 books? Now theres sci fi for you

56. dalek - August 25, 2007

Shouldnt people be debating the issue, this is the second thread ive seen people actively go after fans labelling them this or that; rather than debate the issue itself.

Shatner played Kirk in his prime up until his death. Unless they reinvent that and change what happened to Kirk; the other guy will only have played him in his youth. So what? Someone else played the young Indiana Jones but Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones.

Unless canon is revised (Bond canon was ever changing so isnt comparable); Shatner will always be Kirk. Another actor will also be Kirk. But it won’t take anything away from Shatner. And there’s no “was” about Shatner as Kirk. Chronologically he will have played him for the most years.

57. RandyYeoman - August 25, 2007

oh yes Dalek you are sooooo right. The one thing that has not been debated over the last year is if Shatner should be in this movie. Yes lets debate that new fresh topic!

You know what…I used to be all for it, but recently there have been so many people screaming about how the film will fail with shatner, how only shatner is kirk…demanding Abrams put shatner in, calling abrams and the writers liars, etc, etc…it has made the whole topic unpleasent. I hope he is in the movie, but if not it will do just fine without him. We dont need silly letter campaigns and certainly no attacks on the people who have brought trek back just becauses they arent doing one thing.

so yes there has been a backlash on this site against the shatner worshipers but it was a long time comnig and they brought it upon themselves.

The rest of us are just fans, but level headed enough to see that this film and this franchise is more than just William Shatner for gods sake. This isnt williamshatnernovie.com! If all you want to talk about is shatner and he is all tha tmatters then go to his site

and I say this as someone who loves shat, is a member of his fan club, and has spent hundreds getting pics with the man and some one who very much wants to see him in the movie. But I am prepared for a shat free movie and that will be just fine….I am ready to move on to the new Kirk who ever he is

58. Kev - August 25, 2007

i am really disapointed that they chose to go with this story line instead of the stng one rumored years ago that had the Q involved in the story .im really disapointed that there will be no second series of star trek tng. one with B-4 A.KA. stupid Data.i thought that enterprise was the worst star strek series ever, only because of scott bakula’s horrible acting.

59. dalek - August 25, 2007

#57 the issue actually, brought up by someone else in fact, was whether or not a new actor as Kirk would supercede Shatner’s status as Kirk.

60. Anthony Pascale - August 25, 2007

I believe it is fair to say both the ‘should shatner be in the movie’ and the ‘can shatner be replace as kirk’ issues have been debated…and debated

I will now definitively provide the answer to both
1. yes*
2. yes**

* but it is not ‘necessary’
** neither the new actor nor the former actor will ‘be kirk’ since kirk is a fictional character

61. COMPASSIONATE GOD - August 25, 2007

Re: #51 Shatner_Fan_2000

Solid, rational points.

62. Greg2600 - August 25, 2007

Fans will determine whether these new actors will truly be accepted as the characters. I’d say people under the age of 25 would only have a knowledge/affinity of TOS if they chose to seek it out, because there have been no movies and 4 other series taking Paramount precedence. These young folk will be the ones to push Star Trek along, or not.

As for blockbuster status of the film, is it me, or is there a new #1 movie in America every single week this summer? This is exactly why I think Star Trek belongs on television, because that is where you can build a following.

Bond is a bad example for recasting these characters, because Bond is more like the comic book movies, because the character is an action hero, and youth is desired. Star Trek is beyond just action/adventure. Plus Shatner’s “over-acting” and the basic photographic imagery of TOS has been so prevalent for 40 years. It seems fans are fairly open to the recasting. I am as long as we get new stories and settings, and not a big screen remake of City On The Edge of Forever. Again, we want Shatner and Nimoy together as Kirk and Spock, just for part of the movie.

63. Admiraldeem - August 25, 2007

Anthony has spoken! And I agree with him. Shatner will always be Kirk to me just as Connery was Bond, Keaton was Batman, George Reeves was Superman and Paully Shore was an embarassment. But I will be happy to see new people step into these roles just as I embrace Christopher Reeve as the man of steel.

64. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 26, 2007

57. RandyYeoman … “there have been so many people screaming about how the film will fail with shatner, how only shatner is kirk…demanding Abrams put shatner in, calling abrams and the writers liars, etc, etc”

Other than saying Shatner is Kirk, which he most definitely IS (and if he isn’t, could you please enlighten us all and tell us who is?), I don’t see ANY of the complaints you list in this thread. You know what I find “tiresome”? Coming onto a Star Trek site (in a Shatner thread, mind you) and expressing my fondness for something only to have people like you sh*t on me for it. Once again, no one threatened, no one said the movie will fail here. On the contrary, I expressed a hope that Trek ’08 will succeed. So why did you feel the need to complain about my posts??

