Shatner In The Movie Saga Still Not Over | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner In The Movie Saga Still Not Over December 19, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Shatner,ST09 Cast , trackback

Over the last few months there have been a lot of stories regarding whether William Shatner will or will not be in the new Star Trek movie. Periodically a report crops up that claims to have the definitive answer one way or another. The latest is a new report at Moviehole claiming ‘final confirmation’ from co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci that Shatner will not be in the film. However, it appears they have jumped the gun.

Last week at the Paramount WGA Trek event Mr. Orci told TrekMovie.com that nothing has changed on the Shatner front and a decision either way was still possible. The same notion that it was still possible was in his Sci-Fi Magazine interview. In that interview Orci noted that a role for Shatner was still possible but difficult due to Kirk’s death at the end of Generations. Today Orci tells TrekMovie.com that he didn’t tell Moviehole anything different and that there is no change.

Of course Shatner is not helping himself with all his talk about not being in the film being ‘foolish’ or ‘a bad business decision.’ In fact his complaints landed him on Cinimatical’s “Lame in 2007″ List. But it appears he may not have learned to keep quiet. Just today KGMB’s Hollywood reporter claims that Shatner said of the new Star Trek movie: “I hope that movie bombs.”

Over? Did you say over?
For those who were disheartened to hear that it ‘was over’…perhaps this motivational speech will raise your spirits. [warning: colorful metaphors]

Comments

1. Sam Belil - December 19, 2007

I’m totally convinced that this whole Shatner “is in it/isn’t in it” — is just one huge gimmick. After all that is said and done, my gut tells me that he’s is IN IT!!!!!

2. S. John Ross - December 19, 2007

I’d personally love to see him in it, but not as Kirk (of any age or vintage). But I’ll see the film either way :)

3. S. John Ross - December 19, 2007

The eerie thing about that clip is that, two-thirds of the way through, the music starts sounding very Star Trek …

4. Charles Trotter - December 19, 2007

As of this moment, Moviehole is on double secret probation!

5. Crusty McCoy - December 19, 2007

By God, Jim, this has gone on long enough!!!

Get back your command! Get it back before you really do become just another long thread!

6. Iowagirl - December 19, 2007

Anthony, thanks for your always reliable and up-to-date coverage!

#1
I do hope your gut is right!

7. Josh Howard - December 19, 2007

Think about it – if he wasn’t going to be in it, we would have gotten the final word long ago. They only risk massive backlash by keeping up this “is he or isn’t he” guessing game only to come out in the end said “no.” In my opinion, they’re trying their best to preserve the surprise of the movie without flat out lying to us.

8. Penhall - December 19, 2007

How about they stop jerking us around and give us a straight answer?

9. John from Cincinnati - December 19, 2007

To me, it’s not Star Trek unless William Shatner is playing Capt. James T. Kirk. It was a mistake to kill him off, probably why Rick Berman is no longer associated with the franchise.

10. star trackie - December 19, 2007

Plenty of time to make it work. But I’ll be first in line, regardless.

Hope they can work it out, what an awesome gift to fandom…and me… that would be…especially if it were miraculously managed to be kept secret. The media and fandom would eat it up…except the Shat-bashers of course, many whom are grumbling this very minute at the sheer thought and mention of it in this article! lol

Fingers remain crossed!

11. McCoy - December 19, 2007

If Shatner loses any weight over the next 6 months we will have the answer.

12. Driver - December 19, 2007

If he’s in it, fine, if he’s not in it, fine. Either way, I’ll see the film.

13. Johnny K. - December 19, 2007

This has got to be one of the lamest attempts to keep a secret in the history of Hollywood moviemaking.

The fact that Shatner is running around crying like a baby about not being in the movie is proof something is up.

Let’s think about this for a second. What is the plot of the new movie? Clearly, it’s a flashback movie. Old Spock is thinking of the past, back when he was just graduating from Starfleet Academy.

Don’t expect Leonard Nimoy to sit in a rocking chair and tell the grand story of the day he met James T. Kirk to his grandchildren or some stupid variation.

This is going to be just like The Search for Spock, but instead it’s going to be The Search for Kirk.

Old Spock is on a mission to rescue James Kirk from the Nexus. This story will be interlaced with flashbacks of young Kirk and Spock beginning their lives in the Final Frontier.

At the end of the movie, old Spock will save Kirk and Shatner will surprise us all with a cameo.

Why else would Shatner be on the Internet every five minutes complaining about not being in the movie? Because he IS in the movie and wants us all to think that he won’t be making an appearance.

Mr. Orci’s belief that it would be “difficult” to include Shatner in the script because Kirk died at the end of Generations is silly. Spock died at the end of ST II — and we all know what happened then: The character was included in the script of ST III. Amazing! How’d they do that?

Anyone else agree with my theory?

14. Pumpkin - December 19, 2007

With CGI he doesn’t need to lose weight! :P

Won’t even need a girdle! =D

15. Clinton - December 19, 2007

I think we can all agree that there is a strong possibility that Shatner will or will not be in the movie. That’s my final word on the subject. Now, my advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

16. Ivory - December 19, 2007

Mr Orci,

Please find a way to get William Shatner in the film as Kirk. I know he has made an ass of himself trying to get in the film, but it would mean a lot to many many people to see Kirk ride off into the sunset rather than fall off a cliff to a bloody + meaningless death.

Mr Orci, please save Captain Kirk.

17. Pragmaticus - December 19, 2007

Here we go again…

18. Xai - December 19, 2007

8. Penhall – December 19, 2007
“How about they stop jerking us around and give us a straight answer? ”

They may not HAVE a final answer to give you and they really don’t have to tell us anything. We are not owed, we don’t own this. Sorry.

