Nimoy Responds To Shatner’s Recent Comments November 14, 2007
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Nimoy, ST09 Cast, Shatner , trackback
As recently as August Leonard Nimoy was still saying that he thought the new Star Trek movie would be better off with William Shatner in it. However, The New York Times is reporting that Nimoy is ‘not sympathetic’ to Shatner’s latest complaints about the film. In the Times ‘Arts, Briefly’ section Nimoy is also quoted as saying:
I know he’s upset, but his character died three movies ago, so it would have been very difficult to get him into this one.
Loading ...
Comments
Word.
damm you Danya i was going to be FIRST
At least SOMEONE directly associated with the production is stating the obvious. Now, if only JJ would chime in and lay this to rest.
I guess Leonard Nimoy yelled shotgun when TrekXI came up. Or was that “FIRST!”.
I bet if The Shat’s asking price weren’t so high, they would have found a way to get him in there. With the writer’s strike, there would be no way to add him now.
… says the man who’s character died NINE movies ago :)
But yeah.
I’m glad Leonard said something. I’d like to see Shatner playing Kirk again too but if it doesn’t fit the story then so be it. Not the end of the world. It’s been kinda sad to watch ‘ol Bill bitching so much the last few weeks. Makes him look petty. Noone held a gun to his head in ‘94 and told him “Kirk Must Die!”; he made that call himself by signing the contract.
When the Vulcan’s right, the Vulcan’s right. :)
I would like to see this movie end with the older spock dying in the younger spocks arms before the mission is through. The older Spock mind melds with the younger spock in order to help him complete his mission. Now the olders spocks “eternal soul” is with the younger spock throughout time…and this time he will join his friend on the Enterprise B.
Is Jonathan Archer going to make a cameo in the film?
According to Star Trek canon, he was present at the first launching of the Federation Starship Enterprise NCC-1701!
In Star Trek Nemesis, Janeway made a cameo as Vice Admiral and in “Enterprise”, Cochrane made a brief cameo.
Is anybody here in favor of Archer in Star Trek XI?
Leonard Nimoy said new Star Trek movie would be better off with William Shatner in it.
I disagree. Acually i think Star Trek XI would have been better without Nimoy in it.
Bring back Archer!
Thank you leonard! I hope that Bill will still come to the movie and enjoy a bucket of popcorn
#11:”I disagree. Acually i think Star Trek XI would have been better without Nimoy in it.”
Another reason why they pay Abrams the big money rather than you or I. :)
Archer??????????????hahhahahha gimmee a break hahhahhaha
#15 What’s wrong with Archer?
HE’S THE GREATEST CAPTAIN IN STAR TREK HISTORY!
HE CREATED THE FEDERATION!
Enterprise (Season Four) > Star Trek: The Original Series
But,
Enterprise = Star Trek: The Original Series Remastered
# 10
Sure I think it would be cool if he did a cameo, they are fun, but it doesn’t seem likely to me.
Are you sure it is canon that he was at the 1701 launch though? In order to be canon it has to appear on screen.
#17 Canon as in Star Trek Wiki
Why isn’t it likely that Archer will be in Star Trek XI? I thought this film will respect Star Trek canon?
Very difficult, but not impossible…
I really hope that we will get official word on this soon!
#20 I hope so for Archer. He’s just as important as Kirk!
Kirk: Your’re a Starfleet officer. You have a duty!
Archer: I don’t need to be lectured by you. I was out flying starships when your grandfather was in diapers!
Wouldn’t you want to see this in Star Trek XI!
Someone’s had a few too many caffeinated mints, I see.
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”
(Seneca)
stop spamming section 31
Archer probably couldn’t be around with kirk and crew runnin’ around on the Enterprise. Way out of his time frame for that. Now, If Young Pike took Fleet admiral Archer on a tour of a newly Christened Enterprise, that might work with the continuity. as for continually having to do “Send offs” with old crew I find it utterly disappointing and boring. Sure a small send off (i.e. picard giving over command to Sisko, Quark meeting up with harry and Tom, etc.) is fun, but why do we feel the need to continually shoehorn in these old characters?
Kirk is dead. He lives on in re-runs, and frankly I think they should have kept him out of the last half of “Generations”. His death was terrible, his existence in the 24th century felt EXTREMELY contrived even for Star Trek, and it felt like the whole Kirk Vs./With Picard thing was overshadowing the whole storyline of the movie. Nearly everything became a throwaway compared to the fanboy’s ridiculous wet dream that was the third act of that film.
I’m sure there’ll be a huge number of people who always like seeing faces they’re familiar with making appearances, who’ll ream me for disparaging their favorite movie, But PLEASE don’t turn This film into Generations II. I don’t think I could handle that. Frankly, I think Abrams is better than that, but all of this griping and whining that Shatner is doing isn’t going to get anyone anywhere much less him.
If the final script was good, and approved by paramount, then that is what (hopefully) will be filmed. If I don’t get a part in “Henry V” as Falstaff at my local community or university theatre, I don’t go to the local newspaper and tell them how I was in a good production of Henry IV as Falstaff, and to keep that continuity and to keep the character true, they should’ve hired me and made a big mistake not to. Now I know that these are Iconic characters, but take it from a distanced standpoint: These are ACTORS hired to play CHARACTERS. If other actors were to make this big a stink over being passed over for a film, they’d never work again. I mean a passing comment is expected, possibly even a little rude depending on the context. But to continually gripe to the press, your friends, and other actors about it for MONTHS on end, means something else is up, and proves that if you haven’t gotten that phone call by now, they ain’t gonna offer you a part buddy.
Shatner’s had his heyday, and frankly I think Nimoy has too. I think that one thing that Trekkies (like me) are afraid of most is change. I certainly am guilty of that. I shook my head no at Enterprise for 5 years before I gave it a shot. And when I caved a little to see if it was any good, I was hooked because it wasn’t about whether or not it necessarily retconns some of TOS, but it was about the way the stories were told and the characters that drove them. Not the fact that a Guest appearance by some old Trek Veteran would’ve made the show “link more” or “give a nod to the series”.
Let this be something that relaunches the interest, obviously some of these older actors can no longer hold the audience interest in the same way they once did, otherwise Star Trek would have a very different history.
If they found a way to include Archer of all people rather than Shatner or Stewart or Frakes, I would petition for the removal of Brad Grey from Paramount Pictures!
Kidding, of course. I’m excited about all the news thus far!
I am often puzzled that trek “fans” are so easily troubled/frustrated/impressed by the events of Star Trek VII (Generations). Kirk’s death is not cannon… yet. Let me explain.
Kirk died within the Nexus. No, wait: It isn’t even THAT bad, because he really died in PICARD’S Nexus. It is a matter of Trek record that the Nexus is a very private, personalized space-time event.
If a simple “remember” at the end of ST2 was enough to leave the door open for “possibilities,” why do so many of you fall prey to the forced opinion that Kirk’s fate was fully determined in ST7?
Indeed, it is a simple matter to restore Kirk’s character. The fact that he continues to be missing has nothing to do with the Star Trek universe.
Nimoy would know if Shatner is in the movie or not. If Shatner is in the movie, they are going to keep it as a suprise. I suspect we will be seeing Shatner.
Kudos to Nimoy, no-one needs fat Kirk.
Bring back Archer. And btw, bring back Sisko!
3 months ago, Nimoy stated that this film would be better with Shatner than without him. He’d already read the script by then and he’d already seen Generations. Now he’s telling us the opposite. I’ve always had the greatest respect for Nimoy and I still have, but I really don’t know what to make of that inconsistent tattle. He’s entitled to his own opinion like everyone else, but – in view of this crucial situation – does the man who already is in the film really has to make such a depreciative statement towards the man together with whom he created the most iconic combination in scifi culture?
I hope this is just another “spice” to the Shatner’s-not-in-the-movie dish. Although IMO, this is getting quite distasteful.
Uh, the comment “but his character died three movies ” is flawed . (Assuming it is true he said that). His character died 9 films ago, and they brought Spock back (in a far less “plausible” way). Kirks death is easily “remediable.”
I’m not necessarily saying they should (although it is my personal preference).
But stating they can’t because he already died ‘three movies ago” is, well, illogical.
Nimoy gets asked this stuff because of Shatner’s public tantrums.
It appears Nimoy was as diplomatic as possible, given that he was being asked about a project in which he’s an active participant.
Section 31 = Scott Bakula?
Of course, this is all science fiction. f-i-c-t-i-o-n which means JJ gets to make it up as he goes along.
I suppose Shatner could be a master deceiver, a member of a vast, Starfleet conspiracy to fool and torment Trekkies worldwide, teasing them over Kirk’s exclusion from this script until the last second of the film.
There, out of the blue (screen), will appear Kirk, cleverly dressed as Denny Crane do throw off the paparazzi and sneeky fanboyz, with a feather boa space bimbo on each arm, laughing at us wildly, the cash falling from his overstuffed pockets.
Hahahahah!
KIRK MUST DIE!!!!!
Picard/Marcus 2008
“Because Scientists R2Kewl”
6. Spock was resurrected, but it took a whole movie to do it, since this film doesn’t center on Kirks resurrection it would seem very arbitrary to include it.
This is my first post ever on this site, I’m a big fan of Star Trek and I decided to finally express my opinion on this never ending question: Should Shatner be in it or not?In my humble opinion YES!
But not because of Shatner. I don´t care about the man’s ego or if he is or isn’t a nice person, or just an arrogant “bratt”, but HE IS KIRK.
The stakes here are about Star Trek core and not cannon, it’s about a vision, Roddenberry’s one. He created a universe based on humanity’s triumph over its faults, bust most of all it’s about friendship!
Admiral James T. Kirk stole and destroyed the first Enterprise in order to “just” save HIS FRIEND’s soul (ST III), and ended up saving his life and being reduced back to captain. Some years back he accepted to battle Spock to death (Amok Time) in order to save HIS FRIEND’s honour. In ST IV the first name the “newborn” SpocK remembers is HIS FRIEND “Jim”
Now, if in this movie the older Spock as a chance to go back in time (as per plot rumors so far) and prevent Kirk’s death in the past, does it make any sense he doesn’t try to save HIS FRIEND from diyng in the future?
I LIKE CANON. I like this idea that througout all TREK incarnations there are connections and order, but I just think that STAR TREK fundamental VALUES are more important than that.
Remember, Spock’s death in ST II wasn´t the only one eluded in TREK:
For example Dr. McKoy died and resurected in the paradise planet (Shore Leave, I believe), and even Voyager’s KIm died and was replaced by an alternate timeline counterpart (Sorry, don’t remember that episode’s name)
Of course, I agree with the producers, Shatner should not be “shoved in” on the story but I think they could do it without necessarily going thoroughly back to that “less favorite” Generations.
And even if he would be in the movie, it doesn’t mean that that would perpetuate Shatner’s presence forever (in the sequels), they could give “Old Kirk” a farewell like they did Scotty in TNG’s “Relics” without killing him, I believe that would bring a better closure to the character…A Roddenberry like closure!
Any way, one thing is certain, it’s Roddenberry’s VISION and VALUES and CHARACTERS that gives us all ,that love Star Trek, the oportunity to debate this issues, NOT CANON, as respectfull as I am of it.
And if the franchise is to be saved, it’s creator ideas MUST be there!
Respect for all of you, sorry for the intromission
Stupid comment, considering his character was once brought back from the dead.
From what I’ve seen and heard of this thing so far, Shatner would be better off staying away. That being said, he’ll probably somehow end up in it.
I wish the studio would release some photos so I can once and for all completely ignore this thing.
Why I hold out ANY hope at this point is beyond me.
re:27
“Kidding, of course. I’m excited about all the news thus far!”
I have seen NOTHING so far to be excited about. Not one morsel. Not one.
OK, that poster is not bad.
May I ask a stupid question? Why do you want to bring back Kirk? Just for a brief cameo? Just to see him in one more scene? I mean – come on. It’s not like TWoK, he’s not going to return permanently. We’re not going to see him in command of the Enterprise in Star Trek 12 or anything. So what exactly would be the point? If, for some plot-twisted reason a cameo is possible, fine. Do it. But, sorry to say that for all Shatner-fans, this movie is not about bringing back Shatner but about bringing back Star Trek.
#40:
1. To right his stupid death. If I watch Star Trek 11 and see young Kirk I alsways have to think of his death, of how he falls off a bridge.
2. The chemistry between Nimoy and Shatner would make for some great scenes. It would simply be fantastic to see them together on screen as Spock and Kirk again.
3. Shatner and Nimoy should pass the torch on to the new actors. If it is Old Spock and New Spock and New Kirk, there is something missing here. You cannot drive a car that has only three wheels.
4. Kirk brought his best friend back to life and said: “You would have done the same for me.” But Spock never did it – not because he never wanted, but because the screenwriters and producers of the movies never let him do it. So THIS would be the chance for Spock to repay the debt to his best friend.
I really doubt Archer could be in the new movie. If I’m not mistaken, ENTERPRISE takes place 100 years before TOS. And from reading Archer’s entry at Memory Alpha (Star Trek’s Wiki website) he died on the launch day of NCC-1701. That was when Robert April took command of the ship. Kirk wouldn’t become the Enterprise’s captain for another 15-20 years after that.
Diifficult because he “died” 3 movies ago, eh?
This, coming from the resurected Spock, who is appearing in a movie dealing with an ALTERED timeline.
Give me a break.
Damn. I really wanted to see those two together on theater screen….one last time….but I guess not. Yet I don’t feel as sorry for Shatner as I do for those Trek fans that want him in there >_>
Unless the strike ends…which it *might* before filming ends…nothing will change.
Mr. Nimoy’s called it. Shatner should have never agreed to appear in Generations at the expense of his character’s demise.
The STORY is about SPOCK.
that’s all we need to know!
Sorry — Shatner’s ego aside (hey WE ALL HAVE EGOS) — this movie needs to have him in it. HE IS KIRK!!! The same way NIMOY IS SPOCK!!! The same way CONNERY WILL ALWAYS BE BOND!!!! This movie will be better with Shatner’s presence. Hey I’m a DIE HARD Yankee Fan — but I hate A-ROD and his ego — LOVE HIS TALENT, and that is why I’m glad he’s going back to the Yankees! A project of this magnitude wih no Shatner — to me that is a huge risk!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still think that the Shat will either be in the movie right at the end or in the next movie somehow :)
Nimoy is a true professional and I wish there were more Actors like him in cinema…
Peace
Jay
I’m against Shatner being in the film as Kirk ,but if they’re using the guardian(of forever) as a story device the writers are being very selective about what time line (kirk’s potential death as a young man vs. veridian death )they’re choosing to fix.
It wouldnt be difficult, I dont know if it would fit the story, but it sure wouldnt be difficult
It would be nice to see Shatner in some sort of end of film cameo to pass the torch, so to speak, but it isn’t a deal breaker for me. I am psychologically adjusting myself for seeing old role with new characters and the use of Nimoy will help ease that transition period for me. Most of all I a hoping for a good story with believable characters. I have gone through Trek withdrawal for too many years now. I hope JJ and the actors realize what they are getting themselves into. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the movie is good and sucessful, there are a lot of fan, both longtime and newcomers alike, who will become invested in seeing these people as the new TOS crew, who will not be happy in seeing the entire thing recast yet again for any potential Star Trek 12.