“We dont need silly letter campaigns and certainly no attacks on the people who have brought trek back just becauses they arent doing one thing.”

Who “attacked” here? I think the one who comes closest is YOU.

“there has been a backlash on this site against the shatner worshipers but it was a long time comnig and they brought it upon themselves.”

I didn’t bring anything upon myself. If it is weak arguments like yours you refer to, then by all means bring it. I’m happy to refute them. I think the real question is … why is there a section of fandom – people like you, Parade Pissers, if you will – who get upset by other fans expressing their love for something?

“This isnt williamshatnernovie.com! If all you want to talk about is shatner and he is all tha tmatters then go to his site”

Don’t you tell me or anyone else where to go or what to talk about. If I can’t talk about Shatner in a Shatner thread on a Star Trek site, then something is seriously wrong. You strike me as the type of person who would go to a Starbucks only to complain to the management about the aroma of coffee beans! it’s over-sensitive, overly PC people like you who make life hell for those of us who practice a little thing called “live and let live”.

I am not a fan of every aspect of Star Trek that is discussed on this site. But amazingly, I don’t go into the threads that don’t interest me saying sh*t like, ‘All this Braga talk is tiresome! You people are ruining the site and giving fans a bad name!’ So give me a break, ok? If you’re going to come after me in a Shatner thread and call my Shatner posts “tiresome”, you better damn well be prepared to defend your comments.

65. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 26, 2007

52. Jon … “Seems like You’ve BONDED with Shatner’s interpretation of Kirk.a new generation of theatre goers don’t .Rendering You…obsolete.”

Sorry, Jon, you’re dead wrong. In almost every post I’ve made, I’ve stated that I am in favor of recasting Kirk and that I hope the right actor is chosen for the role. All I and many others are asking is that Shatner be given the same opportunity as Nimoy and be given a chance to help launch this new era of Trek. And that may still happen, as Abrams, Nimoy, and the writers have all stated they are in favor of it.

While it is wise for Paramount to court a new generation of fans, it is also wise to appeal to the longtime fans who will buy more than just movie tickets. My friends and I all still fit into that desirable 18-35 age demographic. We’re not obsolete.

66. ZoomZoom - August 26, 2007

#16 Shatner certainly allowed Kirk to be killed, no argument. The mas has regreted it ever since I think.
I’m ready for a new *well casted* Kirk. These are the best characters in Trek lore, certainly for my Cinema entrance money anyway.

I’ll not get into this whole Shatner needs to be in the movie thing anymore. It IS getting tiresome, no matter how much I and others may want it. The last thing we need is to bore fellow Trekkers with it.
JJ wants it (If possible). Its his baby, so I hope its a painless birth… for all of our sakes. :)

67. ZoomZoom - August 26, 2007

#66 sorry typo-
The man has regretted it ever since I think.

68. Fireoftime - August 26, 2007

Captain Kirk is an Icon and one of the great all time characters. As important as Spock was/is to Star Trek, the original TOS and subsequent movies were about Kirk. He was the center of the Star Trek Universe from 1966 to, at least around 1992-1993. And Shatner not only ‘played the charecter’, he essentially created the character…

But, William Shatner the actor in 2007 is a different thing. He’s as famous today as ever, if not more so, for the comedic lampooning he has done of himself in the last decade.

Some celebrities today, regardless of how great an actor they may be, are more famous as themselves than as the characters they’ve played. Their image is more abstract than in times past because of the immediacy of modern media. People look at Johnny Depp on screen and think of him as Johnny Depp more so than as Jack Sparrow or Edward Scissorhands, or what have you…
Same thing today with Shatner. If people see him on screen in full Star Fleet dress, they are going to go, “Hey, theres Shatner!”..
This is a paradox for many actors today who become celebrities due more to their natural off-screen charisma than to their on-screen skills…
In this, producers might recognize that it will be difficult for non-fans to separate Shatner the celebrity, from Kirk the character.
I think a brief cameo with Shatner and Spock conversing before Enterprise B left port would be the most efficient and reverent way to go.

Hope that was coherent…

69. Iowagirl - August 26, 2007

I am really growing tiresome of people who find this whole Kirk/Shatner discussion tiresome. People who think that to be passionate about something you really believe in is tiresome, people who think that standing up for something you think it’s worth standing up for, is tiresome.

Because this is what TOS is about, this is what Kirk and Spock showed us with their friendship and their loyalty, this is what Kirk showed us when risking his career and his life more than once to save his friends and crew.

I have no problems with re-casting the characters if it is done carefully, but I will not stop pointing out that it is imperative to bow to the original actors who made TOS the legend it is today by making them part of the movie.