19. Xai - December 19, 2007

6. Iowagirl – December 19, 2007

Hi, weren’t you just implying that this doesn’t get enough discussion or coverage over in the Pine thread?

Here ya go…

20. Ivory - December 19, 2007

Nimoy and Shatner make this film complete. Nimoy w/out Shatner makes it feel half baked.

End the Shatner/Nimoy era with these two legends riding off into the sunset and then we can start the new era with the new actors.

21. McCoy - December 19, 2007

#13

Agree. It makes perfect sense.

The needs of the one out way the needs of the many.

Also, why December 25th? What’s the gift? Shatner of course. You have to know you want the gift before you get it, right? So this is all about making us want the gift.

Also, they could have just committed to make a Star Trek reboot without any old characters…and kept Nimoy a secret too. Having Nimoy there is the only thing that makes us ask “why not Shatner?”. Nimoy is the bait. :o)

22. Ralph Dasani - December 19, 2007

Exciting news. We may get the Shat back after all.

I have to be honest. As much as I love Star Trek I don’t think I would go see this film if Shatner isn’t in it as Kirk.

23. steve adams - December 19, 2007

#13 JohnnyK, well put however I would see your version of the new trek film and then I would hate it because of its lack of creativtiy and also its obsession with kirk and spock.
Star Trek is a team effort, why would a kick start focus on 2 members of that team?
^
If this film is a rescue mission to save kirk they might as well put it out on direct to dvd because it will do better along side “Starship
Troopers” then in the theatres…
^
This film IMO, will focus on the academy, pike and spock. The madien voyage of Enterprise (Aprils command will be explained away) and the upcoming crew Kirk, uhura, etc.
^
IMO, They will be in some grand epic storyline in witch involves time-traveling to save more than just one man……..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Shatner un-dead hear me now….
This movie is about Star Trek not Kirk….
^
It better be..!

24. Jason L - December 19, 2007

What is the deal with this issue? Why can’t they just come out and say he’s not in it? I mean seriously, what are the odds at this point with the script being written and actually being FILMED, and the writer’s strike preventing it from being re-written for the forseeable future, that they will be able to fit Shatner into the story in any meaningful way? I’m not saying it’s a ruse or a conspiracy of any kind, I just don’t get what anyone has to gain at this point by leaving the door open if they really haven’t already thought of a way to include him. Sure, J.J., Shatner or both may just be milking the whole thing for publicity, but it seems to me that it stopped being GOOD publicity for either of them quite a while ago.

Can’t we just resolve this and move on, please?

25. dalek - December 19, 2007

Moviehole is very unreliable. I’ve lost count over the months and years they’ve said:

No Arnie for T4

Arnie for cameo for T4

Arnold will not appear in T4

Producers want Arnie for T4

Arnie will only be in a Cameo

No cameo for Arnie

Get the idea lol

26. Cheve - December 19, 2007

#13

While I agree that is the missing episode many fants want, it would be the lamest movie ever.

I’m sorry to disapoint you, but I’m totally sure that the Nexus or bringing old Kirk back to life won’t have any presence at all on the movie.

They are making a movie for newcomers and both those things are unrecognizable to newcomers.

27. Chi Chi Malook - December 19, 2007

Everyone I know wants to see Mr. Shatner as Kirk in this film. Why would they ever invite Mr Nimoy back and not Mr. Shatner?

Please spare me that nonsense about Kirk being dead. Wasn’t Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Checkov etc.. all “dead” at one point or another?

If they really want Shatner in the film (most fans do indeed want him back) they will find a way. I really think this is just a marketing ploy at this point. It keeps people talking Kirk and Star Trek.

Without Shatner I don’t think many people outside of the hardcore fans will really care about this film.

My prediction = Shatner is there in the end.

28. Sam Belil - December 19, 2007

I think we can all agree if that Shatner was DEFINITELY NOT IN THE FILM, we would all have known that by now and it would have sprayed all over the mainstream media. The question is — why is it necessary to play this cat and mouse game? To generate more buzz? Not necessary. I think we can all agree we ALL SEE IT, whether he is in or not. I want answers…

29. Paul B. - December 19, 2007

#13 – Johnny K., your theory doesn’t make a lick of sense. True, they killed Spock and then wrote him into STIII, but they had to make up new Vulcan mysticism and tweak the Genesis plot to explain how Spock came back. Bringing Spock back wasn’t a subplot: it was the entire point of the film.

Bringing Kirk back would as a main plot would be stupid, pointless, and a disaster at the box office. Imagine the synopsis of your movie: “An old Vulcan has flashbacks of his youth while he tries to bring back a dead friend.” Ooooohhhh!!! Boy, that’s the stuff of big-screen adventure! Sounds like a real winner! Sure to resurrect the franchise…yep…

If this new movie was about resurrecting Kirk, it would appeal to NOBODY but the fanboys and fangirls who drool over Shatner. No general audience is going to show up to watch 2 hours that result in Shatner…period. If you think so, then you need to stop smoking whatever you’re smoking.

Another thing: why the hell would Spock want to bring Kirk back from the dead? Death is death; the only reason Spock came back was because of the whole “katra” idea. Kirk had no idea that Spock COULD be brought back until McCoy started acting nuts and Sarek melded minds with Kirk. If McCoy hadn’t been going nuts, Kirk would have had no reason to go back to Genesis at all.

Shatner’s complaints about not being in the film don’t prove anything. If he really did have a role, his whining would just draw attention to it. And Shatner’s hardly been “on the Internet every five minutes complaining” about it. He’s made a few statements and that’s it.

