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.
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.