70. dalek - August 26, 2007

I have absolutely no problems with the recasting of Kirk either. It’s probably going to be the toughest casting of them all. The only risk they take is that the new guy might become so popular and identified with the role that they do a bunk or demand more money than Shatner ever did. Signing them for a multi-picture deal is wise; but beyond that these new actors might outgrow the franchise!

Quinto sounds like his heart is in the product, which is a promising start.

71. tom - August 26, 2007

I would like to see Shatner in the film. However it is the creative team’s decision. I think they will have to deal with the results of the film. Berman & Moore & Braga & Shatner made a creative decision to kill off the character. History and their own recounts indicate it was not the best creative decision. JJ and his team still will put their best foot forward to make the best movie they can. If the movie breaks 100 million and is fantastic , no one from the studio on down will go back to this issue. If it does not do well, then they will move on. It looks like they are intent on reviving the franchise. They seem to want him. He seems to want them. We need to let them make their creative choice.

72. ZoomZoom - August 26, 2007

#68 Yes, that was very coherent. Nicely said.

73. ZoomZoom - August 26, 2007

and #69 Point taken and well made. But I honestly don’t believe coming on here and banging away is going to help. JJ says he wants him- and Shatner will be there if asked (like he would say No! lol)
I’m going to patiently sit back and hope to be smiling about a particularly good piece of casting news very soon. ;)

74. Iowagirl - August 26, 2007

#73
I, too, have not given up hope yet that I will be smiling about a particularly good piece of casting news very soon! But I must admit that I cannot just patiently sit back and only “hope”. I think a bit of “banging” is required at this point…

#68
I do not really see your point: If Shatner appears in a Star Trek movie, I surely will not say: Hey, there’s Shatner.. I will say “Hey, there’s Kirk, he’s alive! I mean, he played Kirk for decades, he IS Kirk. And what will people say about a new actor, a re-casted one: Hey, there’s XY, he is playing the young Kirk now… This kid should earn his pay for the week first; let’s see how long his 15 minutes will last. Shatner’s/Kirk’s 15 minutes are already lasting as long as Star Trek exists.

75. General Trelane - Retired - August 26, 2007

Well I find this all very disapointing and frankly if Mr. Shatner is not in it, I in my own unique way will do my utmost, and my very best to encourage everyone I know in Trekdom (and that is many) not to go see it the film!

Nimoy has betrayed his very best friend and I feel shamed for him and this production.

Shatner and we fans deserve better than one slap in the face after another!

just my two cents……..

76. Fireoftime - August 26, 2007

#68
“I do not really see your point: If Shatner appears in a Star Trek movie, I surely will not say: Hey, there’s Shatner.. I will say “Hey, there’s Kirk, he’s alive! I mean, he played Kirk for decades, he IS Kirk.”
-owagirl – August 26, 2007

So will I. But I’m a long time fan. I grew up watching the movies and TOS re-runs. But in my #68 post I was speaking more towards the casual or non-trek audience member, whom the producers will no doubt make a considerable attempt to win over (hopefully not to the exclusion of long time fans though).
There are a great many people out there today who think of “Star Trek” in much the same way they think of “Batman” or “James Bond”. They don’t picture specifics so much as they just recognize it in a broad cultural sense. When things become cultural icons (as Trek has) they also become more generic in how they’re perceived.(Example: everybody knows of James Bond, but how many people have read the books, and therefore can recognize how different the character of Bond is in the movies as opposed to the books) Iconic status is a bit of a two edged sword in that sense.
By having Nimoy in the movie, they are clearly trying to create interest in Trek’s back history while at the same time “moving on”. It’s not only a smart business move ( as new fans will look to buy up the old shows and movies), but it also gives respect to long time fans.
I think Shatner could be best used in a small cameo, as I said before, showing him and Nimoy briefly conversing before Kirk sets out in Enterprise B’s maiden voyage.
I think it would be an appropriate thing to do, and not risk becoming a “gimmick”, which in itself could diminish the place Shatner/Kirk holds in the Trek world.

77. Iowagirl - August 26, 2007

#75
You don’t have to encourage me – I won’t go see the film, either!
Count on me!

This movie will only make sense if the original cast, the original concept and the re-casted one merge and, thus, come full circle.

78. Kev - August 26, 2007

This just shows that yet again hollywood cannot come up with any new and interesting ideas for movies lately. this whole idea of a star trek prequel is just plain stupid.the prequel has been overdone.Kirk died in the Generations movie its stupid to bring a dead character back.i think Shatner has done well with comedy and has done some great work with third rock,and his voiceovers for over the hedge and the wild. we all love his commercials.But its to hard to do another movie when alot of the original actors have passed away in recent years.I honestly think that there would be more interest in a voyager film , than what these writers have come up with. i think a second run of stng would be tremendously succsessful if written well with modern day issues that younger viewers could identify with.Enterprise was poorly done period.even a hard core trekkie can admit that, I think that the tng should be given another chance,TNG was such a great series it could have been on air much longer if they had chosen for it to keep going. All i can say is the only way they could make the new movie any worse is to cast DiCaprio to play kirk, im not sure ill go and see the new movie if Tom Cruise is in it either. The Star trek franchise needs fresh new ideas,to boldly go where no hollywood writer has gone before…………..