Why are you people so obsessed about Shatner? He willingly killed off Kirk in Generations; he WILLINGLY CHOSE to stop playing Kirk at that point. Nimoy killed Spock, but brought him back and then even played him in TNG to show that Spock was still around. But Shatner bowed out.

I, for one, don’t want to see any lame “search for Kirk” crap at all. It’s pointless, it’s illogical, and it would be a bad movie.

30. Captain Hackett - December 19, 2007

The stubborn question about whether or not Shatner is in the movie, has tired and annoyed me a lot. In short, I just want to watch the movie. That is it.

31. sirh - December 19, 2007

#24… agreed! If elder Kirk was not in the working script at the time of the WGA strike, and they don’t resolve the strike soon, he cannot be written in.

But, there’s always the possibility of reshoots later on in post-production (late 2008). I’m sure hope the strike will be over by then!

Though, Shatner stated he’s better than just a “cameo”. Maybe he can get over that thinking!

#13. I like your plot ideas.

32. star trackie - December 19, 2007

24-“What is the deal with this issue? Why can’t they just come out and say he’s not in it? ”

C’mon. I mean really. What could they possibly gain by spilling the beans this soon in the game? A years worth of fans bitching because he isn’t in it? A years worth of bitching because he IS in it? Nothing is to be gained by revealing ANY surprises of the film a year before it even opens. They have no valid reason to reveal anything THIS soon. Anything leaked or released in an official capacity will be picked apart.

The will sit on the important stuff for months to come. They have nothing to gain by tipping their hand so soon.

33. Paul B. - December 19, 2007

#20. Ivory – “End the Shatner/Nimoy era with these two legends riding off into the sunset and then we can start the new era with the new actors.”

Um…they already did that. Trek VI actually ended with the entire ship flying off into the sunset (well, into the sun…sorta…ahem…). What’s the point of doing that again?

#27 – “Without Shatner I don’t think many people outside of the hardcore fans will really care about this film.”

What are you drinking? You think the general public cares about Shatner being in the film? ONLY diehard fans give a crap about who is in the movie: the general public views Trek as silly sci-fi for geeks and Shatner as a joke. He’s gained acclaim as Denny Crane, but the general public has NEVER been concerned about Shatner playing Kirk. ONLY fans care.

And the rest of you: the filmmakers have already said “Shatner is NOT in the film.” They’ve answered the question. He’s not in it. IF they could find a way to add him in, and IF the writer’s strike ended in time, and IF Shatner still wanted to, then yes, they’ve said they’d love to have him in it.

But they have given the “definitive answer” many times. Shatner is not in the film, not gonna be, not happening, uh-uh, no way. They wish it would work, but it won’t, so he won’t be in it.

How much more definitive can the filmmakers be? Do you want them to go and shoot Shatner so they can say, “See? He’s dead, so he’s REALLY not going to be in the movie”?

34. Steve Hill - December 19, 2007

I think he is in it . Spock saves the past of young Kirk and that changes time and saves Kirk from death in “Generations”.

35. Bill Hunt - December 19, 2007

I wonder if this “will he or won’t he” has something to do with the writer’s strike. In other words, it’s still possible that they might be able to find a way to give him a small wrap-around part with Leonard, but they can’t technically write it until this strike ends. So nothing of the short could likely happen until reshoots next year at the earliest.

36. MiniKirk - December 19, 2007

Look at Shatner kiddies. He’s lost a bit of weight, and his hair is longer now, like Kirk-length. Thats all I have to say about that. Otherwise: I love John Belushi. Such a phenomanal comedian, and actor. Yay Animal House (I would assume thats Animal House, after all, I can’t think of any other movies like that, that featured a young, not-dead-as-Kirk John Belushi)

37. ZoomZoom - December 19, 2007

I’m assuming he’s in until I hear a 100% certain that he isn’t.
Lets face it, they would be nutso not to include him.
If doing a cameo is below Bill then he needs to get over it. It would/
could be the one of the greatest, most moving cameos of all time if done right.

38. Mütze - December 19, 2007

This is getting really tiresome. It’s almost spoiling the anticipation to constantly bang on the Shatner issue.

39. Jupiter1701 - December 19, 2007

This just in — I will also NOT be in the movie. Absolutely, positively. Unless they work out a way to get me in there. In which case I am DEFINITELY in the move. But until I am in the movie, I’m not in the movie. When I’m in the movie, it will be DEFINITE. But if I’m not in the movie, it will also be DEFINITE.

So I’m glad to clear that up for you.

LOL

40. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - December 19, 2007

Thanks Anthony,

This article is why this site is the best trek site out there. TrekWeb just took Moviehole at their word and declared in their headline “Final Confirmation that William Shatner Won’t be Appearing in the New Star Trek Movie.” But TrekMovie actually bother to check with the writer and get the truth. And you get some Belushi thrown in to lighten the mood.

I really don’t konw what I would do with this site…thank god CBS cant lay off Anthony and his gang like they did with the staff of startrek.com.

Oh and the voices in my head are telling me that Shatner will be in the movie…but he will be playing an orion slave girl.

41. Diabolik - December 19, 2007

James T Kirk will be in the film. Whether Shatner will be is another question still up in the air.

42. Mütze - December 19, 2007

Who the hell keeps deleting my comments? If you don’t want me here, tell me so, and I’ll leave.

43. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

Oh, goody — this again. It’s like Kabuki theater. So ritualized! Look, so we don’t have to go through this one more time, I’ll lay it out for everybody.

Shatner lovers: Hurray! Psych! He’s in the movie!