Sure, they could resurrect Kirk, but, then, that would consume almost the entire movie. To make matter worses, they’d have to do it in a way that did not bear any resemblance to how Spock’s revival was portrayed.
I’m still convinced that the reason Shatner is not in this movie is that he no longer has the physical appearance needed to play Kirk. At least, an active Kirk who remains on duty in Starfleet or elsewhere. Face it, he’d remind us of Doohan in the last couple of films if he put on the uniform.
This is not a jibe at Shatner. He’s into his 70’s and stuff happens as you age. Nimoy is fortunate in that he has aged, while remaining relatively slender, and, so, can still play a convincing older Spock. Nimoy is doubly lucky in that Spock was allowed to visibly age in his last few on-screen appearances. Seeing an older Spock in this film won’t be a shock because we’ve already seen him age. I can’t say the same about Kirk and Shatner.
But, as has been mentioned, if Shatner had insisted that Kirk not die, Kirk would not ave died. However, that still would not have guaranteed a role for Shatner in this movie.
I’m still hoping he’ll be in it.
The last thing we heard from JJ and from Orci was that they were still trying to work something out, and then Orci stated that the issue might not be settled until after the filming is already underway.
So I’m still hoping.
That New York Times story is actually a bit irresponsible. It only quotes Nimoy as saying:
“I know he’s upset, but his character died three movies ago, so it would have been very difficult to get him into this one.”
That really doesn’t mean that Nimoy isn’t bothered by what is going on, and it does not mean that he isn’t sympathetic either.
I still say this is all a smokscreen to keep the conclusion of the film from being a foregone one.
NO ARCHER!!!!
Gods, no… we can’t get Shatner, or Gary Mitchell, Or Robert April, but we’re asking for Archer? No way… the less said about that show the better.
Even if he hadn’t died in Generations, his character would be extremely old and put together with spare body parts, kind of like McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint.
I don’t think it would take an extreme amount of exposition to explain away the events of Star Trek Generations and include Shatner in this film. Remember how odd it was seeing Wesley Crusher at Riker and Troi’s wedding? They didn’t include ANY exposition on that topic, but fans just assumed there was a backstory there and the movie moved along. Before someone goes off the deep end because of my daring to compare Kirk with Crusher (I agree, Crusher isn’t even in the same ball park as Kirk), I ackowledge that there would need to be some sort of reference, but it doesn’t need to be exhaustive or take away from the plot of the movie. This is probaby a moot point since filming has begun and the writers are on strike. Unless this is a vast conspiracy and Shatner really does make a secret cameo, the conversation is pointless, but I don’t buy the excuse that he died three films ago. As Shatner said, this is “science fiction!”
I have mixed feelings about the entire issue.. Nimoy’s involvement as Spock is enough to convince me that the film is worth my time. Shatner as Kirk, as much as I would like to see this happen, would require too much explaining!!! Could he have a cameo or HIS famous voiceover in the film, possibly?
They seem to be very tight lipped about this entire project, so the suspense is killing us. I bet even the trailers will only tease us!! Perhaps the timeline will be in between the events of ST 6 and ST7!
# 28.
So if Kirk didn’t die for real because he was in Picard’s Nexus within Kirk’s own nexusor whatever then Picard never escaped the Nexus either and the last three Trek movies took place within this nexus as well. So at the end of the day Picard is missing the TNG crew are all dead (from the sun’s shock wave destroying the planet) and the last three movies don’t count because they took place within Picard’s nexus.
I SMELL ANOTHER RESTART~! Someone call M. Night to helm this one.
Can Bill be brought back?…
Sure, he could easily be…if the rumoured ‘time-travel’ / ‘Guardian of forever’ plot IS true…depending on how the writers of this thing have chosen to write it…
But if the makers of this thing have chosen to write a ‘time-travel’ storyline, for a ‘TOS-set’ Star Trek franchise ‘handover’, in which they’ve included Leonard Nimoy, but have EXCLUDED a willing and able William Shatner who could also have given the Movie a pleasing ‘torch-passing’ touch…then shame on them I reckon, and my head is already hurting with the idea of this missed ‘time-travelling’ opportunity…
“not sympathetic” There’s no indication in that quote that there is no sympathy, again journalistic spin on what’s been said. I’ve no doubt Nimoy feels for his friend and is also enjoying the banter they have over it at conventions.
As for how to have him in it. Well Spock’s going back in time using the Guardian to…. stop Kirk from dying DOH!
Of course the writer’s can bring Kirk back from the dead. They brought Spock back from the dead–that was the whole point of Star Trek III. It is obvious that the “whole point” of the new Star Trek film is something other than restoring Kirk’s life. Now, I know next to nothing about this new film, but if it had something to do with Spock “saving” Kirk from his death in Generations than I’d wager a bet that we would know about it.
Can’t we talk about something else now?
Well, there you go. He’s not in the film.
Didn’t Nimoy get an entire film about his character’s return after he wanted out of the Spock role?
Isn’t this film about time travel where Spock theoretically could go back in time and save Kirk (or anyone else) using the “Guardian’?
I am now convinced that they never wanted Shatner in this film. It’s not like it’s the 24th century + Shatner just shows up. This is a film about the Guardian, time travel and Killing Kirk or his parents.
The Kirk character is essential, yet they choose not to use Shatner? That tells me they simply never wanted him.
As a long time fan of Star Trek + Shatner/Kirk I feel this whole film is going to be a frustrating experience.
They have the chance to reunite Kirk + Spock, but they only choose to get half the job done. This film (unless Shater is cast) is going to be nothing more than a glorified tease.
Leave it to good ol’ Spock to tell it how it is…
“Captain Kirk, your behavior in this matter has been quite…illogical. As you died three movies ago, logic would dictate that it would be difficult to have you in this one.”
Now lets get on to some other news!
There are two statements that stand out to me in all of this.
1. Nimoy’s comment that if he had “been there” in the movie Generations, Shatner/Kirk would not have died.
2. The production team saying that they want to keep the project a secret so as to maximize the effect for the viewers.
Today I’m choosing to be bored of this new film and the who’s in and who isn’t in gossip.
Read into that what you will.
28. Stefano – November 15, 2007
“I am often puzzled that trek “fans” are so easily troubled/frustrated/impressed by the events of Star Trek VII (Generations). Kirk’s death is not cannon… yet. Let me explain.”
Of course it’s Cannon.
“Kirk died within the Nexus. No, wait: It isn’t even THAT bad, because he really died in PICARD’S Nexus. It is a matter of Trek record that the Nexus is a very private, personalized space-time event.”
No, Kirk left the nexus of his own free will. Sure, we could speculate that he ‘didn’t really’ leave the Nexus, but that’s just convoluted and desperate. The reason there was an alternate Guinan in the Nexus is because she was ripped out against her will….and perhaps something to do with her species.
“If a simple “remember” at the end of ST2 was enough to leave the door open for “possibilities,” why do so many of you fall prey to the forced opinion that Kirk’s fate was fully determined in ST7?”
There was more than a ’simple’ remember in Spock’s case. First, there were hints all over the place. “Remember”, Spock’s casket soft landing on the planet…Kirk’s monologue about genesis being “life from death”. The door was very deliberately left slightly open for Spock to return…and it worked out rather believably. There were no such preparations made for Kirk, and so far all the ideas I’ve heard to resurrect him have been forced and absolutely ridiculous.
#70 “so far all the ideas I’ve heard to resurrect him have been forced and absolutely ridiculous.”
Let’s hope then that if Shatner DOES return as Kirk that it will not be by one of those ridiculous ideas you have heard about.
Nimoy is a traitor to not only Star Trek, but more importantly to his “best friend” Bill Shatner….I hope the old chain smoker dies in production, …..the bastard!
The nexus concept makes zero sense (you can leave because you think about leaving?) and could be easily writtten around.
The Shat has been pwned by Mr. Ears.
>>”I still say this is all a smokscreen to keep the conclusion of the film from being a foregone one.”
If the movie really is about the elder Spock telling the younger Spock to change history in order to save young Kirk from the Romulans…
…then an appearance by the elder Kirk would be a nice capstone. But…
…I don’t see how they can pull that off unless they just blithely ignore the fact that Kirk is dead. A scene reuniting the elder Spock with the elder Kirk would be dramatic and poignant.
To do the scene, they’d need to finese their ages so that Spock wouldn’t be so old that he would be well beyond Kirk’s expected human lifespan.
Ya know, maybe the best way to deal with all this is to just ignore canon and brazen their way through: Sorry, Kirk died in those movies, not in these movies. If the movie makes money, is Paramount going to worry?
Hey Trek Writers.. you don’t have to put post Nexus Kirk in the movie in some big splashy here comes James T. riding in on a shining Enterprise (or whatever).. its easy (of course I can say that).. just throw us a bone.. hint at it.. make it subtle, maybe an anonymous tip from the future.. point is you don’t have to do all the dirty work now.. just hint at the possibility.. we’re used to using our imaginations to fill in the rest. Just an idea..
“ive always known, I die alone”
thats what kirk said in startrek V.
he DID die in generations. Spock didnt really die in star trek II, Mccoy had his karma, the body of spock regenerated on genesis. All the pieces came together.
and there would absolutly know point in bringing kirk back. its like showing kirk at the end of the movie with the text superimposed: “look kids! its William Shatner!” (ala Mark Hamill in jay and silent bob strike back)
and a movie with to many unnecesary characters is a bad thing (pirates 2 & 3, matrix 2 & 3 and spiderman 3)
61. “EXCLUDED a willing and able William Shatner who could also have given the Movie a pleasing ‘torch-passing’ touch…then shame on them”
I am SURE Shatner was offered a part…….I am also sure that he asked for a check equal to or above half the films budget. IMHO Shatner has never cared about Trek………..unless there was a payday attched to it. I understand he should be paid and paid well but from what I have heard his asking prices have been very high…..esp when he thinks they can’t do it without him…………so if shame falls upon anyone I would say shame on Shatner!
First, AMEN to #26.
Second, after all this griping and whining, it just makes me all the more wish that this was a flat-out REBOOT. That way, none of us would have any right whining about who J.J. cast, what characters may or may not be in the film, etc. J.J. set himself up for fan whining when he (or Orci, I don’t remember) said that they’d be true to canon. Canon be damned! Reboot the franchise so it can go on for another 40-ish years!
If it were up to me, I’d have a scene in which the young Chris Pine Kirk dies and then cut to Shatner saying, as Baron Munchausen once did, “And that was just one of *many* occasions on which I died!” – but then I’m idiosyncratic.
Nimoy’s comment does make me think of El Shatnerino’s section in his autobiography where he talks about how he and Nimoy take turns in playing ‘good cop/bad cop’ with the studio over Trek projects, with one of them playing nice and the other one scrapping along, because they’re both contractually entitled to what the other one gets.
I’d like Shatner to be in this film. If he isn’t I will be disappointed but I won’t scream, cry or boycott the movie. That would all be quite silly, I think. Besides, there’s, almost inevitably, always Star Trek XII if it can’t be worked out this time round.
BRING BACK EVERYONE!
Kirk’s 12 when the Enterprise is launched and Archer’s at the end of his life. Scenes involving a much younger Kirk have been determined from the ages of the actors playing his parents. Just have young Kirk going up to Archer and saying “One day I’m going to captain the Enterprise just like you did!”. “Sure you will kiddo.” Archer replies. Kirk goes away. Archer turns to T’Pol, who’s only in her 170s, and tells her. “He’d make a rubbish captain. I bet he’d lose more crewmen in his first 2 days than I did in my first 2 years.”. And elderly Reed with them then grumbles about how they renamed his tactical alert on this fancy new ship, and Mayweather sits in the back annoyed he’s still not getting any lines. At some point in the main adventure, Trip appears, canonising at least some of the events from “The Good That Men Do.” Avoiding spoilers, how should be obvious to anyone who’s read the book. There’s nothing relating to Denobulan lifespans in canon, so lets just say they live for ages and we see McCoy learning from Phlox. There’s also a point when Kirk needs to translate something urgently, he can flashback to the advice of Hoshi from the time when they lived on Tarsus IV together and get the answer.
Sisko can use his mystic prophet powers so when Spock is meditating to think of a way to solve his problems with Romulans, the entire DS9 crew appears in a vision and he is given the cryptic advice to “Find a good Tailor”. Audrid can also appear in the main timeline.
The Enterprise D appears because Q brings them back after Picard makes an offhand comment that he decides to take literally. The USS Voyager appears because Janeway feels like it. Screw the Temporal Prime Directive.
I’m not too worried about whether or not Shatner is in this film or not. Having Nimoy in it is enough to satisfy me that this film will be true to what has gone before. I don’t believe Leonard Nimoy would have agreed to be in the film otherwise.
Having said that, though, it wouldn’t be that tough to come up with a way to resurrect post-Generations Kirk. After all, Spock (The Wrath of Khan/The Search for Spock), McCoy (Shore Leave), Scotty (The Changeling), and Chekov (Spectre of the Gun) all have died and been resurrected, with some of the resurrection methods (particularly Scotty) being wildly implausible at best.
Star Trek can work, and work well, without William Shatner in it. As much as I respect him for his work as James T. Kirk, his time has passed.
Nimoy sucks.
#82 I am in total agreement with your comments.
#6 wrote:
… says the man who’s character died NINE movies ago
But yeah.
Yeah, but it took a whole movie to explain Nimoy’s return. Who wants that? Certainly not the makers of this film. Shatner ’s return is NOT what ST:Xl is about.
You KNOW Shat was offered a part. Hell, it was written before they even talked to Nimoy and Shatner over a year ago. The question was, WOULD a retired Nimoy and busy Shatner take the parts. If not, it was on to plan B.
Yep, I’d bet he was offered a part. And I’m not at all convinced he turned it down. The spin machine is in full gear at Paramount and Bad Robot. And it’s working!
This has the potential of being one of the best surprises since I saw Kyle and flared pants legs pop up in StarTrek 2!
85
“Yeah but it took a whole movie to explain Nimoy’s return”
Ture, but this is a time travel film that deals with people trying to kill Kirk. It would be easy to get Shatner involved.
I understand that Old Kirk will appear at the end of the movie… but without William Shatner…
As Old Spock steps back through the portal…. we see the movie end with his face… reminiscent of his shout in “The Cage” of “The women!!”…
“Jim!!”
But Old Kirk isn’t seen of course, we only fade out on seeing Old Spock smiling… and then across the years, fade in on Young Kirk smiling at Young Spock, reminiscient of the chess scene in WNMHGB.
No need to explain. No need to have Shatner…. But James T. Kirk is alive again… Hell, they could use the “envelope method” of Back To The Future or something like that… again, no need for Shatner in view.
Bringing Kirk back? Simple. Spock uses the Guardian to go back to the Enterprise B and neck-pinch Kirk on his way down to the section that gets wiped out. No muss, no fuss. Then the final scene can be Spock and Kirk in an old-age home on rocking chairs watching the sun set.
I think Nimoy is pointing out the obvious. Unfortunately, when it comes to Shatner and his ardent fans, pointing out the obvious is tantamount to sacrilege.
I’ve been quiet lately, but I still say: If you want to bring back Kirk, you have to have a full-length movie with a dedicated storyline devoted to just that, like STIII:TSFS did for Spock. Personally, I hated that movie, I hate cheap character “resurrections”, but at least they demonstrated a proper *commitment* to the cause by writing it into the central premise of the movie.