79. Iowagirl - August 26, 2007

#76
Thanks for your answer.

I just would like to point out that if JJ Abrams is not able to deal with iconic status he should not have interfered with TOS.

80. Anthony Pascale - August 26, 2007

lowagirl
in this case banging = spamming…one warning
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback/

81. Fireoftime - August 26, 2007

#78 “Enterprise was poorly done period.even a hard core trekkie can admit that, I think that the tng should be given another chance,TNG was such a great series it could have been on air much longer if they had chosen for it to keep going.”

I think right now there is a big Monday morning quarterbacking thing going on in Hollywood. All these re-start ups, I mean.

I think it comes from the fact that we see the great ideas of older films/TV shows, but also see where they could have been tweaked. Rather than coming up with new ideas, there is just a temptation for many producers out there saying, ” You know, today we could do that a helluva lot better. But it was a good attempt for the time, blah, blah, blah…”
There is to much of seeing the old films and shows as “rough drafts” rather than finished works.

82. Kev - August 26, 2007

re#81 thank you for agreeing with me . i just dont feel that anyone can take the place of DeForest Kelly and James Doohan.The original Star Trek movies are classic and should not be messed with.If anything this whole new Trek has upset many Shatner fans and has been a huge letdown for TNG fans.But surely because of the tremendous fan base of Star Trek , there will be more television series, and motion pictures to come.It is only logical, Remember the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

83. Shatner_Fan_2000 - August 26, 2007

69. Iowagirl … Thanks for your posts. You “get it”. You’re right – it is very Kirk-like to stand up for what one believes in. :) What I’ll never get is why some people see it as their obligation to be little Starfleet corridor monitors and complain about other people’s posts when no one is causing any problems. In this case, someone got their feathers ruffled because StillKirok and I made the true statement, ‘Shatner IS Kirk’. Unbelievable. I thought our government were the only ones who were supposed to stifle free speech. :)

68. Fireoftime … You have provided the most well-thought out posts yet on the subject of typecasting. But I still think even the most casual fans in the general public (the real non-Trekkies) are aware that Shatner was Kirk for a very long time, and wouldn’t be too distracted seeing him back in the role. Trust me, if JJ and the writers do their job well (and I have every reason to expect that they will), it wouldn’t even be an issue. And if some audience member actually sat there the whole time thinking, ‘That’s Denny Crane! Why is he going by a different name, wearing weird clothes, and acting all serious?’ … then that person would be so dumb they probably wouldn’t know which end to put Raisinettes into!

84. Fireoftime - August 26, 2007

68. “Fireoftime … You have provided the most well-thought out posts yet on the subject of typecasting.”
-Shatner_Fan_2000

Why thank you.

“if JJ and the writers do their job well (and I have every reason to expect that they will), it wouldn’t even be an issue.”
-Shatner_Fan_2000

I sincerely hope your wright.
As I’ve said before I think Kirk should be left dead as per the Generations story ( as much as I think Kirk’s death in Generations was deeply lacking the significance his character held). Since I’d guess this film will show Old Spock telling his story via flashbacks, Shatner’s role could be given great gravity by showing him right before he left for the Enterprise B’s maiden voyage, where it is was presumed he died. This would give old Kirks’ presence a very haunting and moving place in the film especially juxtaposed against the young devil-may-care ‘got the world by the tail’ Kirk.
Knowing the fate of a character that you are watching live out his life, is, too me, very haunting and poignant.
Then perhaps at films end we might see the very old and frail Spock standing over Kirk’s grave (atop the mountain where Picard buried him) and, having witnessed young Spock wrestle with his emotions, we now see old Spock shed a single tear for his friend.
In fact, that might give the film it’s full circle.
just a thought…

85. Fireoftime - August 26, 2007

“The original Star Trek movies are classic and should not be messed with.If anything this whole new Trek has upset many Shatner fans and has been a huge letdown for TNG fans”
-82. Kev – August

Well, to do a little Monday morning quarterbacking myself, since the producers felt that in Star Trek VII should see both “generations” in the same film, they could have gone the route of not actually having had them met in that film. They could have just shown how each “generation” reacted to/fought against the same foe, be it a person or thing in each of their respective time periods. ( I mean the time travel thing has gotten ample play)
An “ancient evil” kind of plot devise could have been employed, whereby we see Kirk and company fighting against it in their time, only to see it rise again during Picard and company’s time.
Instead of a Nexus that appeared every so many decades, it could have been an “evil foe” that had to be defeated every other generation.