Shatner haters: Who gives a crap! He’s dead and egotistical! And he has disturbing hair!

Shatner lovers: Shatner-haters be danged!

Shatner haters: Shatner-lovers have no life!

Shatner lovers: Long live Shatner! Long live Shatner!

Shatner haters: Death to Shatner lovers! Death to Shatner lovers!

Shatner lovers: If he’s not in the movie, I WON’T GO SEE IT! SO THERE! HAH! THAT’LL LEARN YA!

Shatner haters: You are all pathetic Shatnerholics! Get out of your parents’ basements!

Shatner lovers: Meanies! Meanies! I’m telling mommy!

Shatner haters: (sticking out tongues): PPPLLLLLLLLL!!!!

44. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

I think that chain of stores in the malls called Hot Topic should change its name to “Shatner”. Shatner is BY FAR the hottest topic in Trek fandom, if this place is any indication. He’s so hot, the Enterprise should be slingshotting around him! Wake up and smell the tranya, Trek XI producers!

45. Harry Ballz - December 19, 2007

I think the Kennedy assassination had less scrutiny and analysis on it than whether or not Shatner’s in the new movie!!! :)

46. Pragmaticus - December 19, 2007

I think we just need to pay close attention to what the Shat’s up to day by day. If we don’t hear anything from him for a while, he might be on the set.

47. Pragmaticus - December 19, 2007

You know, I think we all ought to enjoy all the speculation surrounding this film, as I don’t think we’ll ever see the like of it again.

48. Diabolik - December 19, 2007

#42.. I am. Just randomly exercising my god-like powers to keep them sharp.

49. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

#47. Pragmaticus, that is a highly pragmatic view of things. Good one.

50. pizza - December 19, 2007

I expect that exactly one year from now, I’ll be reading the same crap from most of you. It will be December 19 2008 and both camps on either side of the Shatner fence will still be in a pissing contest.

If the writer’s strike lasts until the summer Shatner become moot.

Must be a slow day.

372 dtST

51. CmdrR - December 19, 2007

I won’t believe Shatner said “I hope it bombs” until I hear/see him say it ten times.

That’s either bad reporting or sour grapes, but I think it’s the former.

52. SirMartman - December 19, 2007

I said it once,,and I”ll say it again,,

Having Mr Shatner in the next trek would make this the biggest sci fi event since Star Wars came out in 1977.

53. Ron Mosher - December 19, 2007

This story sounds like it would work for a cheap tabloid. All of these “claims” that are made make me sick. Please post something when it’s KNOWN. Now isn”t that a novel approach?

54. Classic trek - December 19, 2007

i dont agree either that shatner said this. lets hear for ourselves if its true. william shatner MUST be in this movie. without him its not complete.

nimoy and shatner as kirk and spock need to be there together to help launch the ‘new crew’. lets hand over the baton properly this time round.

if spock is in it by himself everyone even non trek fans will say ‘wheres the old kirk’?
doesnt make any sense not to have him in it.
cheers
greg
UK

55. Sam Belil - December 19, 2007

This came from dirtyrottentomatoes.com:

William Shatner hasn’t exactly been shy about expressing his disappointment over not being included in next year’s Star Trek XI — but, as it turns out, his protests may have been premature.

As Trek XI co-writer Roberto Orci tells SCI FI Wire, there’s still a chance that the filmmakers will find room for The Shat in J.J. Abrams’ franchise reboot — but if they don’t, it’s nothing personal. It’s just that, you know, Shatner’s character is dead. From the article:

“There are two things,” Orci said in an interview in November. “One, from our point of view, we are still hoping to find a way. Secondly, one of the difficulties that was brought up and discussed with Shatner when we all met him and pitched him ideas is that Trek fans are sticklers for their canon. [And,] unfortunately, Shatner’s Capt. Kirk was killed in Star Trek VII [1994's Generations].”

The second of Orci’s “two things” is, of course, the writers’ strike, which is keeping Orci, his partner Alex Kurtzman, or Abrams from making any changes to the script. Once that’s out of the way, Orci isn’t averse to a Shatner appearance, provided it makes sense:

“The difficulty there is not just ignoring that or explaining it in an unsatisfactory way merely to get him back in,” Orci said. “So that is the struggle: the rigors of canon and not phoning it in just to have a cameo.”

So there you have it, Shatner fans. All hope is not lost. And if you can take Orci at his word, the torch has been passed to capable hands — the screenwriter is all kinds of happy about the casting of Chris Pine as young Kirk:

“Chris Pine has two things which are very difficult to find simultaneously,” Orci said. “He has the maverick nature of an extremely motivated, cocky guy who doesn’t play by the rules, who is intelligent enough and can command sufficient respect to be an astronaut. Remember, these people are all astronauts!”

Source: SCI FI Wire

56. K. M. Kirby - December 19, 2007

1. Somebody has to pose for the gigantic Kirk memorial statue at the San Francisco space port — so there’s yr cameo.

2. If the new movie “Star Trek” makes a splash, that will increase probabilities for another film based on Shatner in the leading role.

3. The cameo in Mirror Mirror of a Kirk from a parallel universe, short though it is, demonstrates the amazing range Shatner brought to his role on Star Trek.

57. CmdrR - December 19, 2007

News Flash: 6/15/09 — “Paramount Hints that Shatner May Appear in new Star Trek DVD. Or not. -developing”

58. badboy1230 - December 19, 2007

Not that I think Shtner should be in the movie, but this is pretty funny:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gX9shr_Pq2I

59. Crusade2267 - December 19, 2007

Shat… If you wanted to be in more Star Trek Movies, you shouldn’t have agreed to fall off a bridge… especially in the 24th century where main charicters stay dead.