And by the way, science fiction is not a garbage dump for cheesy, unbelievable plot-lines. You cannot just do whatever you want, and still end up with quality fiction or quality drama. That’s the kind of attitude toward the genre that destroys it, and gives us such crap as the conceit of Generations: “Hey, let’s make up a storyline where we get to put the two big captains working together up on the screen! The fans will love it! It’s science fiction, we can do anything we want!”.
Speaking of stupid, facile contrivances, here’s another one: cameos. I like Voyager well enough, and I like Enterprise well enough, but putting Janeway in Nemesis was lame (you can see it on Patrick Stewart’s face while he’s uttering the line, “Admiral Janeway!” — it’s worked into the scene about as organically as if you’d had him say, “Pepsi, the choice of a new generation!”), and putting Archer in a cameo in STXI would be lame too.
Now, if they’d made a a Voyager or Enterprise feature film, I’d have been behind that, but I know I’m in the minority.
Ugh! If I hear one more time, on any Trek board, about the “vision” of Roddenberry, etc, I’m going to explode.
Roddenberry was a mediocre writer. He had a though…a concept…that he wanted to bring to the small screen. He, with the help of A LOT OF TALENTED PEOPLE, brought it to the small screen, much to most of our enjoyment.
Vision? Really? He, like most others in the 1960’s (especially in “Hollywood”), were hippies…Idealists…Utopians. How “unique” do you think it was that he had a though like “wow…wouldn’t it be cool if in the future we had no racism or disease.” I’ll bet you my last dollar that it wasn’t a unique thought to have.
I mean no disrespect toward the late Mr. Roddenberry, but people seem to put him on a pedestal like he is some genius, some uber-writer. He wasn’t.
Sorry for the rant.
I’m tired of this. Nimoy’s right. Leave Kirk dead.
31. wrote:
3 months ago, Nimoy stated that this film would be better with Shatner than without him….Now he’s telling us the opposite. I’ve always had the greatest respect for Nimoy and I still have, but I really don’t know what to make of that inconsistent tattle….
I stated on two TREK websites that Nimoy was making this statement as a friend and being nice to soften the blow. He knows Shatner and could see he was very upset about not being in the movie.
Actually, you’ve got it backwards: it’s Shatner who’s telling us the opposite. He’s obviously upset. He states he doesn’t care about not being in the movie in one breath, and won’t shut up about not being in it the next.
Talk about inconsistent tattle.
#26 “If I don’t get a part in “Henry V” as Falstaff at my local community or university theatre, I don’t go to the local newspaper and tell them how I was in a good production of Henry IV as Falstaff, and to keep that continuity and to keep the character true, they should’ve hired me and made a big mistake not to.”
I think you meant to say that YOUR local paper would not go to YOU for an interview. Shatner is not going TO his local paper. Papers are coming to HIM. That is a quite a different picture than the one you have painted.
Some days I get the feeling that the whole Shatner-upset-not-in-the-movie is the greatest media ploy ever, and some days I don’t. In any case, the movie will be what the movie is despite any “feelings.”
Oh and to the post that said Nimoy is a traitor to his best friend — hogwash! Best friends don’t often see eye to eye and still remain best friends.
Can we ban the author of #72?
I don’t come here to read crap like that.
That anti-Nimoy post was unnecessarily harsh.
> I know he’s upset, but his character died three movies ago,
> so it would have been very difficult to get him into this one.
Logical. Flawlessly logical.
95 – I agree with everything you just said.
#32. wrote–
Uh, the comment “but his character died three movies ” is flawed . (Assuming it is true he said that). His character died 9 films ago, and they brought Spock back (in a far less “plausible” way). Kirks death is easily “remediable.” I’m not necessarily saying they should (although it is my personal preference). But stating they can’t because he already died ‘three movies ago” is, well, illogical.
Sorry, I don’t agree. The casket/torpedo tube on the Genesis planet in the concluding shot of TWOK–a planet that regenerates life, makes sense in context to the story (as unbelievable as that is). Bring back Kirk 3 movies later is so broad and expanded a contrivance as to be laughable.
In terms of the movies GENERATIONS and ST:Xl, there is no link or bridge to miter the two movies together–unlike TWOK / TSFS / TVH–and justify bringing him back in context to the movies before them–other than screaming fans, and that ain’t enough reason. One story has nothing to do with the others.
That’s probably what Nimoy means and I see his point.
“In Search Of Spock” was a mediocre film that made less money in first-run than “The Wrath Of Khan,” and for good reason – it devoted nearly two hours to a weak and dramatically implausible storyline centered on undoing the events of its predecessor in a way that would satisfy overly-involved Trekkies.
And that’s what many of the BBK crowd are repeatedly asking Abrams to do to his film – they don’t *see* that, they insist that they have clever ideas that make the “resurrection” simple and swift – but that’s the truth.
#46
You’re right – we can assume that this film is about Spock. This being so, it is essential to have Kirk in it (meaning not only a young version of him but the original Spock/Kirk combination which is a vital part of TOS). All beings define themselves through their relations with others, especially if the issue is such a rare and precious friendship Kirk and Spock shared. Until Generations, there was never an episode or a film that was about Kirk without being about Spock and vice versa. Even if one wasn’t there in person, he was there in spirit. This is what made TOS so special and – among great storytelling, timeless ship design etc. – what kept it alive, and this is the reason why Generations left us with such a bad aftertaste. If STXI is to make the same mistake – so be it. But, disregarding the essence of TOS a second time won’t re-imagine it.
102 – I believe he will be there in spirit.
I agree with the guy who said Nimoy’s a traitor, but I don’t want him dead, I think peoples emotions are running high over this situation , with Shatner, or without him……….
I remain hopeful the Shat’s in it in some “secret” part yet to be seen when it’s released, but if they dont have him in it I think it will be a lesser movie.
One other nit pick though…..
What’s with having “Julius Ceaser” (Karl Urban) from the Xena show playing McCoy!????
I mean…what kind of casting is THAT!?!?
Just see this blooper clip from 2001in that show for a laugh with Karl Urban as Ceaser!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E00Ikj2B0xg
I enjoyed search for spock. It’s a movie made up of a bunch of little fun moments for fans. True, the film spends most of the time trying to undo events in TWOK, and as a result takes the viewer out of the picture due to it’s “implausible storyline”, but I find there is just enough entertainment in it to make it an enjoyable movie, not necessarily one to immerse yourself in, but serve as a bridge between 2 & 4.
Speaking of the genesis movies, Ive always believed it is important to separate them from the rest of the TOS movies and identify them as a standalone trilogy, just because the overall quality of those 3 stand out in my mind, plus star trek had never really done anything like that before outside of your usual 2 part tv episode.
Nimsy is just getting back at Bill for all the times he stole his bike. :)
Like I said before, you can’t have a death do-over. Shatner killed Kirk off not just once, but twice in Generations.
If he has as much clout and power in Hollywood as he thinks he has, he would have been able to walk away from the film if that script wasn’t up to his standards, and say no. But, it looks like too many Ben Franklins were speaking louder, and he agreed to go into the film, full knowing he was killing his character.
Just because you don’t think his deaths were dignified enough the first time, is not enough reason to screw up the first Star Trek movie since ST: TMP to generate this much buzz this far out from its premiere to just put some overacting in for a few seconds.
And the Nexus proposals are not even in the question here. His first death was being blown out into space from the 1701-B.
Fiction aside, the reason Nimoy did not appear in the movie was because the script was lousy, and he even suggested Shatner not do it.
Again, if it wasn’t good, why did he do it? Can you who support Shatner’s return answer, or are you still under your trance to just repeat the same rhetoric?
Also, what age would you bring him back? I’ve asked this about 5 times before, and it fell on the deaf ears of those repeating the same stuff. Do you want to see him in TNG era at the end, as a 150 year old man?
Does this mean that Bill is trying to come back as Kirk? I don’t think that’s a good move. Especially since Bill is a lot older than he was when he last played Kirk.
It’s been said before.
I’d be really concerned that the cost of the Shat being in the movie would include more lines of dialogue and script control (which, is locked, as I recall) than I — just speaking for myself — would prefer to see provided to the remainder of the story.
This, from someone who — when they had the chance c. 1967 — wrote to ask only rone star of TOS for an autographed photo… The Shat.
“Nimoy is a traitor to not only Star Trek, but more importantly to his “best friend” Bill Shatner….I hope the old chain smoker dies in production, …..the bastard!”
God forbid, but if that in fact did happen, who do you think would be a reasonable replacement for Nimoy?
I say, Tom Brokaw.
“Nimoy is a traitor to not only Star Trek, but more importantly to his “best friend” Bill Shatner….I hope the old chain smoker dies in production, …..the bastard!”
Buddy Holly: “You’re gonna freeze your ass off riding that bus!”
Waylon Jennings: “…and I hope your plane crashes!”
(yes, that is a true exchange!)
…be careful what you wish for, you schmuck!
54. Kirok Fan
“That New York Times story is actually a bit irresponsible.
That really doesn’t mean that Nimoy isn’t bothered by what is going on, and it does not mean that he isn’t sympathetic either.”
Testing to see if my banishment to Ceti Alpha V has been lifted yet …
As usual, KF cuts through the bull and makes total sense. The fact that Nimoy thinks it would be tricky to include Shatner and the fact that he thinks the film would be better with Shatner are entirely separate issues. Anyone who thinks Len wouldn’t prefer to be acting alongside Bill is crazy. And I agree with everyone who has said Nimoy is overlooking the obvious fact that his character died too. Guardian of Forever, re-setting timelines, alternate realities … this shouldn’t be so tough.
Maybe the Shat wasn’t in the movie in the first place because the producers felt that he would take the focus away from the new cast. As much as I love the Shat, he is a bit of an egotist and I’m fed up of his whingings. You’re not in it Bill, no amount of complaining is going to change that!! Shatner doesn’t OWN Trek or even Captain Kirk – like James Bond the character has surpassed the actor who originally portrayed him.
First post here.
To say that Shatner knowingly killed off Kirk and therefore he should just deal with it is ludicrous. He likely always had in the back of his mind that he could come back, just like Spock.
Give him a break – yes he likes to get paid, but I can see his point. He helped create TOS and perhaps he would like to be involved with its recreation.
You have to remember that he has contributed a great deal to the Trek universe with scripts, novels, and yes, acting. He cares a great deal about it.
And yes he gets paid handsomely for it. Would Berman, Braga, or even Rodenberry expect any less?
My opinion – give him a chance. But now that the strike is on and the script is locked, then JJ has his way.
It seems clear that they didn’t want him in from the beginning. And they all knew the writer’s strike was coming. Why do you think Shatner put so much effort into promoting himself just before the strike? He was trying the only way he could, and JJ and Orci were just waiting him out.
It’s lousy tactics.
Sounds like Mr. Nimoy is on a little bit of a power trip. If you ask me, it was “tricky” to bring Spock back from the dead… and the Franchise hasn’t been taken seriously since. And I include the buffoonery that was Trek IV. All said, I think that in a year or so, Mr. Shatner might have a change of position regarding the project. Only time will tell.
No #113, Unlike James Bond the character has not surpassed the actor who originally portrayed him.
SHATNER IS KIRK
KIRK IS SHATNER!
….”if you cannot see that, then… begging the Admiral’s pardon…your as blind as aTiberian Bat…”
No other can ever replace him..and this movie’s going to be a huge stinking SMELLY dud!
The Times is basing their conclusion on a few lines. It could be out of context without all of Nimoy’s words.
Dirty Daren welcome back are you working on the HD TMP or are they going on the cheap with that as well????
116 – Then don’t go see it.
Ya Know- I’m glad Mr. Nimoy finally responded to Mr. Shatner’s whining. It seems that when it comes to these matters LN is often the more civilized and “logical” one. And what he says, is true. WS charater died 3 movies ago, and while LN charactered died 9 movies ago- he was resurected 8 movies ago, due to popular demand. And the fact that his character is alien and thus, the writers can do what they want to bring him back.
Like I said, glad Mr. Nimoy finally stood up to Mr. Shatner.
Good Job Mr. Nimoy!:)
I think that this is a heavy Spock story, which is why Spock was the first casting announcement made.
James Bond was not played by Sean Connery for 40 years, which is why it is easier for fans to accept a recast. The call has been to Bring Back Kirk. Kirk is back, Shatner isn’t.
Kirk died. “How we deal with death is at least as importaint as how we deal with life, wouldn’t you say?”
Dennis #101
All of Star Trek is implausible.
We agree that ST III was not as good as ST II. What you fail to mention is that a even medioce Star Trek III still was the #9 film the year it came out.
For comparison sake the # 9 film of 2006 was “Casino Royale” which made $167,000,000.
I’d be willing to bet that Paramont would “settle” for the #9 slot for all 2008 U.S. movies and $170,000,000 at the box office with ST XI.
Least We forget that the last TNG film did not make the top 50 films the year it came out (#52) and only made $42,000,000. Less money than such classics as “Jackass the Movie” + “Time Machine” that also came out in 2002.
Who would have thought S.T. would fall so far as to make significantly less than “Jack Ass the Movie”?
Dennis we get the fact that you don’t want Shatner back as Kirk. I respect your opinion.
On the other hand why don’t you respect the fact that there are many,many people who do want Shatner back + the character given a proper ending?
Shatner could EASILY be written into this film (given the concept) if the writers, producers + director of this film truly wanted him in it.
For many people this film will not be complete without the original Kirk to go alongside the original Spock.
You people are funny. Do any of you read what you are writing? A collection of three-statement idiot diatribes and twelve paragraph soliloquys that say the same thing, thread after thread. William Shatner is great. William Shatner is dumb. Arguing for his inclusion and against it using tissue paper logic. “I love Leonard Nimoy!” “Leonard Nimoy is a traitor to his friend!” “I’m so excited about this movie!” “This movie is going to be a flaming pile of dog poo!”
But we keep coming back, don’t we? Having the same old arguments again and again. As for my opinion, I think that Nimoy was damned lucky that he decided to kill off his character in a movie that arguably saved the franchise from it’s own death. That way it was a no brainer to come up with a convenient plot device to resurrect him, whereas Shatner’s decision to kill off his character couldn’t have come at a worse time in the movie franchises history. A new crew, with new producers were taking over, leaving him with no link to the production decision makers of Star Trek movies. Said producers mishandling of a very lucrative cash cow in TNG caused the movies to stall out, albeit with brief gasps of life (First Contact).
Now a new team has decided to come in, with Paramounts approval and try to revive Trek. They had their own idea of a movie, and with the character of Kirk being dead, took the next logical character available to base the premise of their movie. The decision to kill off Kirk, whoever it was, couldn’t have come at a worse time for Shatner.
That having been said, there apparently were meetings between Shatner and the producers of the new film, just as there were between the producers and Nimoy. What, can you imagine, did they talk about?
There’s my long-winded opinion.
If nimoy’s Spock comes back to work with Quinto’s Spock that means Quinto’s Spock will eventually have to come back also.So the Star Trek timeline is caught in an endless loop (that plays over and over).One day Quinto’s Spock will know He has to come back also.
Why would anyone want Shatner in this? He hasn’t put in a good performance as Kirk since 1984.
#120 “glad Mr. Nimoy finally stood up to Mr. Shatner.”