86. Greg2600 - August 26, 2007

Kev, I was not in favor of using TOS characters either, but it’s going to happen, so there’s nothing we can do about it. That said, if J.J. can give us something we haven’t seen before, without venturing far away from the original, the movie can work. Personally, I don’t know where they could have gone to further Star Trek along? If J.J. hadn’t come forward with this proposal, Trek likely would have stayed dead for a while, or they would have done another disaster of a project with Rick Berman.

87. Zebecraphy - August 26, 2007

@ # 44, Antony Pascale,
“you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. JJ Abrams has never said he is not a fan of Trek, in fact just the opposite. He has stated that he is mostly a fan of TOS and TNG…and even sits down to watch the shows with his kids. He did say that he was a bigger star wars fan, but hell sometimes I like star wars more too (shocking!). Also the writers (orci and Kurtzman) and the producer (Lindelof) are uber fans of trek.

All that being said…Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennet who are considered the saviors of Trek in the 80s knew nothing of Trek before being brought in

But no…Abrams is a fan”

really?
Ok, my bad.
Thanks!
: )

88. Greg2600 - August 26, 2007

The fandomness of the writers/producers is not in question. You don’t go to Paramount with an idea unless you already know a lot about Star Trek. That said, John Logan was a self-professed Star Trek nut, and the writer of some of the best movies in the past decade……and he wrote Nemesis. Go figure.

89. Kev - August 26, 2007

yes i agree greg.nemesis was very lame.data gets blown up and gets replaced with a dumber version of himself. long live stupid DATA

90. Jim J - August 26, 2007

#89-You know, I’ve never seen it put quite that way…you made me laugh, but then I got depressed because you are right; EVEN IF I did like it better than Star Trek’s 5 & 7. The Picard close was bad enough. The Data clone was downright dumb and a VERY BAD idea.

91. Jim J - August 26, 2007

Picard CLONE…that is. Editor!!!!!!!!! Spellcheck, check,

92. Kev - August 26, 2007

90- can u imagine a new series where picard booms out an order and data looks right at him and goes ‘huh’

93. Kev - August 26, 2007

I actually came up with an idea how to get Shatner back in Star Trek once more.Lets say they did come out with another series of tng .Shatner could come back as Picard’s personal holographic advisor with a mobile emitter simular to the doctor’s on voyager. i think its really catchy , maybe i should be put on the payroll in the storyboard dpt.

94. Xai - August 26, 2007

#75, 77
Did you both just say you’d boycott the film? It’s entirely your right to do so, but do you think it would have any impact?

Iowa girl… what part of our great state… can I ask?

95. Zebecraphy - August 26, 2007

#93.
that could work!
though, I think that most fans would prefer him being “real” in star trek.

QUESTION:
Does everyone here hate “Generations” becuase it killed off Kirk?

96. sean - August 26, 2007

#75

I certainly hope you boycotted Generations then! After all, William Shatner shamelessly betraying his friend Leonard Nimoy by starring in the film without him, don’t ya know. ;)

What’s hilarious is if Shatner had maybe taken a cue from Nimoy, the debacle of Generations wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

97. trektacular - August 26, 2007

#95
I liked Generations BECAUSE it killed off Kirk, Shatner is ridiculously hammy actor, kind of embarrassing to watch actually

98. Shadow6283 - August 26, 2007

#69-

Now, this is more like it. Individual. Original. Thoughtful. Courageous.

I like that.

Keep it up and this forum just may catch on…

99. Iowagirl - August 26, 2007

#98
Thank you – you are encouraging me.

#96
I did! But I think the time has come to correct the error that was made in “Generations”, at last. And as we are dealing with SciFi, there are always possibilities… Take a chance, take a risk, get a life!

100. The Realist - August 26, 2007

I have been scared to come into this highly contraversial debate. But I must agree with those that propose a further exploration of the TNG era, there are so many srories yet to be told. Eg: The aftermath of the Dominion war, Exploration of VOY inspired stories STAR TREK: RELATIVITY etc.

Having siad that I sill feel that there is a need for a prequal series, I enjoyed and defend ENTERPRISE, I personaly enjoyed it, and I like TOS admittedly not as much as TNG or ENT but enough to rewatch the movies and the series. A TOS movie? I am despite my leanings towards the new series,in favour of it, without the “Shat”, Spock was brpught back, Data rwaly didn’t die etc, does death mean anything in Star Trek? If you bring the Shat bacl to life post Generation you remove any emotional involvement with the characters because you feel they will be brought back to life in the next Movie or Series.

101. trektacular - August 27, 2007

Does anyone care that this prequel movie will have very little suspense since we know all the major characters will turn out fine?

102. leony - August 27, 2007

#101 “Does anyone care that this prequel movie will have very little suspense since we know all the major characters will turn out fine?”