60. Iowagirl - December 19, 2007

#20, 54
I concur.

#19
Anyway, I‘ve demonstrated some foresight. ;-)

#33
– ..but the general public has NEVER been concerned about Shatner playing Kirk. –

The general public was required for acknowledging Kirk’s cultural heritage status which has developed during a 40 years space of time. It was not only the fans that made the trademark “Kirk” possible – fans, though numerous, could not have accomplished that alone. The general public, the public who is not concerned much about Trek, still know Kirk and Spock and they are definitely able to recognize their “faces“, Shatner and Nimoy.

61. Mütze - December 19, 2007

#48 okay then. :)

62. Dr. Image - December 19, 2007

#59- OH yes!
Anyway, this is all about “creating buzz.”
He’ll be in it. Shall we take a poll?
Anthony?

63. steve adams - December 19, 2007

#37,46,52,54…..
All of you are the (Shatner Un-Dead).
:o

64. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

#63 … I’m OFFENDED that I was left off the list! :)

65. shuttlepod10 - December 19, 2007

Who cares? I like Shatner, but I’m gonna still see the movie.

66. Izbot - December 19, 2007

I still think this is another one of Shatner’s infamous pranks. We can already surmise that we get Kirk’s birth scene in the film from what we know about casting so far. No reason not to have Grampa Kirk (played by Shatner) at Little Jimmy’s birth.

67. Tim Handrahan - December 19, 2007

I have said it all along. He will be in. It is the LOGICAL thing to do!

68. Izbot - December 19, 2007

No, even better: JT Kirk (played by Pine) gets in some hot water and returns home and we’re surprised to suddenly see Shatner as Grampa Kirk who gives James some words of encouragement that stokes his flame and sends him back off to save the day.

69. ster j - December 19, 2007

I think the only way we’d see Shatner in ST11 is if Kirk appears to Spock as he (gasps!) dies–for good, this time. I can see it now–the white light and all.

Kirk: Spock! What the hell is taking you so long? Bones and I are waiting for you.

Spock: Jim? My old friend, Jim?

Kirk: Hey, watch it with that ‘old’ stuff, willya? I’m immortal now.

Spock: What are you doing here?

Kirk: (smiling gently) I paid off the Angel of Death, my friend. I’m taking you home.

Spock: Paid off the Angel of Death? (pause) Why am I not surprised?

Kirk: It’s a true Eden, Spock. No wants, no needs.

Spock: Wasn’t that Omicron Ceti III?

Kirk: That’s my Spock, still the literal smartass.

70. Harry Ballz - December 19, 2007

Yo….go to post #58 and watch the video…it’s FRIGGIN’ HILARIOUS!!!!! :)

71. Roddenberry was a peacenik - December 19, 2007

Anthony, I think you’re being way too hard on the Shat there, buddy.

Is it Shatner who keeps harping on not being in the movie, or is it the media who won’t leave him alone about it? You know, in all the videos and quotes you link to, how many times has Shatner brought it up himself? How many times has he been asked about it? The unfortunate fact is that Shatner can’t fart without a reporter asking him what he thinks about Chris Pine’s farts being in the movie and not his. Maybe if he was smarter, he’d try to hide his disappointment whenever prodded and he’d just start giving a ‘no comment’.

72. Alex Trekek - December 19, 2007

If Shatner’s comments are staged and he’s going to be in the film, thats cool. I’m not thrilled to resurrect him but not totally against it either, i guess. If his comments are not staged however, I say keep him away from star trek. Don’t even buy his books. He should be thrilled to have been such an iconic charactor for as long as he was. He’s just upset because he see’s this big budget movie being made and he see’s fame and dollar signs.

73. nscates - December 19, 2007

#58 THAT WAS HILARIOUS!

74. Captain Amazing!! - December 19, 2007

Who knows how it’s going to end up, but consider this…

Orci made his statement regarding Bill’s participation in the film as still possible…while on strike with the WGA.

If you’re not with me so far, the WGA strike means no further script adjustments.

If Bill being in the film is still “possible” with no script rewrites/adjustments wouldn’t it stand to reason Bill’s role is already planned?

75. Captain Amazing!! - December 19, 2007

Also…

Bill’s statement about hoping the movie “bombs” is somewhat contradictory to his previous statements in which he claimed to believe it will be a wonderful film.

76. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

#72 “He’s just upset because he see’s this big budget movie being made and he see’s fame and dollar signs.”

Or it could simply be that he feels a connection to something he’s be an integral part of the success of for 40 years. Plus the fact that they cast his co-star in a key role. Plus the fact that the director met with him. Twice.

To paraphrase what Kirk himself once said, this film would be stronger WITH Shatner than without him!

77. InkBlot - December 19, 2007

I’m adding my name to the list of people who think this is a publicity thing. I mean, it’s JJ Abrams, he’s known for his tricky advertising. This who Shatner being bummed thing has gotten almost as much attention as the film itself. On opening day we are all going to be greeted to a Star Trek with the Shat in it.

78. J C - December 19, 2007

THE FILM WOULD BE WEAKER WITH SHATNER BECAUSE IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THEY’RE RELYING ON AN OLD FORMULA. SHATNER=HOAKEY

79. YUBinit - December 19, 2007

LOL Don’t think the Shat needs to hope for anything… think it’s pretty much guaranteed to bomb from everything I’ve seen and read. Oh the pacing might be enough to keep the attention of the average Xbox junkie to make a buck or two… otherwise puberty should pretty well kill this endeavor.