Hardly accurate. The 2 are best friends, and if Shatner were written into the script, Nimoy would be even more pleased. He said so himself.
If Shatners in it , I’ll go, if hes not then myself and millions who would have IF Shatners not in it WONT!
im tweedle dee and tweedle dum……ahhhh ahhhhh ahhhh!
…..bitter dregs!
Nimoy and Shatner are CLOSE friends. I doubt that Nimoy is “unsympathetic”. There goes the NYT again, spinning its tailfin! :rolls eyes:
I don’t feel sad for Shatner, I feel for all the faithful Trekkies who did want to see Kirk and Spock together (the real ones ;)) one last time on the silver screen, yours truly included. but I’m not holding my breath.
that said, if this is about Shatner’s weight, hey, JJ, get him to lose the flab. it’ll be good for all concerned!
#124- Quinot has stated that his movie contract is in line for muliples. Therefore it is likely that he will be back if this movie is a sucess.
#126- I never said Nimoy wouldn’t be please is Shatner appeared in this movie. I know they are best friends, but sometimes, even best friends have step up and acknowledge one anothers opinions. Yes, Nimoy would like it is Shatner came aboard, but the fact is, that as of right now, hes not. What Nimoy is basically saying is- accpet it and if they pull some strings and get you in- take it. But, Shatner has already stated that he will not do a cameo. So- he is whining to get in the movie, but only if its a staring role, which Generations was not.
I don’t know what Mr. Nimyo actually said to this reporter- but its clear that he is neither overly please nor upset about the whole thing. Kinda like Spock would be!:)
@ShatnerFan
Wow, that’s been a long ban, buddy. “The odds are against us and the situation is grim.” How’s Ceti Alpha V been?
I agree that they should have an Archer cameo, BUT Archer is typically assumed to have died after the launch of the 1701. And the movie is about SPOCK, not the ship. The USS Enterprise is what, 20 years old when the pilot began? There’d be no reason to show the launch. Still though, they ought to have a few things named after Archer. Or they could have T’Pol in it. Or maybe even the NX-01 somewhere as a museum ship. SOME acknowledgment outside of Nemesis that Enterprise really happened!
I LOVE ..LAMP!
Bottom line: J.J. Abrams went on the record, publicly stating he wants to find a way to bring Shatner into the project.
Shatner is not interested in cameo roles. It’s doubtful that his role would be a meaty, expanded one.
It’s supremely ironic that fans are clamoring about canon–and want Shatner in a larger role for this film, yet they can’t accept the canon of “Star Trek: Generations.”
Nimoy’s right: Kirk died three movies ago. Accept that.
Shatner: We love you. You embody Star Trek (just as other actors, like Nimoy, do, too.) But accept a cameo role. It fits the script. It fits the decisions that you made years ago by having your character killed off.
I can only hope all of this is a ruse.
Ugh…People please, No post or pre TOS series crossovers. That would just suck.
Btw, wouldn’t it be interesting if Leonard Nimoy managed to get an Oscar nomination for his final appearance as Mr. Spock? ;-)
“If there was that much at stake, Spock would have found a way!”
“You came back for me”
“You would have done the same for me.”
“If I hadn’t tried, the cost would have been my soul.”
“I have been ,,and always will be,,your freind”
“The needs of the many ,,out weigh,the needs of the few,,or the one”
Spock,, its time to save Kirk,,and to pay back your life debt
You know, it seems to me that the real motivation behind a lot of the “bring back Kirk” sentiment is a desire to correct what many believe was a meaningless death in Generations. Some think he should have gone out in a much bigger blaze of glory than falling off a cliff, and some believe he should never have been shown to die at all, just allowed to “fade away” as it were. Those people see Trek XI as an opportunity to right those wrongs, but the cold, hard reality is that you probably can’t address the restoration of Kirk, by whatever method, without making it the central theme of the entire film… or can you?
SPOILER ALERT!
Suppose the plot rumors are true and we wind up with Old Spock traveling back in time to prevent the Romulans from changing history by, among other things, killing James T. Kirk or preventing him from ever being born in the first place. Ironically, this gives us the central theme of saving Kirk, just not at the point in time some would prefer. Further suppose that we are given some plot device by which Spock is able to communicate that very irony to the audience, the fact that he is trying to prevent Kirk’s death at one point in time only to let him die years later on Veridian III, perhaps a voice-over narration or a “captain’s log” or somesuch. This would be just enough to key the less fanatical audience members into the generalities of Kirk’s ultimate fate without having to dwell on it or get bogged down in exposition, though highlighting this, however briefly, would probably add some poignancy to his interactions with young Kirk, if any.
Then, at the conclusion of the film, after Old Spock has presumably returned to his own time, he stands before the Guardian of Forever or the temporal transporter or whatever technobabble time traveling device is involved, and despite his Vulcan stoicism we can see the mix of emotions on his face: Satisfaction at having completed his mission and set things right; nostalgia at having seen so many of his old, dear friends again and shared their adventures one last time; and the pain, perhaps even a tear, of knowing that most or all of them, and one in particular, are now gone. I’m picturing a scene not unlike the one with Frodo at the end of the first LOTR film as he replays bits of dialogue in his mind, working up the courage to continue his quest alone. We hear the familiar voice of Shatner as Kirk saying, “I’d like to think there always are… possibilities,” and the internal struggle on Spock’s face suddenly vanishes as he understands what he MUST do. He almost smiles at himself for having taken so long to realize it. He turns back to address the Guardian/computer interface/whatever (the Guardian really would work well for this) and says, “I wish to make a journey. Show me the past, fifteen years ago, on the planet… Veridian III.” The familiar Trek fanfare swells, the camera pulls back on a shot of Spock silhouetted against the portal then tilts up for a view of the limitless stars. Fade out, credits roll.
We all leave the theater knowing that Spock went back to somehow prevent Kirk from dying as he did in Generations but we don’t have to sacrifice a single minute of screen time to actually SEE it. Shatner never appears, except possibly his voice from a remembered conversation. The very concept of “bringing back Kirk” becomes an integral element of the overarching storyline rather than a shoehorned footnote, an ultimate fulfillment of the story’s basic theme, and it does so all within the last 30 seconds of the film.
But of course, the rumors could all be hogwash, so who the hell knows?
I must say from what of this project I’ve seen so far his endorsement of it completely deflates his credibility in my eyes. Love him as Spock and always will… anything else is the obvious bottom line fact that he’s getting paid. I feel that is his sole motivation and he is being used as a lure to entice (the word trick sounds so sinister) the purists to attend.
When Spock died, it was one of the producer’s ideas to have him mind meld with McCoy. It was not in the original script. It was decided on the set. The producer thought, “How can we kill this? We must keep the possibilities open.”
When Kirk died, he was killed by the producers who were having an oedipal battle with Gene Roddenberry as to the direction of the franchise.
I do not work in LA, but I happened to be somewhere where I was able to walk by Mr. Shatner in his dressing room. The entire hall was silent, in a whisper that only he can muster, he said, “Picard!” into his cellphone. This was at the time when they were reshooting the death scene. It’s my humble humble opinion that Mr. Shatner was not thinking of his friend Mr. Nimoy, but of himself, and how he could get out of the death scene he’d already committed to. One of the other things Shanter demanded was that he rode his own horses. Mr. Shatner was not that smart, to be convinced by these producers that he should die on a rock.
This movie is about Spock. Let it be about Spock.
And let us all realize that the Quinto Spock does not necessarily know that the Nimoy Spock is himself. Would you imagine that you know what you will look like in 100 years? Even Vulcans are not that logical.
It is cold in space but colder in his heart if this is true.
Considerably lowers my opinion of the man, as it is hypocritical in view of previous statements.
It’s all getting sadder by the day at the moment.
#103
Metempsychosis?
Oh stop.
You folks have no idea who “professionals” operate in a business where one project costs $140 Million dollars (plus many tens of millions more in promotions.) Nimoy is talking business. This is not personal, and should not be taken that way. You should be glad that any actor has enough business sense not to cry and throw a tantrum on behalf of his friend. Unless Shatner is a total jerk, he’s not taking this as an insult. Lord, he made a few “business” decisions in this himself.
Nimoy is 100% pro and 100% right. He’s speaking on behalf of the project, and the thousands of jobs tied to it… not just “The Shat.”
how
People are going to ask…If Spock uses the Guardian to go back to save Kirk once why doesn’t He go twice to right the ‘Generations’ death.
Whoa- Nimoy is not cold. These papers tend to go for shock value here. Who knows what was really said. Beside- we know JJ and Nimoy both want to bring the Shat in, but with the Strike, it makes it even more difficult that before. Just cross your fingers, be happy at least one TOS member is in the new film and relax. All will work out.
Kigs :)
#31 — Well, people do change their minds, you know. Maybe after having looked at the script further & started filming with the other actors, Nimoy felt that he had been in error previously. If so, it doesn’t make him a person of any less integrity, just someone who is willing to admit when he thinks he was wrong instead of stubbornly clinging to old beliefs.
#32 — I think the key part of that sentence was “three movies.” Although TSFS was already a kind of weak movie, it was able to work at all because it came when the death of Spock was still pretty fresh in people’s minds, and tied in integrally with the film directly preceeding it. It would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to do something similar with VII & XI.
#41 & #136 — The “you would have done the same for me” quote is being used out of context. What Kirk was trying to do was reunite Spock’s katra with his body. It was a nice “side effect” that Spock’s body happened to be alive on the Genesis Planet and they could go through the fal-tor-pan ritual. If there had been no last request regarding Spock’s katra, Kirk would have continued to grieve but would eventually accept his friend’s death as final — because even in the future, that’s how death is. (Yes, there were all the random resurrections of characters — McCoy, Scotty, Worf, Neelix, etc — but IMO those things were really unbelievable and just weakened the storylines of the episodes in which they occurred).
#145
I second that. This is a little clip from the NYT, and we’re of course assuming that the mass media always accurately reports these things in context. Who knows if this was part of a larger conversation and if this little quote sounds bad out of context. Let’s not be lemmings and believe everything the mass media tells us, regardless of what end of the spectrum they’re on.
#144
I fear they will kill off old Spock at the end of the movie… this would be another big disappointment. Include a character just to kill him off…
147
Yes. Wise.
#146
- If so, it doesn’t make him a person of any less integrity, just someone who is willing to admit when he thinks he was wrong instead of stubbornly clinging to old beliefs. –
Let’s concede the same to Shatner should he think that his decision to let Kirk die was wrong.
- The “you would have done the same for me” quote is being used out of context….
If there had been no last request regarding Spock’s katra, Kirk would have continued to grieve but would eventually accept his friend’s death as final. –
The final request and Kirk‘s subsequent rescue mission ARE the context. Saving Spock‘s life is the ultimate way of not accepting his death as final.
#147
You’re probably right – might prove interesting to read the entire conversation.
While I could care less if The Shat shows up in the new movie, but they could explain his reapperence with the Butterfly effect (I butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and it causes it to rain in New York). By going back in time and killing then saving young Kirk it had a ripple effect and he doesn’t end up on the section of bridge that fell in Generations and survives and continues on in the 24th Century as Scotty did, and then Spock can meet him when he returns to his own time.
#149
Mr. Orci,
You continue to tantalize with your comments….
Maybe there will still be some real surprises left for us after all?
Mr Orci could end all of this with a single sentence on this very site.
Ooops, didn’t see Roberto’s post.
149 – Roberto, got any bones to throw our way? Something to nudge the conversation along in a particular direction?
By the way, how goes the shoot? It must be fulfilling to finally see your script getting put on film.
to all Shatner fans – just move on for Star Trek sake !
I for one would love to see Scott Bakula/Archer having a cameo or part in XI (maybe during a flashback)
To all Archer fans- move on, for Treks sake.
#156 “to all Shatner fans – just move on for Star Trek sake ! I for one would love to see Scott Bakula/Archer having a cameo”
Your second sentence totally invalidates your first.
#130 … Sounds like FUN. :)
Hey Shatner, “get a life”
#31: Iowagirl: “3 months ago, Nimoy stated that this film would be better with Shatner than without him. He’d already read the script by then and he’d already seen Generations. Now he’s telling us the opposite. I’ve always had the greatest respect for Nimoy and I still have, but I really don’t know what to make of that inconsistent tattle.”
I think there are a couple of plausible explanations for Nimoy’s ‘inconsistency’. 1) Nimoy could simply have been trying to protect his friends feelings by saying the movie would be better with Shatner, but is being realistic now that that’s not going to happen, and Shatner should simply stop going on and on about it. 2) I find it more likely, however, that Shatner had been offered a cameo, or something slightly bigger, but didn’t think it was enough. So, Nimoy in an attempt to get Shatner to reconsider tried to stroke the Shat’s ego by saying that by taking the cameo he’d be making the movie better. Now, Nimoy realizes that Shat’s made his decision about not wanting a cameo and Nimoy is simply stating that the only way for the role not to have been a cameo is very difficult to write since his Kirk character is dead.
157 – Good one
#10. I would love to see Archer in this film!
How about resurrecting Kirk from another timeline, like an alternate future where he didn’t die, to help out old Spock! since the Gurading of Forever is involved! One scene where spock shows up on that alternate timeline to recruit Jim! Wow that only took me a few minutes to come up with that ingenious idea!!!!!
101. Dennis Bailey
Well said Dennis. I honestly felt that undoing the events of Trek 2 was a huge mistake. TSFS was the ‘just kidding’ entry, and I really felt it hurt Star Trek as a whole…regardless of how well they set it up. The characters grew throughout the series, and they even grew throughout Trek 1 & 2…but I found they really began back pedaling with Trek 3 through 6.
I am amazed at how a feverish bunch of fans keep shouting to bring back a dead character, when it would seriously require a full movie to do it in any way that was meaningful to the character. If it were possible to have Star Trek: The Search For Kirk…then sure, why not…but this movie isn’t supposed to be The William Shatner show. It’s about the new actors.
I hope a fresh start will help.
#137…. very elegant solution! I’d settle for that. Just reading it brought a chill to my spine.
I love the Shat like most fans, and yes, he’ll always be my Captain. (I think I’ve typed that statement a hundred times now.)
But Star Trek isn’t just about JTK. It’s about friendships, exploration, discovery about the worlds around us and about ourselves. It’s about a ship and her crew. Pretty fundamental and exciting stuff.
JTK’s death is canon. No need to bring him back ‘just because’ Nimoy’s in it too. I felt cheated when Nimoy did not appear in Generations, but surprisingly hopeful that the Shat will not appear in the new movie. Why? Like most fans, I appreciate it when the producers and writers acknowledge canon.
“but this is a restart” goes the battle cry of the fans enamored with the classic trek. Sure, I shout back – and we’ll have JTK – but the young JTK. There’s no reason beyond a cameo to have an older Kirk play a major role. And since the Shat has killed that possibility with his incessant whining, it truly is time to let a new generation take the reigns form the old. (And no, the generation reference had nothing to do with…, oh heck, someone will misread that anyways and scream BRING BACK PICARD)
But I digress –
The Shat would be a nice addition, but it’s unnecessary. He’ll always be my Captain until Chris Pine records his first spoken word album. I get goosebumps thinking about that.
“I know he’s upset, but his character died three movies ago…”
The primary, number one reason to hate the crapfest that was “Star Trek: Generations.”