Star Trek has a problem with killing people off for pointless purposes that then desperately want back in. The only time that plot device felt right was with the death of Spock in ST II because one could well imagine that the character would choose this solution with no other way out and the Kobayashi Maru test introduced at the beginning of the movie gave it even further context. Starfleet is a big organization and I imagine like in the military personnel will get transfers all the time. Would the emotional impact have been less if Tasha Yar had been transferred off the Enterprise D against her will and over Picard’s objections? The death of Trip on Enterprise was a nuisance that only alienated me one step further from the show. There was no point to it other than Brannon Braga’s misguided believe that for something to be significant there has to be a death. The Star Trek film most successful with the general audience was The Voyage Home and its makers were proud to say that for once nobody died in that movie. Killing someone off is a plot device that by now not only bores me, but that I find a nuisance. It is my sincerest hope that the writers might have taken on the real challenge not to rely on something as cheap a dozen as major character death threat.

103. trektacular - August 27, 2007

#102
I see what you’re saying, but still the threat was there that maybe one of our heroes would die, this prequel eliminates any of that suspense right off the bat

104. Fireoftime - August 27, 2007

“Does anyone care that this prequel movie will have very little suspense since we know all the major characters will turn out fine?”
-trektacular

Yeah I’ve though of that. The only way to solve that, is to introduce a couple new characters.
I’ve though an “Obi-Wan type of character” would be good here. A mentor to both Kirk and Spock, through whose instruction and guidance we gain greater insight into the characters of Spock and Kirk.
The death of a such a character could also give the story it’s dramatic push, as we see Kirk and Spock seeking revenge/justice, and in the process developing their respective characteristics. Spock wrestling with his emotion driven human half. Young Kirk reigning in his ego and thus polishing his leadership skills.
If they intend to do a couple more films, then they should just do a trilogy. A singular story, divided up into three parts.

105. sean - August 27, 2007

#99

“Take a chance, take a risk, get a life!”

With all respect, I’m not the one obsessing over how to resurrect a fictional character, yet you’re telling me to get a life? ;)

And honestly, with all the backdoor escapes that have permeated Star Trek and SciFi in general, wouldn’t it be more of a risk to actually allow a dead character to stay dead? To allow actual reprecussions from an event to ripple through subsequent films? I don’t see that being such a bad thing.

I also notice that nearly everyone that wants Shatner in the movie quotes Spock’s infamous ‘there are always possibilities’ line. Should that serve as some kind of cure-all for anything filmed that we don’t care fore? Is it the dialogue equivalent of a dry erase board?

106. Greg2600 - August 27, 2007

I don’t hate Generations for any reason. It zero rewatch value for me, because Kirk dies. The number of scientific, plot, and canon inconsistencies is up there with ST:V. I liked that they finally had Data taking on the emotion chip. Spiner was very funny. Kirk was written to be some kind of weirdo. I found the Nexus segments to be totally absurd and bizarro, like something out of The Outer Limits. Regardless, it was a big failure in the sense that it didn’t have a bigger role for Spock or McCoy, so that De and Leonard would have been in the film.

Per Nemesis, in defense of John Logan, he wrote the script with a lot of “input” from Brent Spiner. One was Brent’s obsession with killing Data, because he was too old to play an android. Some say why bother? At the time, Logan and Spiner had ideas for a sequel to the film, but it bombed and those plans were scrapped. Also, Patrick Stewart practically put all blame on Stuart Baird.

On the topic of dead characters, again, this is not Masterpiece Theater, it’s Star Trek! Who cares if the death is stupid or contrived, or if the character’s resurrection is the same? It’s Star Trek. They had an episode with Hippies in space for God’s Sake! Ha ha ha.

107. Ellie - August 27, 2007

Sad that Shatner is not in it as of yet – he’s got Boston Legal, his writing career, and a music career ahead of him – it would be great to see him back in the Captain’s uniform once more but I think we should stop feeling bad for him because he’s doing so many other great things – Kirk will ALWAYS have a place in Trekkie hearts and let’s face it, he WAS the Captain of all Captains – but just BEING picked for that role was BIG and we congratulate him for it

I am still EXTREMELY saddened by the news that Shatner is not in the movie simply because I want him back one last time and I agree that it is a huge slap in the face for all of the time he worked on Kirk

BUT – he is probably one of the best known actors in Hollywood so I guess he won’t have trouble finding work – if he couldn’t find work it would be different

He’s doing a cameo for ‘Horrorween 3D’ and he’s starring in ‘Fanboys’ which is coming out in 2008

108. Etha Williams - August 27, 2007

#105 — “And honestly, with all the backdoor escapes that have permeated Star Trek and SciFi in general, wouldn’t it be more of a risk to actually allow a dead character to stay dead? To allow actual reprecussions from an event to ripple through subsequent films? I don’t see that being such a bad thing.”