But if it’s a success and there are the “told you so’s” all that proves is that the ticket buyers don’t really get TOS for what it is except “some old show that TNG and DS9 was based on”.

“Enterprise who?”

80. Will D - December 19, 2007

About this whole matter, who truly knows. Until someone manages to peak at the script during shooting, put a homing beacon on Shatner or whatever else… we’ll have to wait.

At this point, why would Orci spoil a huge secret like a Shatner cameo? I was alive in 1984 when ST III came out. Was it common knowledge that Nimoy would be resurrected as Spock? Be honest here.

I agree that Shatner is being rather childish and illogical. Yes, it must suck to be excluded from a new Star Trek film. But guess what, you made the choice to be in that god awful piece of trash called ST Generations. You allowed your character to die and gave it your blessing.

Something tells me once Star Trek XI comes out, Shatner will write a story similar to XI but add himself in in some fashion.

81. J C - December 19, 2007

It’ll be a sequel to Generations if Shatner’s in it.

82. nscates - December 19, 2007

Sorry, I guess I missed it – when did Shatner say he hoped the movie bombs?? I’ve hadn’t heard that until this thread.

83. Oregon Trek Geek - December 19, 2007

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Star Trek XII: The Search For Kirk

And they otta do it fast after XI while Nimoy and Shatner still exist in this continuum. Keep Nimoy and the Shat HEALTHY! :D

84. cap - December 19, 2007

#58

sorry, but that was just aweful! the song sucked, the lyrics sucked, the clips sucked.

why do people post links to crap like that

85. shuttlepod10 - December 19, 2007

Who knows. It just gives fans a bad name.

86. Scott - December 19, 2007

Its stories like this one that drives me to this site everday.
The official site would have not touch on this one at all.
Sounds like they have a part for him just in case.

Please put Shatner in!
It would drag my Girl Friend & Parents to the theater.
Spock is good, but we need Kirk too!
Extra people would go!

Take the cameo they wrote for ya Uncle Bill.
You’ll get a bigger part in the next one!

87. Kirk, James T. - December 19, 2007

Shatner would have been a bonus for this movie – nothing more, i don’t think this movie will be any worse off without him.

88. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - December 19, 2007

#29 there is a flaw in your logic!

“Kirk had no idea that Spock COULD be brought back until McCoy started acting nuts and Sarek melded minds with Kirk. If McCoy hadn’t been going nuts, Kirk would have had no reason to go back to Genesis at all.”

at the end of TWOK, Kirk says that he must return to Genesis…. *wees on bonfire*

89. Alex Trekek - December 19, 2007

# 76. Good points. I would just have a hard time separating kirk, if he were in this movie, with Shatner, who i’m liking less and less with every comment he makes.

90. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - December 19, 2007

oh and i also think the shat will be in this film, i mean come on, no official denials at all… he’ll be there in the end!!

there is some freaky coincidences going on that prove this:

a) the shat is looking slimmer and more kirkish, don’t believe me then look at his recent shatner visions

b) No official confirmation from anyone – you would think they’d be like “Yea Bill’s not in the movie.. sorry, we did try to fit him in”

and

c) Shats behavior… seems really odd and publicity stuntish to me!!

He will be in the movie people… if he isn’t ill shave my beard off!!

91. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

#89 … No one should believe the comment on that stupid local news website. Notice that same article stated the movie started filming yesterday! It’s total bullshat, and someone should get canned for it.

On the other hand, we have videos aplenty of Shatner saying he’s looking forward to the movie, and hopes it’s a big success.

92. shuttlepod10 - December 19, 2007

Is that Artie Lange?

93. Dennis Bailey - December 19, 2007

Who knows what Shatner said? Certainly “I hope that movie bombs” is consistent with the rather petulant attitude he’s been taking so far.

94. Anthony Pascale - December 19, 2007

RE comment to HI tv station
I have contacted the reporter to see if I can get clarification. however, it is quite possible. yes shatner has said positive things about the movie. He has also called JJ Abrams an a–hole in front of thousands in vegas, said abrams decision to not put him was ‘foolish’ and repeated said it was a bad business decision.

It is totally within character for shatner to say something like ‘i hope it bombs’ as a joke with a tinge of truth underneath.

As for me giving him a hard time?
I have stated before that I agree that he is not the one out there starting these stories, but I have also stated that he does not have to say what he says. He can say ‘no comment’ or ‘i am disappointed but I wish them luck’ or a number of other things. Shatner has been dealing with the press for over forty years. I am sorry, but to blame the media for exact quotes coming from shatner is just silly. He said what he said

Do you see the other TOS cast saying those things? Did George Lucas say that it was ‘foolish’ for Sean Connery to decide not to be in the new Indiana Jones movie?

I love shatner. I want him in the movie. This is why I am saying what I am saying. He has a chance, but if he keeps badmouthing abrams and the movie he will not be in it for sure.

95. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

Re. #93…

“Oh, that’s our Dennis!”

[cue laugh track]

96. JBishop - December 19, 2007

I don’t believe for a second that Shatner actually made that statement hoping that the movie bombs. I think it was published hearsay without any verification and poor journalism.

97. Craig - December 19, 2007

What if Shatner played an Admiral who gives Captain Pike his orders and he would be the same Admiral that would promote Captain Pike to Fleet Admiral? Can Shatner still play a Captain? Their is that Federation Captain role they still need to cast. A couple more possibilities, a Starfleet Acadmey Teacher or President of Starfleet Academy.

98. Irishtrekkie - December 19, 2007

Well screw this i am going to make my own star trek movie
, with Dabo and orion slave girls and william shanter, whos with me
!

99. Litenbug - December 19, 2007

Why does everyone assume they are owed an explanation for casting? Or plot?