I think most Trek fans will never forgive B&B for that ignoble death.
Vic
Here is a question though. If the plot does deal with (and again big “if”) romulans going back and altering the past that causes some changes to the ST universe (which seems to be the excuse as to why the ENT and other aspects of Trek will look different from TOS) then how difficult is it to simply have a scene where Kirk is shown alive later in life……………….unless they are concerned about Nimoy looking to old for such a scene with Shatner…….or if Nimoy never makes it back to his period and dies in the film.
Better yet.
Let’s think about this, Menagerie style.
It could be that the closest relationship among the characters is Pike and Old Spock.
If they go this route, it will be especially interesting because Spock did save Pike… Maybe already knowing what he did to bring PIke to Talos IV and what Kirk sacrificed in loosing Edith will… encourage Spock NOT to save the old Kirk.
I like a lot of #137.
Too bad we’re on strike!!!
#137 Just reread your post.
I like THAT. I love THAT. Sweet concept.
Can the boys over at “Star Trek The New Voyages” come up with a new production that shows kirk and spock saving each others lives and then at the end have some subtile gay ending.
^
This was all the kirk loving weirdos can have there stupid kirk/spock love affair ending.
^
Holly crap I’ve never seen a website full of so many shatner lovers.
You shat crazed ilk are obsessed more than the Shat himself.
#122:”We agree that ST III was not as good as ST II. What you fail to mention is that a even medioce Star Trek III still was the #9 film the year it came out.
For comparison sake the # 9 film of 2006 was “Casino Royale” which made $167,000,000.”
First off, you concede that Trek 3 was mediocre. There is no reason in the world for anyone at Paramount to set out to make or approve for production a 150,000,000 dollar film with the goal of making it mediocre.
Nonetheless, this is what many Trek traditionalists are calling for without understanding or accepting that they are.
Would the studio be happy with a film that *performed* like Trek 3? No. Given the budget, Paramount won’t be happy if the domestic first run gross on this is in the range of “Casino Royale’s.”
Daren, no one has taken Trek seriously since ST 3? I daresay no more or less than they did before – and one can argue that, for better or worse, a great many more people took TNG and DS9 seriously than ever did TOS. By that time in the history of the Franchise it was kind of hard to like Trek at all if one wasn’t willing to swallow its solemn, Roddenberryian self-regard pretty much whole.
#171 “have some subtile gay ending.”
What’s a subtile gay ending? One that takes place beneath the floorboards?
Don King Promotions Presents:
Battle of the FX Titans, The Not so Thrilla from Manilla!!!!
Dennis V. Daren Cagefight
Undercard
Anthony V. Harry Knowles in a Texas Bullrope match
Harry Ballz V. Darth Ballz in a no disqualification Ballz Beatdown
PS: I loved Trek 3 , best fist fight in the history of the series
#172 “Given the budget, Paramount won’t be happy if the domestic first run gross on this is in the range of “Casino Royale’s.’”
They better be. Casino Royale grossed over $167 million dollars domestic. While I’d love to see Trek outperform that, I think it’d really be kind of a miracle. Casino made as much in its 1st weekend as Nemesis did total! Trek has a HUGE hurdle to leap in winning back audiences.
“a great many more people took TNG and DS9 seriously than ever did TOS.”
Uh, no. If that were true, why isn’t Paramount investing north of $100 million in reviving one of those shows?
And Star Trek III was much better than 3 out of 4 TNG features.
#173 Shatner_Fan
That’s perfect!
And thanks for the positive comments.
#150 –
“”- If so, it doesn’t make him a person of any less integrity, just someone who is willing to admit when he thinks he was wrong instead of stubbornly clinging to old beliefs. -”
Let’s concede the same to Shatner should he think that his decision to let Kirk die was wrong.”
Agreed. However, unfortunately, Shatner chose to act on the idea of letting Kirk die. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind on something, but you still have to live with the consequences of the actions you took based on those previous beliefs.
“- The “you would have done the same for me” quote is being used out of context….
If there had been no last request regarding Spock’s katra, Kirk would have continued to grieve but would eventually accept his friend’s death as final. -”
The final request and Kirk‘s subsequent rescue mission ARE the context. Saving Spock‘s life is the ultimate way of not accepting his death as final.”
But the final request was to bring Spock’s katra and (dead) body to Mt Seleya, not to bring Spock back to life. That was what the “rescue mission” was about. Until there was hard evidence — Spock’s reanimated body — in front of him, Kirk did not seem to harbor the illusion that by reuniting Spock’s katra & body, he would be bringing his friend back to life or cheating the finality of death.
“He turns back to address the Guardian/computer interface/whatever (the Guardian really would work well for this) and says, “I wish to make a journey. Show me the past, fifteen years ago, on the planet… Veridian III.”
You’re forgetting however, that the Guardian does not work that way. It only displays time in a specific fashion…so while Spock may be able to say, show me Veridian 3…he would have to let the history of the planet pass by and judge his entry from there.
If the plot rumor from http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832 is true, concerning the creation of an alternate universe, then resurrecting Bill Shatner’s Kirk would be unnecessary b/c the fate of Chris Pine’s Kirk (as well as the rest of the Big Seven) is up in the air. I mean if the adventures of this new crew is set in an alternate universe, then who is to say that Chris Pine’s Kirk dies from falling off a cliff? For all we now he could die in a space battle or in his sleep.
Very funny #81
^
#91 I was hoping they would make a film that included Voyager and DS9.
But I guess we have to go back and save kirk.
Ya know that’s gonna bring in the new fans. ?!?!
Dennis:
No offense, but you are smoking crack if you think the new Star Trek film is going to out gross the last 007 film.
Just because Paramont is throwing a lot of money at this film (really not than much compared to other films) does not promise great quality. The Star Wars prequels among others cost a ton produce. To call those films mediocre would be very, very generous.
The days of S.T. being a huge blockbuster along the lines of TMP (#2 film of 1979) or TVH (#4 film of 1986) are most likely long gone for now.
Hopefully this film starts to get the series back on it’s feet.
I do concede that ST III was simply a mediocre film, but what does that have to do w/ Star Trek XI?
Clearly they didn’t “set out” to make a mediocre film. Most films don’t even reach mediocre status.
Your premise that ST III did poorly at the box office is wrong. As is your premise that it is a bad film (it is not) because it was about the return of Spock.
The film was clearly a hit + ST IV was a much bigger hit for the simple reason it was a much better film .
Shatner in this film only adds to it.
#125 ACR
You obviously missed ST IV & ST VI
Don’t think there is anything new here from Nimoy as he told Shatner
this in August at a covention.
It’s great Nimoy is in this movie and has my interest becasuse of this, Its
just said Bill will not be, another wasted opportunity and maybe the last.
Appart from Bill and Leonard somebody from this New Film should have put us out of our misery long ago instead of stretching it out.
# 180
People didn’t watch Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise for free at home. What makes you think they are going to pay to see it?
Q) Why do you think we are getting a TOS film with Nimoy + maybe with Shatner?
A) They are of iconic status and are by far the most commercially viable aspect of the franchise. Do you think the average person on the street even knows who Janeway or Sisko are?
I’d bet my life those same people know who Kirk and Spock are.
SHAME ON LEONARD NIMOY FOR BEING SO NARROW MINDED AND NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. I SUSPECT HE’S JUST TRYING TO EASE THE BACKLASH A LITTLE.
IT DOESN’T TAKE A GENIUS TO SEE THE MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE PASSING OF THE CREATOR. LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THAT MISTAKES SHOULD BE CORRECTED WHEN POSSIBLE.
IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE QUITE SIMPLE TO HAVE WILLIAM SHATNER IN THE MOVIE AS JAMES T. KIRK. YOU SIMPLY PUT HIM IN IT. NO EXPLANATION NECESSARY AS ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN WOULD JUST SMILE KNOWING THEY JUST FIXED THE BIGGEST OF THEIR MANY BLUNDERS.
Nimoy speaks the blatant obvious truth.
#177
You state some good points as far as the actual plot is concerned, but I still think that the meaning of STIII cannot be scaled down to that. Kirk risks his career, his life, looses his son and sacrifices his ship because of that final request. Whether it was because he was complying with Sarek‘s request to bring Spock‘s katra back to Mt. Seleya or whether he was hoping to resurrect Spock – we are not told and I don‘t think it matters that much. What really matters is Kirk‘s actions, what he did to save Spock – and the way he succeeded. And when Kirk says „you would have done the same for me“ it is just that – he knows that Spock would‘ve tried to save him no matter what the cost, no matter what happens. And this is our final request; a request that has not been complied with yet.
“Kirk, I thank you. What you have done..”
“What I’ve done, I had to do.”
“But at what cost? Your ship, your son.”
“If I hadn’t, the cost might have been my soul.”
- Sarek and Kirk
#186
Exactly!
#184
How can you shame Mr. Nimoy based on a one-sentence sound bite? That’s quite audacious of you. And what’s with the caps lock?
“SHAME ON LEONARD NIMOY FOR BEING SO NARROW MINDED AND NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE.”
Oh give me a break. If anything it’s statements like “just put him in it. no explanation”, that are narrow minded. Nimoy is just stating a fact. If a resurrection were to be given any justice, it would need more than an ‘inside smirk’ solution. Some of these statements are ridiculous…and enough of the upper caps.
Mostly unrelated topic, but can anyone help?
I tried to email a photo from The Menagerie showing to TrekMovie.com, as requested, by using the email address (which I will space out here) t o n y p @ t r e k m o v i e . c o m Which is shown in the “Send it in” link. But it keeps bouncing back. Is there some other email address?
“SHAME ON LEONARD NIMOY FOR BEING SO NARROW MINDED AND NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE.”
Would that big picture include your questionable ideas for bringing Kirk back from the dead?
Call me crazy, but I think I’ll side with Nimoy. Nimoy knows what makes good trek, he’s the only actor that did.
Seems to me considering that Shatners already revived Kirk in books, why not let him do the same for the movie? If they really want him in it, why not give the Shat a copy of the script and have him make sugestions as to how he might be worked into the movie. The film does’nt come out for a year so that seems to me plenty of time to work it out , maybe even in post-production.
#191 “I’ll side with Nimoy. Nimoy knows what makes good trek”
Good, then you agree that the movie would be BETTER with Shatner in it. Because that is what Nimoy is on record as telling JJ.
Just because he made an attempt to explain to an uninformed reporter why Shatner (apparently) isn’t in it, doesn’t mean he does not want his friend in it. Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?
Nimoy bad mouthing is not cool and shame on you people!!
I agree with 191. Nimoy had far more success with his take on Trek than Shatner did, but I’ll bet Shat loves all the publicity he is getting.
The article doesn’t seem to contain an actual quote in which Mr. Nimoy said he wasn’t sympathetic. It quotes him saying that he understands Shatner is upset, and then, stating the obvious, that the Kirk character is dead, etc..etc…
The article also says that Nimoy has a BRIEF role in the new film.
What does it all mean??? Nothing.
ENTERPRISE doesn’t work with the continuity.
And I’m not worried about Shatner. I’ll try and watch the thing when it comes out and hope that it’s going to be adequate.
193. “Good, then you agree that the movie would be BETTER with Shatner in it. Because that is what Nimoy is on record as telling JJ. ”
Nimoy probably meant give Shatner a cameo or a flashback to keep him happy. I doubt he was telling them resurrect Kirk from the dead. Credit the man with some sense!
#194 & the rest of the Nimoy bashers:
Nimoy didn’t badmouth, betray, screw over, etc. anyone. Reading for comprehension isn’t a strong point with y’all, is it?
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
I predict the future: The BBK argument is going to continue for a very, very long time.
My 2 pence opinion: Kirk died in a stupid way, but he’s dead. However, bringing him back will destroy this film. Given the choice of bringing back Kirk or saving the very future of Trek itself, I must choose trek.
You tell em, Vulcanista!
Nimoy is a professional, speaking about a project with thousands of jobs tied to it. Shatner is NOT the center of the universe, Trek or otherwise. No one’s bashing him.
Okay- back the boat up here! Mr. Nimoy should not be shamed for this stupid article in NY Times. If anyone knows how to make a good trek flick- its Mr. Nimoy. He was the brains and braun behind ST4 and to this date that film is the highest grossing Star Trek film. Plus, it is the only one where no one died.
As far as this new flick- JJ Abrams and Co are actually sticking to canon- which is something B and B didn’t do. Besides, WS is busy with Boston Legal. I admit it, I was pissed when I saw Generations without LN, but after Mr. Nimoy explained his reasoning for not being in it- I have nothing but the upmost repect for the man. He knows Star Trek and he knows the buisness. If this reporter from the Times did what they usually do- they went up to Mr. Nimoy in the middle of his art opening and asked him a dumba** question about Shatner and the movie. Come on people- there is a time and a place to ask these questions. Mr. Nimoy probably gave an inteligent answer and the reporter quoted the most minut and out of context quote he/she could find. We don’t even know what was really said! For all we know, Mr. Nimoy could have given a 20 minute answer on the topic! Besides, I am sure Mr. Shatner will have an answer to all of this very soon. And don’t question the mens friendship for one another over a stupid sentence. We don’t know whats really going on and we won’t know until the movie opens. For all we know, maybe Shatner is in it and they are trying to keep it under wraps. Besides- they said that they were using the original score- which would have to include WS voice over in the beginning. Plus- for those who keep bringing up the GoF- that was a spolier and still unconfirmed! We don’t know if thats even in the damb movie. If you want to know the answer to these questions- email Shatnervision and ask. God knows there will be an answer soon. I don’t mean to ramble on and on- but come on guys and gals- isn’t enough that we ARE getting a new movie after the disasters B & B caused and Enterprise. AND that Mr. Nimoy himself is coming out of retirement to do it! I for one am thrilled- and while WS is not in it, it is only far since LN was not in Generations. Now, they are equal in number of films. Let it go.
#157.
Can all you Kirk fans move on for treks sake.
Is more like it.
#201
Well said
Vulcanista- nice post! #203- thank you!
After reading all the posts, Concider this as well: The real last film was the undiscovered country where the feeling was that it was a goodbye film.
And then to everyones suprise, Shatner returns for one last heroic adventure in star trek 7, (as well as small roles for koening and doohan). and what does shatner do? he dies…nice comeback!
If shatner was to return from the dead, it should have been in star trek 8..not 4 movies later. How would everyone have felt if Nimoy hadnt returned as spock til star trek 6?
Star Trek 1-6 was the TOS run and the actors seemed to agree that it was the end.
Star Trek 7-10 was TNG’s chance and it didnt end so well.. One reason was that TNG lasted 7 years and so there was plenty of picard and data to go around. So I think they were about equal in exposure.
If JJ & Co. Make a top shelf production that the cross over audience likes, then we will have a reinvigorated franchise that will spawn more movies, and who knows – possibly another series. If that means none or only 1 of the old series stars is in it, then I’m all for it.
The only problem I have with this whole thing is I have to wait a year. I need a new fix now.
When is Blood & Fire going to be ready?
206…and may I add,if I may,if Kirk does come back it should be in a TNG film
Kirk in a TNG film…..come on
I agree, WIliam Shatner is not Star Trek. He played a large role in its success, sure. I would prefer Nimoy not be in this movie either, but I couldn’t fathom the pushback from some “Trek” fans who can’t live without one of the original crew.
