Although a lot of what you say might seem to make sense, I think there is a flaw, and that is the fact that if any particular Movie proves a stinker in the eyes of many, but is STILL successful and makes a lot of money, and is a ‘financial success’ rather than an ‘artistic success’, then the studios are more likely to give the sequel to the SAME Director and give him even freer reign to do as he likes, RATHER than listen to any complaints / suggestions about the original…

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you TIM STORY and his ongoing ‘Fantastic Four’ debacle…but there are many others too.

Not including Shatner – aka the original Kirk – means disrespecting established ST lore, disrespecting the old fans, disrespecting the legend that has been there for 40 years, and which is the basis for this film. Without BBK and, thus, coming full circle, there is no coherent storytelling, and no meaning in showing us a young crew and their new adventures. An unforgivable imbalance is being created. In this context, it is not the boycotters who kill Trek, it is the film itself. And I rather see something destructive dead than that which is supposed to be destroyed.

By boycotting in the run-up to the film, we point that out very clearly and, maybe, we’ll be able to influence this situation for the better. To write letters after the premiere of the film would only mean to shut the stable door when the horse has bolted. I want Trek as much as you do, but I don’t want it at any cost, because that would surely bode ill for Trek. Not only because it has Trek on it does necessarily mean it has Trek in it.

And I still have some hope they don’t risk yet another failure while attempting to make a better movie – ‘cause that would be quite a paradox.

PS: Whatever significance “the other side” has for you; I can assure you that I neither work for Paramount, nor for Shatnervision.com;-)

Iowagirl, I am curious, are you actually hoping Star Trek dies?

I think you are actually hoping Studio Execs are smart enough to figure out that they were boycotted and risk yet another failure to try to make a better movie. Won’t happen. Berman and company went as far as they could, but people didn’t go see the movies enough to justify another. The only reason THIS movie is being made is because of JJ. I promise you, if this one tanks, there will be no more for a very, very long time.

Boycott = DeathTrek

By the way, in an election boycott, the people boycotting are generally on the same side. Their lack of votes lets the opponents win. Sometimes I wonder if the organizers of such boycotts aren’t really working for the other side!

In this case, I suggest going to see the movie, even if you think you won’t like it but are in any way a Trek fan. Then, if you really hate it, organize a letter writing campaign. Then buy the DVD. If the studio makes enough money to justify another film, AND they are flooded with comments, JJ Abrams will listen to us. In my bumbling opinion, this is the best path to better trek.

Thanks for your point. But I think that’s basically what it’s all about. Either STXI will make the same money with or without the boycotters, then the result will be an individual one as stated in my previous post, or Paramount will make less money without the boycotters, then the boycotter’s success will be even bigger because they will have sent out the right message, the right signal. If this actually means that there won’t be sequels or anything, well, the people responsible for this film should have premeditated. Personally, I think it will be more like what I said in my first post, but if the boycotters are actually able to influence something – so much the better.

I think what 14. Dennis was getting at is that if you don’t go to Trek 08, and it doesn’t make the money that Paramount thinks it should make, then Kirk (Shatner or not) or anybody Star Trek related won’t be around for a long, long time.

I imagine this is what the internet would have been like in 1985. “Star Trek without Shatner? No one will watch it!”