Did the studio and Bad Robot get everyone’s permission here to proceed with the film?
Show of hands please.

Fine… simple resolution.
Was he announced as being IN the cast by anyone associated with the film?
No.

Has he said…I am not in the film?
Yes.

Is there REAL evidence to say the two questions above and the answers given are inaccurate?
___.

This ISN’T a hateful post..I’d say the exact same thing if Shatner was confirmed and Nimoy was odd man out.
I’d say Shatner sealed his character’s fate when he agreed to kill Kirk for a paycheck and you won’t see Bill in this film in ’08.
I’m sorry if you find this statement goes against your desires, but that’s the way I read it.

100. Craig - December 19, 2007

Sorry I just thought of one more role for Shatner – United Federation of Planets President.

101. Dennis Bailey - December 19, 2007

Shatner_Fan_2000, don’t be so thin-skinned. :lol:

102. J C - December 19, 2007

Madge Roddenberry stated a few years back that she “had no use for him”.I forgot what the circumstances were.

103. indranee - December 19, 2007

come on JJ and Roberto! end the misery and put him in the damn thing already!

104. I AM THX-1138 - December 19, 2007

Shatner as De Salle!

105. Roddenberry was a peacenik - December 19, 2007

Anthony @ 94:

“Do you see the other TOS cast saying those things?”

Do you see the other TOS cast members being asked?

But now that you bring up the other cast members, I think it’s important to point out one other thing. Anybody remember George Takei’s one man movement to get himself a Sulu/Excelsior series? And no one cared but him. That was hard to watch. With Shatner on the other hand, partially the reason this story won’t die is because there actually are people out there who do care about this, both positive and negative. It’s gotten people talking, as you can tell from the comments sections when these stories are posted. Maybe Shat is just dumping fuel on the fire, and maybe he’d help his case by refusing to comment the next time someone asks him about it. But the blame isn’t entirely his here.

106. Lou - December 19, 2007

*ROFL!!* ANIMAL HOUSE!! ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

107. Michael Hall - December 19, 2007

“It is totally within character for shatner to say something like ‘i hope it bombs’ as a joke with a tinge of truth underneath.”

Too true. All too often, the man has let his mouth get twenty steps ahead of his brain. (Or, as one of the Soprano clan once observed of the late, unlamented Livia, “No interlocutor.”) That’s why, in spite of a half century-long career built on a solid foundation of genuine talent, good looks, charisma, and the great fortune to play one of the most iconic characters in American TV history, there are multitudes of former co-workers who wouldn’t bother to take a piss on Bill Shatner if his hair was on fire. If this latest remark is confirmed to be something he really said, fans of the franchise, or J.J. Abrams, shouldn’t take it to heart. It’s just par for the course, and a real pity.

108. Leafs86 - December 19, 2007

To quote Dr. McCoy in Star Trek VI: “I’d give real money if he’d shut up.”

109. Ro-Dan - December 19, 2007

I love Shatner but to be honest I’d be really disappointed in the man for “hoping the movie bombs”. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was just being humorous and flip like he often is when he made that comment.

110. RandyYeoman - December 19, 2007

RE 105
um yes. Takei, Koenig and Nichols all get asked and all of them have said only nice things about the film. Not a single one has said the film should have them in it. I think it is a safe bet Nimoy wouldnt be demanding to be in it if he hadnt been asked, and he would surely be graceful

Blame the media is a nice and easy out…but Shatner said what he said and he bares 100% of the responsibility for his words. As a veteran actor he knows that when asked a question he can choose to answer or not and can choose how to answer…so when \’it is a foolish decision\’ or whatever comes out of his mouth

It seems that there are some who will defend anything from Shatner…but his actions this year have really made me lose a lot of respect for the man. His ego has always been legendary, but it has never been so ugly as it has been in 2008

111. lodownX - December 19, 2007

Seriously.. I love Shatner/Kirk. now that that is out of the way…. He is 8-0 pounds to heavy and another 12 years removed from Generations. I DON’T want to see that. Shatner is Denny Crane now and that’s GOOD. He isn’t a physically fit Starship Captain anymore. If they can manage it tastefully … like from the neck up fine.

Vulcans can live to 200 and Nimoy wasn’t stupid enough to have himself written out of the franchise. Everyone knew he was coming back at the end of WOK when they showed the empty casket for F’s sake.

112. richpit - December 19, 2007

I didn’t read the whole thread, but I just want to say this:

I love the ShatKirk…but please, Please, PLEASE let’s give this a rest. ShatKirk should NOT be in this movie. Frankly, I wish NimSpock wasn’t in it. I wish it wasn’t a “time travel” story or anything of the sort. I wish it was a purely new and original creative piece. Just doing something like bringing ShatKirk back is a gimmicky and will not help this movie or help in brining new fans to Star Trek.

113. TJ - December 19, 2007

Well if the writers strike goes on past March…If he hasn’t been ‘written in’ prior to the strike beginning, or they have ‘in case of’ scenes previously written then its so not going to happen. It’s already been reported they cant change any other details with the script despite stuff cropping up while shooting.

I’m guessing the same applies to Kirk/Shatner in the movie regardless of any want or not, to have him in the film. Not written in now, wont be written in any time soon! What’s he gonna do otherwise? Stand next to old Spock, smile and nod? I dont think so!

Besides, this is getting a bit old. I really wanted to see Paul McGillion as Scotty, IMO he would have been awesome but unfortunately thats not going to happen. And it looks like the same goes for The Shat in the Trek movie, so let’s move on shall we?