The “Kirk survives Veridian III” crew reminds me a lot of the Star Wars fans who refused to believe that Bobba Fett died in ROTJ. Sure the Trek pimps are happy to oblige your fetish with books that keep Kirk alive, but they do nothing for the overall health of the Trek franchise, it just makes it look a lot more cheap.
Nimoy’s comments about “3 movies” is right on key. Spock was revived within 30 minutes of ST III, so it seems like a lot less cop out. Unfortunately (or fortunately) Generations killed Kirk, and the TNG movies made no immediate attempt to revive him in a semi-plausible way. Therefore, as jurists would call it Kirk’s death is “stare decises” and Shatner’s Kirk is dead.
The creation of a “alternate” timeline is t he only way I see Kirk coming back, but it seems like Shatner wasn’t satisfied with a 2 minute cameo at the end of the movie
vulcanista
i am not bashing…pelase reread my post
#194 Bobby
I’ve never thought the Enterprise-B scenes in “Generations” were particularly bad, except for the idiot Capt. Harriman. That sequence, culminating with Kirk’s apparent death would have worked much, much better with Spock and McCoy instead of Scotty and Chekov. One more rewrite of that script, to beef up Spock and McCoy and perhaps make the stakes higher by killing off Harriman, would have worked wonders. But “Generations” was under enormous time pressure, hitting theaters barely six months after TNG left the air, and it just didn’t happen.
I was trying to say that all the bad mouthing/ bashing TOWARDS Nimoy is not cool
#210 “Nimoy’s comments about ‘3 movies’ is right on key.”
How many movies ago Shatner’s Kirk was killed is really not relevant, when you consider that this is the first TOS-centric movie they’ve made in a long time. And that Nimoy himself is back as Spock. And that Abrams made comments early on suggesting that both Shatner and Nimoy would participate. All those good reasons are why the BBKers are hopeful.
#181:”The film was clearly a hit + ST IV was a much bigger hit for the simple reason it was a much better film .”
ST 3 was not “a hit.” It was a modest success and a disappointment to the producers. It was after this film – a movie which Harve Bennett said he went out of his way in writing to make sure was accessible on a story level to new audience members – that Bennett complained “the audience doesn’t grow.” The film cost more than TWOK (considerably more, even factoring in inflation) and made less money.
ST 4 was the [i]only[/i] TOS film considered so successful by Paramount that they quickly greenlit a follow-on. Due to the uneven track records of Trek films they generally would wait some months to see how the films played out before seriously discussing sequels.
#197: “ENTERPRISE doesn’t work with the continuity.”
Neither does TOS from one week to another. Next.
#214: “How many movies ago Shatner’s Kirk was killed is really not relevant, when you consider that this is the first TOS-centric movie they’ve made in a long time.”
This movie’s not about the old actors and the old TOS. It’s a new version. :)
Does Nimoy’s argument hold water in this case? If the film represents a large departure from pre-established canon, that is not a valid argument. Certainly talks of totally redesigning and updating the Enterprise does not. On the other hand, should the movie stick very close to canon, Nimoy would have a point.
It’s nice to have Mr. Bailey here to correct anyone’s incorrect comments. ;)
And remember, the only important factor in discussing Star Trek is the box office. Nothing else matters.
#175: “ ‘a great many more people took TNG and DS9 seriously than ever did TOS.’
Uh, no. If that were true, why isn’t Paramount investing north of $100 million in reviving one of those shows?”
Paramount is not making this movie for the die-hards, so it’s ultimately irrelevant which flavor of Trek has the most die-hards. (I’m not interested in arguing over which version of Trek has, or had, the most).
Paramount is making this movie with the TOS crew because they feel that it has the most likelyhood to resonate with a general non-trek-die-hard audience. (I’m sure we’re in agreement that TOS has engrained itself more in the consciousness of society).
Let’s also be honest, that due to the age of the actors it’s easier to recast TOS than any of the others, and the general movie going public is more likely to see a trek movie that feels ‘new’, with new actors and such, and isn’t just a TV show on the big screen made just for the fans of the show. Having new actors, new design elements, and so forth helps in this regard.
#219: “It’s nice to have Mr. Bailey here to correct anyone’s incorrect comments.”
Appreciation like yours is sufficient encouragement to insure that I’ll be right here. :lol:
Lets face it, Star Trek revolved around Kirk 30 to 40 yrs ago.
Today Star Trek is so much bigger than Kirk…
Spock has evolved over the years, Kirk hasn’t
Kirk was the best and will always be the best captain…
Shatner needs to get over it..
#200
How would bringing Kirk back “destroy the film”
People these are cartoon characters. Every single one of them has died at one point or another.
Do you have any friends who died (like Spock, Scotty, McCoy..etc) only to return the next day and not miss a beat?
Please, give me a break with this Shatner would destroy ST XI nonsense.
Is it reasonable to assume that anyone making what they hope will be a successful Treak movie, the first in a series, would seriously deliberately fail to include Shatner?
Yes, it’s reasonable if either of two conditions apply:
1. They believe canon is important and do not want to violate it in such an egregious manner.
2. Shatner priced himself out of consideration.
Remember, too, that if you decide to resurrect Kirk, you need to go out of your way to expalin is death and then explain about the Nexus, etc., etc. While you’re doing that, the 99% of the audience that are not certified Trek fanatics is compltely lost and bored.
The script for this movie, and the characters, have to work without any dependence on Trek lore. There can be no assumption that the audience knows anything about Trek, has any emotional attachment to the characters, or has even seen a Trek episode. It has to succeed on its own, without leaning on the past, in much the same way BSG has succeeded without reference to its tacky first verion.
No doubt, the film will include little goodies that only Trek fans catch, but that’s not enough to make a profit.
#33 “Nimoy gets asked this stuff because of Shatner’s public tantrums.”
Dennis? I am unaware of any public tantrums. Can you refer us to them?
Ah, I see you (Dennis) dislike Shatner therefore you refer to his calm comments as tantrums, when in fact he has never had a tantrum. If he has please post it here and I will admit I was wrong. If not then please admit you were wrong.
Shatners points are extremely valid. I’ll see Trek XI as I like Trek, but likely wait several weeks or for video since Shatner is not in it. Many more won’t ever bother because he is not in it.
226. Exactly. He has at times been asked about his involvement and what his feelings are on the subject and he has responded with answers.
Also, there seems to be an assumption among a number of people that the reason he has not been brought aboard is because he has priced himself out of range. While I suppose that is a possibility, I have never seen any information that confirms this as a fact.
And I like Star Trek III. More than II.
And the Star Trek TV series is great. I like it. A lot.
Oh…and… Vulcans and Romulans are the most interesting characters in Trek. Often, the most admirable. If your brother-in-law was a human like Kirk, you’d get a divorce.
#214 — How many movies ago Shatner’s Kirk was killed is really not relevant…
To us, maybe it’s not relavent; Kirk’s death — and the circumstances surrounding us — are still fresh in our minds. But to many other people — including people who are Trek fans but don’t remember every little thing — Kirk’s death is just a shadow in their memory, if it’s even in their memory anymore at all.
The trouble with Trek movies is that since Trek has such lore surrounding it, there is a lot of variation in what the general public, moderate Trek fans, and Trekkies (and everyone in between) knows about Trek. So on the one hand you are trying to give the general public a movie they will like and understand, but on the other hand you have Trekkies/Trekkers who will go wild if they see their favorite little (or big) details pop up. I watched all 10 movies before I’d seen more than maybe 3 episodes of any Trek series, and then rewatched them after I’d seen most of the episodes of the various series, and IMO the best movies were those which stood up without much prior Trek knowledge but were enhanced by an understanding of the Trek universe. It’s a hard balance to strike, though.
#216 — Maybe so, but at the same time, during TOS Star Trek was just another TV show, whereas now it’s become a whole universe that some people practically live in, and as a result people expect a certain amount of continuity/consistency from it. It might not be fair, but it’s a fact of the development of the franchise…
First!
The reason that Shatner isn’t in the movie is because his character is dead, TPTB are a different bunch than when his character was killed off, and after meeting with JJ he apparently wanted a more substantial role than he was offered.
In other words, from a business standpoint, Shatner had no leverage to negotiate for a more prominent role in the new production. The two sides seemed to have reached an impasse. Production on a $100+ million dollar movie is proceeding without him. It is also worth pointing out that Paramount (you know, the ones spending all that money) are confident that the movie will do nicely without him.
Please don’t construe these comments for Shatner bashing. On the contrary, I am a fan. But this seems to be the reality of the situation, take it or leave it.
First of all, all the people hoping for some mention of Archer or Enterprise in general are smoking something I’d love to get a hold of. I don’t think the least successful Star Trek show is going to get name-dropped in a movie that’s attempting to erase it from people’s memories.
Secondly, amen to Leonard Nimoy! Bill keeps droning on and on about not being in the movie and it’s become old. Maybe the script simply wasn’t Kirk-centric (quite the opposite from what we know) so the screenwriters didn’t want to spend 30 minutes in a 1hr 45 min production about pre-TOS Star Trek to try to explain why Kirk is suddenly not dead.
Is that so hard to accept? They likely offered him a cameo of some kind, but he wanted something else (or he wanted more than someone else might have wanted for a cameo). That’s that.
I agree with #230
Most people do not know Kirk died. The ones who do wish to forget because his death was meanless and kind of not memorable.
Ask someone.
I just met someone 40 years old who had a very hard life, and she didn’t even know Mr. Spock or KIrk or Star Trek. How many people really don’t know w but still might go to a movie? Only Paramount will find out the answer to that!
#200 “My 2 pence opinion: Kirk died in a stupid way, but he’s dead. However, bringing him back will destroy this film.”
…destroy it? Not a chance…but it just might destroy a good many of the anti-Shats on this board! lol
These guys would be like Nomad…
…error
error
error…
I think JJ and co. would have had a tough time dealing with Bill. Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. I think the production spared itself a lot of pain by not having him in it.
#227:”Ah, I see you (Dennis) dislike Shatner…”
I don’t have any personal feelings about this guy at all. I don’t know him.
I’ve had an opportunity to develop strong impressions of some of his most fanatic fans, however, as a result of their behavior about this movie and their defensive rationalisations of his public whining. ;)
# 236 “I think JJ and co. would have had a tough time dealing with Bill. Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. I think the production spared itself a lot of pain by not having him in it”
Shatner Basher, New Horizon. Please show me where Nick Meyer said Shatner was a difficult actor to work with.
I still think Shatner will be in the movie.
#232
It is also worth pointing out that Paramount (you know, the ones spending all that money) are confident that the movie will do nicely without him.
I second that.
236.
Everything I have ever read about Shatner as an actor is that he is very hard working and extremely prepared.
“Shatner Basher, New Horizon. Please show me where Nick Meyer said Shatner was a difficult actor to work with.”
What? Commenting on statements the director of Trek 2 said makes me a Shatner basher? Oh goody, I’ve always wanted to be labeled. Give it a rest. I’m no Shatner basher. Yes, I agree, the man is prepared for his roles, but he also has an ego the size of the Moon. Stating opinions that are not my own does not make me a Shatner basher. For heaven’s sake, what is this? Pre-school? If you want to know what Nick Meyer said, do the research yourself. It’s out there.
Science fiction is ridiculous…characters die and “return” all the time…and that happened pretty regularly on TOS as well.
Nimoy is being silly. He of all people knows better.
“#232
It is also worth pointing out that Paramount (you know, the ones spending all that money) are confident that the movie will do nicely without him.
I second that. ”
This is very misleading, suggesting Paramount doesn’t want him. LOL. Ridiculous.
Knowing a few people who have worked with Shatner , he apparently is terrific to work with, extremely prepared and expects the same from others. big ego, yes. But of course that does not equate to miserable or difficult to work with.
I just wish us fans would quit being so disrespectful to each other.
Scott Bakula was by a decent margin the worst miscast major character in Star Trek history. I would sit through an entire season of a sitcom dedicated to Wesley Crusher’s “Teen Adventures at Warp Speed” than one episode of anything featuring SB. The whole purpose of this movie is the correct the disaster that was G.W. Bush in Space, which brought the entire franchise to its knees.
So no Archer ever!
For the purposes of canon “Enterprise” was in fact a 25 century holonovel.
I’ll give you one hint…listen to the DVD commentary with Meyer on Star Trek 2.
“What? Commenting on statements the director of Trek 2 said makes me a Shatner basher? Oh goody, I’ve always wanted to be labeled. Give it a rest. I’m no Shatner basher. Yes, I agree, the man is prepared for his roles, but he also has an ego the size of the Moon. ”
How does the equate hard to work with? I’m known to be very egotistical yet very fun to work with.
“Stating opinions that are not my own does not make me a Shatner basher. ”
Actually it does make you basher. But for the record you stated Meyer said he was difficult to work with which is another issue. So again, unless you can provide proof we can only assume you are lying and Meyer said no such thing.
“For heaven’s sake, what is this? Pre-school? If you want to know what Nick Meyer said, do the research yourself. It’s out there. ”
You are certainly treating it as such by stating false hoods (Meyer said this or that). Kids lie all the time. It seems you did not grow out of that.
245. A. – November 15, 2007
Knowing a few people who have worked with Shatner
You know them personally?
New Horizon – November 15, 2007
“I’ll give you one hint…listen to the DVD commentary with Meyer on Star Trek 2. ”
Why don’t you quote it (with the chapter and time) so we can test your credibility.
Ya know what? Screw all this Shatner smack.
I’ve just decided that if I don’t soon see a picture of the new communicator prop..and if it doesn’t look EXACTLY like the TOS communicator…I’m not going to see this movie. Ever.
And, also, I’m joking.
“You know them personally? ”
Hence the phrase “Knowing a few people who have worked with Shatner”
Nimoy is trying to take the high road. I admire him, but also suspect that JJ and Co. are going to figure out a way to bring Kirk and Spock together, if only for one last time.
As to Enterprise, the decision to NOT film and show Archer’s speech at the inauguaration of the UFP is perhaps the hugest disservice to Trek fans everywhere, exceeded only by Kirk’s death in Star Trek:
Generations.
That’s my two Lincolns. Hailing frequencies closed.
“Why don’t you quote it (with the chapter and time) so we can test your credibility.”
Sorry, not playing anymore games with you. If you own the DVD, look it up yourself. I’ve slightly more important things going on in my life right now that jousting with you.
I’m out. Have fun.
Who is “Archer” ?
Hi all — I still feel it would be nice if the Shat was in fact in the new film. After all he could play Kirk’s father or grandfather. Seeing young Kirk and Shatner as his father together on screen would be very touching. LLAP
Easy solution, anything post ST6, never happened as well as Enterprise. Get rid of the modern trek baggage. If you keep modern trek, Relics came first, don’t count Generations.
I’ll take it up New Horizon. Meyer wanted to tone down Shatners performance, and I guess Shatner wouldn’t listen so instead Meyer would do take after take to wear Shatner down to get the performance he wanted.
Also Keonig has said Shatner never listened to the directors ’till oddly enough ‘Generations’.
I count Generations….
….as crap!
Generations is oddly the most entertaining Trek movie for me even with all the problems everyone sites on this board.
I think I have the solution for the headaches and bad feelings these threads engender. Eliminate the comments scetion completely.