Agreed. What made Spock’s death work was that even though he was eventually brought back, you did really feel the repercussions, from the end of TWOK through TVH. And FWIW, I didn’t think Kirk’s death in Generations was pointless in and of itself — just extremely poorly executed (the acting felt very stiff, and the lack of any kind of real memorial or tribute to him at the end of the film really stung). If they showed its impact on Spock in this film, maybe some of this indignity could be fixed.

#106 — “On the topic of dead characters, again, this is not Masterpiece Theater, it’s Star Trek! Who cares if the death is stupid or contrived, or if the character’s resurrection is the same? It’s Star Trek. They had an episode with Hippies in space for God’s Sake! Ha ha ha.”

Yes, we had Hippies in Space, and in terms of contrived deaths/resurrections, in TOS alone there was Scotty being brought back to life by a deranged space probe, and Chekov dying-but-not-dying in an illusory reality because he’s in love with one of the women, and McCoy being brought back to life after dying on a magical planet, and the two times Spock “kills” Kirk. But let’s not let past mistakes define our future — I’d like to think that we can do better in this film.

#107 — “I am still EXTREMELY saddened by the news that Shatner is not in the movie…”

No one’s said he’s *not* in it yet — there’s just been no confirmation either way.

109. shadow6283 - August 27, 2007

#99-

You’re quite welcome, as well as refreshing. Are you on MySpace, by the way? I’d enjoy having you as a friend.

So would Bill Shatner, I’d imagine.;)

110. Ivory - August 27, 2007

Did anybody see on Trekweb that Gustavo Leao posted a story that quotes Jonathan Frakes?

The quote mentions that Abrams already had “Shatner and Nimoy on board and this kid from hero’s I think is a wonderfull actor”

Could Frakes have let something slip about Shatner being in Star Trek XI or am I just taking him out of context?

111. Anthony Pascale - August 27, 2007

frakes doesnt know what he is talking about…he said the same thing at vegas and then was told he was wrong…he then stated that he assumed that bill would eventually get into the movie. So he is just guessing or assuming, but no frakes is not revealing something

112. Kev-1 - August 27, 2007

They say the film is about Spock, so possibly Kirk isn’t going to be the most important character anyway. is it possible he isn’t even a captain in this one?

113. Ivory - August 27, 2007

Anthony:

I am thinking along the same lines you are, but you never know.

114. TB - August 27, 2007

What upset me more about the death of Kirk in Generations was the fact that Starfleet made an idiot like Harriman the Captain of one of their best starships. I would like to see Elder Kirk in the new movie as a cameo: the film ends, the credits roll, fade in on Kirk busy writing his memoirs Chekov comes to collect him for the sendoff of the new Enterprise B and they walk off into the future that we already know. Cue the old theme music and…done.

115. MichaelJ - August 27, 2007

Oh heck, Just recast the young AND old Kirk.

116. Etha Williams - August 27, 2007

#114 — Yeah, when my friend and I were rewatching Generations and saw Harriman, we just couldn’t figure out how he was made captain of any starship, let alone the Enterprise.

117. Zebecraphy - August 27, 2007

#115
LMFAO!

118. Iowagirl - August 28, 2007

# 105

SciFi in general, and Star Trek in particular are dealing mostly with fictional characters (just in cast you hadn’t noticed…). Furthermore, Star Trek tells us about things and events which in our world are not real: warp speed, beaming, salt monsters, hortas,… etc. etc. This is why we watch it and love it!

And still, here we are and keep talking about it – strange, isn’t it? Maybe the reason for this is that Star Trek also told us about things we already have in our world but think we could use a bit more of, like passion, emotion, hope, friendship, courage. The last scenes of ST III, for example, were such moments full of true emotion; in no way a “backdoor escape”.

Now we are facing a new, hopefuly exciting, Star Trek movie. They are going back in time, back to the roots. And it would surely be no real challenge, no chance, no risk for them to take if they let a core character just dead. Because “art imitates life as we know it” as a motto of a Star Trek movie, how dull would that be! If this makes me somewhat obsessed – that’s perfectly fine with me.

119. kev - August 28, 2007

i think paramount should have a writting contest and take the best ideas from all the star trek fans and put together a movie that all the trekkies out there would agree on , a movie just for the fans. what better way to let the movie writters and producers a clue on how to please the trek fans and make some good returns doing so. what do you all think of that?. i think we could do a better job than who they hired to do that

120. sean - August 28, 2007

#118

Tongue was firmly embedded within cheek for my comment. I was merely reminded of Shatner’s own ‘Get a life!’ speech on Saturday Night Live. Wasn’t trying to be personally insulting.