And before anyone goes screaming “This is a free country!”, America may be free, but on this site, it’s Anthony who makes the rules.
his character dies more movies ago than that…
Bobby: I did re-read your post, and my sincere apologies!
Written communication can be tricky. At first glance, it looked like *you* were Nimoy-bashing. Thanks for the explanation later in the thread. That put it into perspective.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Amen, Leonard. They shouldn’t have to come up with some stupid SciFi Deus Ex Machina so they can bring Kirk back just so he can be in the movie. It’s not Abrams’ fault they killed him off in Generations. Shatner never should have agreed to it; he certainly had the power to do so. I’m sure Bill will find other ways to pay the mortgage.
249.Dude Nick Meyer did lay into Shatner on the TWOK dvd commentary, he said that Shatner was very broad in his takes and would not listen to his direction. So he ended up having to make Shatner do take after take until Shatner was so tired that he finally started saying the lines in a more soft-spoken dignified way. I am not sure where exactly it is on the dvd but I know it starts after Khan attacks the Enterprise the first time.
“Sorry, not playing anymore games with you. If you own the DVD, look it up yourself. I’ve slightly more important things going on in my life right now that jousting with you.”
LOL. LOL. The cry of a liar, caught. You made the claim then can’t prove it. The smart thing to is to simply apologize and move on. Instead of that, you’ll just now hide from your claim.
It’s amazing how many people run when caught in a lie.
#258:”Easy solution, anything post ST6, never happened as well as Enterprise. Get rid of the modern trek baggage.”
Non-solution – it suits your taste, but has no other virtue.
If people are willing to be so arbitrary about what counts and what doesn’t, here’s your solution: close your eyes and pretend that it’s worked out the way that you want. Just ignore whatever really happens in the TV shows and the movies.
I mean, you keep proposing that the *studio* do that, and it would be far easier and more efficient for you to continue to do it yourself.
267.
Nick Meyer starts criticizing Shatner in the scene where Kirk says he was caught with his britches down. I am surprised you have’nt seen this yourself.
#238:”Please show me where Nick Meyer said Shatner was a difficult actor to work with.”
God, a considerable part of the “Director’s Commentary” on the “Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan” DVD is about the challenges for Meyer of getting what he wanted from the Shat.
My favorite remark of Meyers is when he recounted how he’d do take after take with Shatner, eventually wearing the actor down to the point where he’d stop delivering dialogue histrionically and *just say the lines.* :lol:
81. Ves – November 15, 2007 – I like it!
#268— easier solution, just don’t go to the movie, let Trek continue to rot as it has done since the end of DS9.
I think the New York Times misinterpreted Leonard’s intention with that quote. It’s the Times that is saying he is “not sympathetic,” Leonard did not say that. Leonard said “I know he’s upset (implies sympathy for the Shat), but his character died three movies ago, so it would have been very difficult to get him into this one (states the problem). Journalism just ain’t what it used to be; it seems like they don’t even require journalists to have a journalism degree anymore.
#273
I can only imagine Mr. Nimoy’s internal dialog when asked to comment on Shatner’s reactions to not being in the movie [yet]: “Oh, s**t. Here we go…”
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Another story to stir up the tribe. It’s a a vast conspiracy just to piss off the Shatner true-believers.It must be a Romulan plot.
Nimoy’s likely had it with Shatner’s attitude and said the most diplomatic thing he could.
All the wishes and alternate solutions and cursing you see in here won’t bring Shatner into this film. While there’s still a chance he could be shoe-horned in, I doubt it. You can only insult the production company and the director so many times before the result you want doesn’t happen.
#269 “Nick Meyer starts criticizing Shatner in the scene where Kirk says he was caught with his britches down. I am surprised you have’nt seen this yourself. ”
If you can tell me the chapter and time I will look at it. If indeed is express’s how hard Shatner is to work with, then I will apologize for doubting the statement.
However if he doesn’t (ie he is only talking about a scene that was hard to get what he wanted) then I will expect the apology (ie. Meyer said no such thing that Shatner is difficult to work with).
But the claim was in post 236 “Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. ”
Which is a far different statement than had a difficult time to get what he wanted OUT of the actor.
The fomer suggests the person is hard to deal with. The latter is that the situation was hard.
267
That is most definitely not the “cry of a liar, caught.” It’s the rational response of a man who’s had enough of trying to reason with the inmates of an insane asylum. He should be given a medal for sticking it out that long.
Cheers.
A. The point is Shatner didnt do what Meyer wanted, Meyer had to in effect trick Shatner into doing what he wanted.
#277 “That is most definitely not the “cry of a liar, caught.” It’s the rational response of a man who’s had enough of trying to reason with the inmates of an insane asylum. He should be given a medal for sticking it out that long.”
He made a claim, then ran from it when asked for proof. People who do that are often lying.
And for you to suggest we’re insane for asking for proof, is, well, insane.
read my above post A
#278 “A. The point is Shatner didnt do what Meyer wanted, Meyer had to in effect trick Shatner into doing what he wanted. ”
No, that was not the point. The point was “Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. ”
If he had meant Shatner didnt do what he wanted he would have said so. He didn’t . What he said was “Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. ”
EPSCIALLY when you read Dennis’s tirade against Shatner.
Then when i politley asked for proof, he hid.
Read my post above trektacular ( I like your name by the way).
Cheers.
#273
You hit the nail on the head. I majored in journalism and spent 15 years in broadcasting – primarily news and I left the field when I saw the radical change taking place in the field. Reporters went from ‘reporting the news’ to ‘commenting on the news’.
I was taught that journalist were to report the facts and let the reader/listener draw their own conclusion. That’s not the case now. It’s not uncommon for journalist to basically write the story first – THEN go out and get the quotes that fit their story.
Also, it’s very sad to see people on this site making personal attacks on each other and Mr. Shatner – particularly when calling the man fat. He looks in great shape for a man his age – looks much younger than his actual age.
So many people comment about Mr. Shatner’s ego and and motivations as if they hung out with him.
Another annoyance is people asserting that Mr. Shatner is running around whining and complaining on a daily basis. It seems to be that he answered questions about his participation in the movie on perhaps two occasions. However, the media outlets have regurgitated the same statements over and over.
Please have respect for the man that given us so many fond memories.
Thanks.
A. – It starts at 55:56 on TWOK commentary. Well, actually it starts a few minutes before that, but the specific example starts there. Meyer says that Shatner kept “telegraphing” his lines for this scene, doing them more over-the-top than Meyer wanted, and with obvious sarcasm, which Meyer didn’t want. Go look it up.
Shatner did give his most human performances under Meyer.
#283
Ditto. As another journalism major, I can verify this is all true. The drive-by media is pretty much worthless.
Shat, we still hope you are in the film but if not, your “yes” to Generations may be the catalyst for this consequence.
Lostrod, it is more fun to pick on the successful and talented. That is the aim of those trashing and demonizing Shatner.
Facts would be nice but people such as that have agenda’s.
Your post was an excellent one.
276- You’re the one owed an apology, or at least an admission that they were incorrect. We all know what “being difficult” means in Hollywoodland. Being late. Not being prepared. Being a Prima Donna. And that is clealry what was infered by that broad stroke of absoluteness stating how Shatner was a “difficult actor to work with.”
The anti-Shats love to draw conclusions, deserved or not, that paint the Shat in a bad light. That’s nothing new of course, they’ve been doing it since the70’s. Problem is, they were, and still are, in the minority. While they moan and groan about his ego and his tantrums and his toupes, he continues to win emmys and stay extremely popular, cementing his place in entertainment history as an “icon”. The 18th greatest TV icon to be exact. lol
So yes, you’re quite right and most people know it…but don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology.
#284 “A. – It starts at 55:56 on TWOK commentary. Well, actually it starts a few minutes before that, but the specific example starts there. Meyer says that Shatner kept “telegraphing” his lines for this scene, doing them more over-the-top than Meyer wanted, and with obvious sarcasm, which Meyer didn’t want. Go look it up”
Pragmaticus, my point EXACTLY!! Thank you for proving it. He is talking about getting what he wanted out of the actor which is common (very). No where does he talk about personality issues which is what started this discussion (debate).
thank you again.
287 – I just gave you the facts. And seriously, nobody’s out to demonize Shatner. He has human flaws, like all of us.
A friend and co-worker is an entertainment writer for the paper we both work for. He knows my love for Trek and during a conversation about the upcoming movie, reminded me that he’s interviewed Mr. Shatner twice over the years. He found him to be an “ass” in both instances.
I suspect that same attitude was what prompted Nimoy’s comments.
IMO
“Which is a far different statement than had a difficult time to get what he wanted OUT of the actor. The fomer suggests the person is hard to deal with. The latter is that the situation was hard.”
The cry of the back-peddaller and goal-post shifter.
Go to 55:51 with the commentary on.
“Here is an EXAMPLE of how doing something again and again with Bill…”
Does this put this to rest for you?
Who cares if Shatner is an ass. It’s about the character portrayed by Shatner that we care about.
#289 — “No where does he talk about personality issues which is what started this discussion (debate)”
Actually, when #236 started the discussion, all he said was, “I think JJ and co. would have had a tough time dealing with Bill. Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. I think the production spared itself a lot of pain by not having him in it.” Maybe a bit harsh, but it doesn’t say anything about Bill’s personality…just that filming with him might give JJ et al “a tough time.”
I’d imagine it might get pretty tough if you have to film many scenes excessive number of times in order to get the performance you want. (FTW, 55:56 wasn’t the first place Meyers mentioned the multiple takes thing — I think he first mentions it during the scene when McCoy gives Kirk his birthday presents…he also talks about his frustration during the Kobiyashi Maru scene.)
*I meant FTR, not FTW…ie, for the record.
“287 – I just gave you the facts. And seriously, nobody’s out to demonize Shatner. He has human flaws, like all of us. ”
Huh, of course He was out to Demonise him (and a couple of others were, too).
So again, thanks for clarifying about the fact he isn’t a difficult actor to work with.
293. VOODOO – November 15, 2007
“Who cares if Shatner is an ass. It’s about the character portrayed by Shatner that we care about.”
Well apparently it matters to Mr. A. Read up a couple and follow along.
A–You really must stop. You are being obtuse.
#294 “Actually, when #236 started the discussion, all he said was, “I think JJ and co. would have had a tough time dealing with Bill. Listen to Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. I think the production spared itself a lot of pain by not having him in it.” Maybe a bit harsh, but it doesn’t say anything about Bill’s personality…just that filming with him might give JJ et al “a tough time”
Right, you are proving my point. He meant it as he was a difficult actor to be work with. as someone stated, difficult means unprofessional, lateness, etc. It was perfectly clear that was what he meant but happen to be incorrect.
I can see some back peddling here though once I asked for proof. LOL. “Oh golly, we didn’t mean he was “DIFFICULT”, difficult. We just meant he was difficult. LOL
I AM THX-1138 “A–You really must stop. You are being obtuse. ”
Asking for proof, then proving people wrong is obtuse? LOL Then obtuse I am.
But I’m not the one critisizing Shatner (or any actor). I simply asked for proof, then proved people wrong.
Xai said “Well apparently it matters to Mr. A. Read up a couple and follow along. ”
Hey, if someone makes a claim, I want proof. That is the cornerstone of any claimant. You can’t expect people to be believed without proof.
He said “Nick Meyer talk about him sometimes, he was a difficult actor to work with. I think the production spared itself a lot of pain by not having him in it. ”
Which turned out to be false. Meyer never said Shatner was a a difficult actor to work with.
I find it laughable that fans took the words Nimoy used at ComicCon so literally concerning the statement, “…the movie would be better with Shatner in it.”
At the same function, he called Abrams a great director. The guys has directed one film and he’s a great director?
Come on, use your brains. He was obviously being supportive of his friend Shatner with the first statement and again supportive of the ST:Xl production itself with the comment about Abrams.
ComicCon is a marketing event for the various production companies and studios to show their wares. To believe and take anything literally from this event is like believing every word of a commercial advertisement.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
279
For the record here is what an “Example” is, according to the dictionary:
“a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.”
Implying more than one instance of the multiple take method being employed. I think you just won’t admit that you’re wrong on that one point, no matter what anyone brings to you. If you listen to the commentary yourself it’s clear Meyer is talking about their work on the entire film.
For the record, I have no dog in the demonizing Shatner race either. I’m not pointing this out to say that he sucks. Another director could have gotten the same thing using fewer takes, that’s entirely possible. It’s two different people’s styles coming together to make something neither could have gotten alone. But I’m pretty sure the multiple take thing was employed throughout the filming of the movie. Kubrick used to do the same thing, which is why I get a kick out of the story myself.
A difficult actor is also someone who requires take after take after take after take after take to get the scene right. Good actors actually listen to and at least attempt to follow the direction they’re given.
Just my 2 quatloos, Federation credits, navy beans, whatev’.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Shatner must / must not be in this…
Shatner is a good/bad actor…
Paramount hates/the public loves Shatner…
JJ talked/ never talked to Shatner..
The SAME conversations/debates in dam near every thread and nobody says anything new.
Welcome to the new site TrekEnquirer.com
“But I’m not the one critisizing Shatner (or any actor). I simply asked for proof, then proved people wrong.”
They have given you the location on the DVD that you requested. Nick Meyer stated that he had to basically trick Shatner into doing the take the way the director (Meyer) wanted it. Not following direction can be easily interpreted as “difficult.”
And you should try to refrain from calling people liars on this site. It does nothing to strengthen your position and comes off a bit petulent.
#291 “He found him to be an “ass” in both instances.”
You are reinforcing my point. Ass does not equate difficult. Because Shatner has a big ego, and not the most personable person to fans and journalists, does make him difficult. Meyer didn’t say he was an ASS OR that he was a difficult actor to work with. But that was the claim, which turned out to be false. That’s all. You may not LIKE the fact it turned out that way but I can’t help that.
#306″They have given you the location on the DVD that you requested. Nick Meyer stated that he had to basically trick Shatner into doing the take the way the director (Meyer) wanted it. Not following direction can be easily interpreted as “difficult.”
Not a prayer of that. Have you worked on a set? Have you acted or directed? Produced? Difficult means the person is hard to deal with, unprofessional, etc. Meyer said not such thing or even hinted at it.
“And you should try to refrain from calling people liars on this site. It does nothing to strengthen your position and comes off a bit petulent. ”
Actually it does as people who are telling the truth go out to prove it. As of now, no one has shown that Meyer even remotley said Shatner is a diffuclt person to work with regardless of definition.
Shatner is on Boston Legal (still, right?). If Shatner was so “difficult” how on earth did he get THAT job? Why would they hire him if Shatner is so “difficult” whether that be ANY definition of the word? He wasn’t popular outside of Trek.
The only plausible answer is that it is not true. He is not difficult to work with no matter the definition.
The only people that seem to make this claim or those that do not know him.
Even his Trek colleague who appear to despise him, always said he was very very professional.
307
You obtuse piece of flotsam.
301. A. – November 15, 2007
Xai said “Well apparently it matters to Mr. A. Read up a couple and follow along. ”
Although I mentioned you in a response to VOODOO who commented on my post, I wasn’t “speaking” to you. I don’t know what exact words Meyer used on that interview and really don’t care.
My comments are related on the subject, but don’t address the Meyer thoughts.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this, IMO.
#244-”This is very misleading, suggesting Paramount doesn’t want him. LOL. Ridiculous.”