That aside, I don’t mind unrealistic depictions in fiction. It is FICTION, after all (something that hasn’t escaped me). However, part of what I always loved about Trek was the even though it was a fictional world set 300 years in the future with things like Transporters & Warp Drives, the characters were still human and still dealt with some of the same issues we deal with today. They made mistakes, and often there were consequences to those mistakes. They were reflections of our current world.

Such as in ‘A Private Little War’. In the closing scene where Kirk is ordering Scotty to replicate rifles to send down, and Scotty doesn’t understand the reference Kirk makes (flintlocks or some such thing) and he says ‘Serpents. Serpents for the garden of Eden.’ Then he tells Scotty to get him out of there.

What’s great about that scene is Kirk is essentially admitting to the viewer – “I don’t know how to fix this”. He comes up with the best solution he can think of, but ultimately knows it will be messy. There wasn’t a nice little bow to tie around the story at the end. There’s a similar feeling at the end of ‘City On The Edge of Forever’. Even some of the racism in Trek VI that Rodenberry objected to so vehemently had a tremendous impact on me as I watched it. And those are really the stories I remember most when I think of the various Treks. The ones that forced you to think.

I always thought the best line in Trek II was ‘How we face death is at least as important as how we face life’. That line was the reason Trek II hits so hard. It made people experience a legit emotion that they might feel in real life. And no, I’m not discouting the emotional impact of what Kirk did in Trek III. It’s just that you can only do that so many times before it loses any meaning or impact to the viewer.

It’s not that I’m against Shatner being in it as a whole, it’s just that if they bring back Kirk in a way similar to Spock, it will seem more like a tired retread. Of the ‘237’ different ways people have suggested for bringing him back, I haven’t heard ONE that I’d actually want to see or wouldn’t chuckle at as some kind of fanboy wankery. However, I’m not putting it passed a good writer or JJ Abrams or whoever to come up with something that wouldn’t just seem like a cheat or capitulation to fans.

121. THX-1138 - August 28, 2007

Hey Anthony, what’s all this about Shatner not being in the film?

122. Iowagirl - August 29, 2007

#120

Thank you very much for your honest and respectful statement to which I agree almost entirely.

Facing death is indeed a legit emotion that people might feel in real life, but there are other emotions like hope and believing in the assumed impossible which may be even more important when dealing with the final frontier.

And if you say that you do not think that bringing back Kirk in a similar way to Spock would do any good, I also agree. Let them find a creative way, a satisfactory way, an equally emotional but adequate way, by no means a “fanboy wankery”.

If we do not credit JJ Abrams with being able to find such a coherent solution, then there is not much left we can credit him with…

123. Ulysses 31 - August 29, 2007

I just thought I would throw my 2 pence worth in. Would it not be conceivable that Spock could have advanced Bendii Syndrome? Think about it. It’s kind of like a Vulcan version of Alsheimers.

Granted, it affects the emotions and psychic abilities of the afflicted, so why can’t it also make them halluncinate. Spock on his deathbed in his final throws of suffering from the disease is recounting his exploits. Why can’t he drift in and out and think that, at times, he is speaking to Kirk himself. a very simple ploy to have a substantial cameo role for the Shat.

I haven’t seen this suggestion anywhere else on the net. How bloody simple would it be to come up with a simple idea.

124. Xai - August 29, 2007

#122 Iowagirl
Shatner or no, this can be a very good movie and JJ and all associated will recieve credit if it is. It’s success relies on good acting, direction, story and editing, not solely on any one person.
Wouldn’t you agree?

125. Xai - August 29, 2007

123 U
It has been suggested in here.

126. Iowagirl - August 30, 2007

#124 Xai

No, I wouldn’t, because I am not talking about this film’s success relying on one person, let alone one ANY one person. Surely, this movie can be a success without having one specific person in it, but it won’t have any impact, because this one person (together with the other one person, of course, who is already in the film) incarnates the true essence of TOS. In this context, it is not a matter of Shatner or no, or of any one person, but of showing respect or not to the universe you’re dealing with.

127. SKIP - August 30, 2007

i heard that it was decided the movie was going to be called-Star Trek -The search for more money

128. SKIP - August 30, 2007

is it just me , or did Nimoy look more like a crotchety old man in a AARP meeting than spock . at least bill has done other things besides star trek, Is there a little Shat envy going on here?

129. Xai - September 1, 2007

#126 Iowagirl,
For what I think you said… are you assuming it’s JJ and the production team keeping Shatner out? It can be the other way around with Shatner having money or other issues. It’s been known to happen. For what I’ve read, JJ and Co. seem to have plenty of respect for the Trek Universe.

130. hackenslash » Sylar as Spock - September 2, 2007

[…] Read the TrekMovie.com entry, and here’s the clip posted on that article. […]

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