BTW, I didn’t want this to go undefended. Like I wrote in post #232, Paramount is spending $100 + million dollars on a movie. If they thought it was too risky to exclude William Shatner don’t you think they would have insisted on his appearance? I never said that they didn’t want him, I said that they felt confident in the movie’s success regardless of whether Shatner appears as Kirk. They, more than likely as intelligent business people, weighed the risks both pro and con and made their decision from there.
Anonymous Gasbag said You obtuse piece of flotsam.
Typical of a child. How old are you?
307. A. – November 15, 2007
#291 “He found him to be an “ass” in both instances.”
“You are reinforcing my point. Ass does not equate difficult. ”
Huh? SINCE WHEN?
That was the very thing my friend was telling me.
Do you refer to friendly and accomodating people as “asses”?
A., you are being disingenuous, which is beneath you. You asked for proof, you got it. Folks even did the research for you. Meyer didn’t use the word “difficult,” but it sure was implied, very clearly.
Your logic is specious at best.
And as I have no dog in this fight other than my admiration for Mr. Nimoy, I’m signing off for the night.
Sweet dreams, all!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
“#312 BTW, I didn’t want this to go undefended. Like I wrote in post #232, Paramount is spending $100 + million dollars on a movie. If they thought it was too risky to exclude William Shatner don’t you think they would have insisted on his appearance? I never said that they didn’t want him, I said that they felt confident in the movie’s success regardless of whether Shatner appears as Kirk. They, more than likely as intelligent business people, weighed the risks both pro and con and made their decision from there. ”
There is very little risk here, regardless of whether he is in it, or Not. The chances of this film losing money are exceltionaly slim (specially considering later DVD sales, etc.)
However, Shatner is correct when he says he would draw more people. There is no doubt. No one (with the exception of someone thinking they are proving some bizarre point) would NOT see this film if Shatner was in it.
THAT was Shatners point, when asked his opinion. THEN people decided that was a “rant” when there was no such rant-ever.
#313 “That was the very thing my friend was telling me.
Do you refer to friendly and accomodating people as “asses”? ”
No. Only rude or arogant people. I’ve worked with a few but they are not difficult. They get the job done. You again are confusing “friendly and accomodating” with difficult. But thank you for making the point, that is indeed what the original poster, meant.
“Actually it does as people who are telling the truth go out to prove it. As of now, no one has shown that Meyer even remotley said Shatner is a diffuclt person to work with regardless of definition”
That very statement sounds obtuse. Let’s just disregard definitions. Brilliant.
Haven’t worked on a movie set, but yes I have acted in community theater and taken direction. I also earn my living playing and recording music, where I have to take direction from the session producer. I think that I can feel confident in my definition of “being difficult” in a professional performance situation.
A.
it’s time to slow down, read what you are commenting on and then proof what you type. #307 made no sense at all.
Love him or hate him Shatner is the flashpoint in the S.T. universe right now.
There have been thousands of posts about him over the last several months on this stie alone.
He has been by far the biggest story on all S.T. sites and as of this moment he is not even in the film.
Imagine what it will be like when it is announced that he is in the film?
314 A., you are being disingenuous, which is beneath you. You asked for proof, you got it. Folks even did the research for you. Meyer didn’t use the word “difficult,” but it sure was implied, very clearly.
No I am not being disingenuous. If Shatner is so difficult why would Meyer work with him more than once?
No proof was given that Shatner was difficult. All that was given was that acting and directing can be tricky and there can be difficulties. This is normal. Watch any commentary of any film and they will come up with numerous examples. And that is exactly what Meyer was referring to.
I wish there was a way for dumb people like myself to edit their posts.
Actors have been fired for being “difficult”. Actors have quit because the “director was difficult”.
Can someone people tell of a case were Shatner was fired? Or forced out since he is apparently “difficult”.
#321 “I wish there was a way for dumb people like myself to edit their posts”
I think we’re all victims here of our quick typing (lack of) skills.
I thought that Nimoy and Shatner were best friends. Not in a silly showbiz way, but in a real honest buddy way.
Shatner has always been entertaining when involved with Star Trek, sure his books can be bizarre, but at least he remains wrapped up in the franchise.
Now, while I like Nimoy, I always feel that he is a bit of a snob. I mean that in a nice way. Throughout his career he has always stived to take on roles that are interesting and worthy. Shatner is the opposite, that guy just seems to want to have FUN in his role. Sure he’s done a lot of crap, but people know him now as a multifaceted individual. Nimoy is sadly still known as Spock simply because few acknowledge his work behind the camera and his wonderful career as a photographer.
It’s a bit hard to believe that as the movie is actually filming at this very moment, we are having to debate over a few quotes from an interview.
I’ve never felt so much on the outside when following Trek as I have on this movie. For godsake JJ, do a press conference and introduce the world and the fans to your vision. This is not Cloverfield or whatever that film is going to be called, this is Star Trek and we’re getting crazed through lack of insight.
A. – What if the word “difficult” was swapped for a synonym, “frustrating”? I’m sure Nick Meyer got frustrated with Shatner while shooting take after take of a scene because Shatner kept over-acting. You’re focusing on one particular meaning for the word “difficult” when there are multiple meanings to the word.
VOODOO only us Trek fans give a crap about Shatner good or bad, it won’t effect box office, since were all going to see this anyway.
This thread is full of genuinely interesting points, opinions and ideas.
Plot considerations and preferences aside, it is *Shatner* who has made it difficult for both executives and fans to enjoy and support the James T. Kirk character (in any form) since Star Trek VII. I was hinting at this in #28 because I presume most fans understand that Shatner’s affection for Trek and Kirk is contingent on price. There is no real “love” or dedication brought to bear. Unlike some pro athletes who have deferred salary for the sake of the team (see NHL and NBA), Shatner can never have enough compensation, and so he prices himself too high–perhaps intentionally.
Shatner is one hell of a hypocrite. He has publicly stated (as far back as ST4 SE) that he wants to be involved in Trek and that he would jump at the chance to appear again on the big screen–if only someone would ask. Yet, he demands absurd compensations. Shatner is not thrilled about Star Trek; he is thrilled about working and huge paychecks.
There was a genuine interest to bring Shatner into one of the later Enterprise episodes. Shatner was “thrilled” about the idea. That idea never materialized because Shatner simply wanted more than production could pay him.
I suspect similar events are happening (or have already happened) in this case.
Abrams: We’re all so excited, Bill. We’ve managed to create this clever and compelling plot element for your character.
Shatner: This is brilliant writing. I love it!
Abrams: Kirk and Spock together again on the big screen. If that’s not box office fodder, what is?
Shatner: I am definitely on board for this. Let’s say, $5 million plus 3% of the box office and 1.5% of the DVD and HD-DVD sales.
Abrams: Bill, Leonard signed for only 1.5 million, and he’s got more lines and scenes.
Shatner: What’s your point?
316. A. – November 15, 2007
#313 “That was the very thing my friend was telling me.
Do you refer to friendly and accomodating people as “asses”? ”
“No. Only rude or arogant people. ”
And what terms could possibly be used by a writer in refering to a person who was like that? Let me fill you in. The synonyms you are looking for are the diplomatic “difficult” and the more to the point “ass”.
You need to read whole comments and respond, not find the single quote you can twist… as you accuse others of doing.
This thread has degraded to something less than Anthony wanted. If you want to raise it to something noteworthy again, wonderful. If you wish to continue to prove your point is the only right and true path, find a mirror and argue both sides
“325. Pragmaticus – November 15, 2007
A. – What if the word “difficult” was swapped for a synonym, “frustrating”? I’m sure Nick Meyer got frustrated with Shatner while shooting take after take of a scene because Shatner kept over-acting. You’re focusing on one particular meaning for the word “difficult” when there are multiple meanings to the word. ”
No, it would make no difference as I know Meyer meant those scenes are difficult or frustrating. That is normal in making any film and people talk about those aspects often. However “someone” said that “Shatner” was a difficult actor to work with which is a different thing all together. When you listen to Meyer, he did not say that-at all.
I bet we’ll see Federation President Jonathon Archer during this movie.
There’s always been a “hand-over” cameo…
Either that or raggeredly aged T’Pol presiding over Spock’s parents wedding or something stupid like that.
#328 “And what terms could possibly be used by a writer in refering to a person who was like that? Let me fill you in. The synonyms you are looking for are the diplomatic “difficult” and the more to the point “ass”.
You need to read whole comments and respond, not find the single quote you can twist… as you accuse others of doing.”
I have read and responded. The “dislike” for Shatner was smelled a mile a way and I called him on it (although I’m sure dislike will be denied).
I have twsied nothing Xai. You know this but in a desperate attempt to not let this go, you say I am twisting things. I am not. He said that Meyer said Shatner was difficult, and of course HE DID NOT!!!!
So I suggest sticking to the issue, ol boy.
312
Children typically make the most insightful observations, I have found.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a Being Hit On The Head Lesson I’ve got to attend.
Why is it so important for some of you to make others believe that Shatner is “difficult” by any definition?
A. Ol’ Boy…
I wasn’t talking on Meyer’s comments and I told you that several posts ago. I was speaking on a quote made by a friend about interviews he did with Shatner. Need a refresher?…go back and read.
Perhaps you are not twisting things on purpose, but again, TRY to read and comprehend before committing electrons to virtual paper.
#299 — “He meant it as he was a difficult actor to be work with. as someone stated, difficult means unprofessional, lateness, etc. It was perfectly clear that was what he meant but happen to be incorrect.”
Perhaps it was miscommunication between you and the original poster. Such things happen every day, and certainly doesn’t mean that either party is a “liar.” It’s a shame that what was probably genuine miscommunication has degraded into name calling and ad hominems.
#303 — “But I’m pretty sure the multiple take thing was employed throughout the filming of the movie.”
While I don’t know whethe it was used throughout (though that was the impression I got as well), based on the commentary there are at least two instances: the scene with McCoy giving the Kirk his birthday gifts and the scene when they hack into the Reliant’s systems.
#320 — “No I am not being disingenuous. If Shatner is so difficult why would Meyer work with him more than once?”
Perhaps because he saw Trek as a golden opportunity for him as a director, and realized that making movies with the original TOS cast would necessarily involve Shatner, and decided that it was worth it to put up with the difficulties. Difficult does not equal impossible.
A. go find the mirror I mentioned, or did you miss that too?
#333 — “Why is it so important for some of you to make others believe that Shatner is “difficult” by any definition?”
I think it is more the vitriolic accusations that those who suggest such a thing are “liars” that makes it important to people. If we could all be more civil, this would probably have ended a while ago.
(Then again, perhaps this post is ironic/hypocritical in that it adds to the long list of posts on this subject…ah well.)
To be honest, it would be rather fitting if each member of the TOS cast or a member of their family had a cameo appearance in the movie. Just think back to TMP, where they had fans and old cast members appear in the briefing scene.
It would only be for the fans to know, but it would be nice to see.
“261. trektacular – November 15, 2007
Generations is oddly the most entertaining Trek movie for me even with all the problems everyone sites on this board. ”
Yeah, I liked it too. I loved the Enterprise B especially. If only they hadn’t killed off Kirk…
I’ve always found it odd that Spock didn’t travel in time to prevent Kirk’s death on Veridian III. My understanding of the character of Spock is that he most definately save Kirk somehow.
Xai said
“I wasn’t talking on Meyer’s comments and I told you that several posts ago. ”
Actually no, you said that to someone else. Try nad keep up with yuor own posts?
And besides, that WAS the issue. If you want to create a new issue, go ahead.
“I was speaking on a quote made by a friend about interviews he did with Shatner. Need a refresher?…go back and read.”
Like I said, try and keep up, will ya? Go back and read the original claim.
“Perhaps you are not twisting things on purpose, but again, TRY to read and comprehend before committing electrons to virtual paper. ”
Friend, you saying I twisted anything, does not make it so. Perhaps you have severe dyslexia and you see things twisted. I’l give you the benefit of the doubt, on that one.
“I think it is more the vitriolic accusations that those who suggest such a thing are “liars” that makes it important to people. If we could all be more civil, this would probably have ended a while ago.”
Likely not (ended). You see, the person I called that, isn’t even arguing the issue. It is others who also seem to dislike Shatner.
Again you could smell the “anti shatner” attitude a mile away which is why he claimed Meyer said Shatner was “difficult.” Again Meyer did not say that. He talked about difficulties during filming which is normal. Listen to any film maker and they will speak of this often. Every film has its challenges and difficulties. That does not equate the actor or director being difficult.
Hey, if you hate shatner, I don’t care. We all have opinions. But I do care if you offer false evidence which is how this thread took off.
#340.
It would probably make more sense for Spock to have made the trip back in time prior to the events of Picards encounter with The Nexus. Remember, from Spock’s viewpoint, Kirk died 78 years when the Enterprise D shows up. Surely Spock would have made the attempt sometime in the intervening years?
Time travel is not entirely an exact science in Star Trek. If it were, then we’d have lost a lot of really great stories.
I’d rather have either several of the original cast, or none. It seems “logical” to either have both Nimoy and Shatner or neither. Certainly no cameos, IMO.
A difficult actor is also someone who requires take after take after take after take after take to get the scene right. Good actors actually listen to and at least attempt to follow the direction they’re given.
The Vulcanista, you are assuming Shatner didn’t listen and attempt. Clearly is well sought after actor. You don’t get to where he is by being “difficult.”
Indeed it is unreasonable to assume he didn’t listen or attempt. You are also assuming Meyer is not a “difficult” director, no matter how you define it. Kubrick as a notoriously “difficult” (your definition, not mine) director with endless takes.
341. A. – November 15, 2007
You do a fine job arguing by yourself.
I made a statement, even when it was not directed at you, you responded. And then tried to blend my statement into this rant you have.
You haven’t taken the time to listen to the WoK commentary, have you A?
And also, just because the person you called a liar isn’t here to argue with you anymore does not make you right for calling them that.
You are a flamer. You are here, seemingly, to stir up an argument. You do not back up any of your arguments with facts and elect to paraphrase people’s comments into small quotes that you can debate without taking into account the body of what they are trying to say. As was mentioned before, your logic is specious at best and your stubbornness to reply in a cogent manner marks you as (yes, I’ll say it again) obtuse. A lot of intelligent people on this site have been patient with you and have tried to get you to see things from a broader perspective. You have responded with name calling and circular arguments.
Some people didn’t seem to notice that in post #6 I was _agreeing_ with Nimoy’s sentiment, just poking fun at his particular choice of handwaving explanation.
I think Kirk’s exclusion needs no explanation at all beyond “It would have been very difficult.” I’d like to see them squeeze the big guy in there too, but I see a hundred reasons why he isn’t there and they’re all real-world reasons, none of them require examining the canon.
If a diplomatic handwave must be offered, there are lots of real-world directions in which to wave the hand. For example, the “ensemble factor:” as it is, they have a big Spock storyline wrapped around a Kirk origin that also serves (presumably) as an origin for the crew as a whole … Which means giving the Shat more than a cameo would ultimately rob screen time from some of these other characters, in a movie that’s already going to be crowded.
But again, to be clear: I AGREE with Nimoy; I just think his explanation deserved the poke. And I still do.
I think after all this I would be rather turned off to the movie if Shatner was in it.
Did you understand that….probably not with the knows and the hes
thats enough