114. Jupiter1701 - December 19, 2007

111 posts later —

‘ya all got it solved yet?

For Tonight’s Final Jeopardy:

The Answer: What Star Trek fans are doing.
.
.
.
The Question: What is beating a dead Tribble?

115. Trekee - December 19, 2007

I think it’s interesting that Roberto Orci is also against the ‘phoning in a cameo’ as well as William ‘I don’t do cameos unless they are cereal commercials’ Shatner too.

It does rather feel that there could be a lot more to this story than just a simple ‘beginnings’ script – the older Spock does bear this out too.

I’d really not expected them to address anything that happened post Generations, but maybe, if it all pans out, they really do have an eye on resurrecting James T Kirk from his death on the wrong bridge.

Hell, they could kill him of properly and heroically, let young Kirk see it and give more credence to the ‘I’ve always known…. I’ll die alone’ bit. Coooo, ratifying Star Trek V after Generations fluffed that part up too – that would be some serious attention to canon.

But I do feel, and have felt for a while now, that it’s too much to ask for that. It would give more pathos to Kirk both in the new franchise but throughout the rest of TOS and the first movies.

You’d be able to watch everything again knowing you were looking at someone who knew how they died and having something which then resonates throughout what has happened before would be a bit special.

I’d thought I’d become bored with the speculation and the endless rants, but every new fragment of information does put things in yet another new light.

This stuff really is fun, else we wouldn’t be here.

One of the other threads had someone rant on about how canon was boring them but the exercise of trying to see how this stuff can all possibly fit together after TOS spent so much time contradicting itself is one of the cool things that Trek does best.

As evidence, I give you Klingon foreheads (‘we don’t talk about that’) which worked out to be one of the best bits of self indulgent fun in Enterprise. Look at how badly Star Wars chewed up it’s own ‘canon’ of only three movies (by the same AUTHOR for crying out loud) and marvel at just how clever Trek writers can be.

Or…

It could just be that the Shat is objecting to being written as a disembodied voice which says ‘Eyyeeeeee am the ghooooost of Captain Kiiiiiiiiirk… stay awaaaaaaaay from Briddddgesssssssss’ back through time to Pine and all the negotiations are around how to rewrite the lines to make them hammier….

If ghostly Kirk did tell young Kirk to stay off bridges, it could also bring an ongoing air of contradiction to Kirk as he struggles with his conflict about wanting the big chair,but being scared to go on the bridge….

As for the rest, I can quite imagine Shatner deadpanning that he hoped the movie bombs. He’d be assuming that we ALL know that he of course doesn’t (well, probably doesn’t) and we’ll get the joke. It’s not like we’re a bunch of rabid fanboys and girls now is it?

Ah, sorry – just realised how long and rambling this post is, so I’ll make it longer by apologising about the length of it.

116. JB - December 19, 2007

No doubt this will sound like blasphemy to some, but I believe that once a decision is made to kill a character, no matter how foolish the decision might be, they should stay dead. Bringing them back is a cheat, and you look even more foolish trying to bring them back. Spock should have stayed dead after STII, and as much as I hated the treatment Kirk got in Generations, it’s done. I would prefer to just ignore the film, but the new filmmakers don’t have that luxury.

I think both Shatner and Nimoy should be in this film, but I would have just put them both in a cameo set pre-Generations and moved on with the story as flashback. An overworked device? Perhaps, but not as overworked as time travel, and I would argue it is ultimately more sellable to a general movie-going audience. I find what we’ve heard so far about the storyline for this movie not terribly encouraging.

On a lighter note, props to Anthony for including Sen. Blutarsky’s most excellent speech. 100 cocktails to you, sir.

117. Daoud - December 19, 2007

#80, your point about STIII is well made. When STII came out in 1982, it was obvious to most fen, Spock’s “Remember!” with instant mind meld to McCoy, and the intact coffin-torpedo on the Genesis planet was a direct indication of where STIII would go.

I remember (no pun intended) knowing through all of 83 and 84 before the movie came out that it would be about putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

What no one expected was the fun that was STIV that followed in ’86, with the aftermath of this little trilogy….

Everyone keeps wanting Nimoy’s Spock to somehow “save”, “rescue” or “change the timeline” to bring in Shatner’s Kirk. How about instead, Nimoy *and* his Spock retire by going TO the Nexus, along with an off camera nod to Doohan’s Scotty and Kelley’s McCoy? Together the 3 of them can go into the Nexus, and ride off into the sunset with Shatner’s Kirk. I for one would love to see Nimoy get on a horse beside Shatner on a horse, and literally do this.

Then all the later movies, can be Nimoy and Shatner-free zones.

118. Trekee - December 19, 2007

@114 – ‘Beating a dead tribble’… chuckle…

Yep. It is rather impressive in a very sad way isn’t it? :-)

119. Daoud - December 19, 2007

Anthony: Looking at that quoted “crap” from M***hole:

“Shatner, sadly, killed off kirk, sobit kinds rues put hands.’’

Clearly someone can’t type well… If you look at the phrase, it should read:
“Shatner, sadly, killed off Kirk, so_it kinda ties our hands.”

It’s clearly poor typing as in the quote b is for the adjacent space,
a for the adjacent s
r and u for the adjacent t and i
p and t for the adjacent o and r

Go figure that one! Hard to understand… especially when they then make some lame joke about interpreting it.

120. steve adams - December 19, 2007

#15. Good advice imn doing it now……….:y

121. steve adams - December 19, 2007

#29 Paul B. I love your post!

122. Dennis Bailey - December 19, 2007

The Cinematical piece is funny. In part:

“Lame because: By now, everyone in the world (and the galaxy, for that matter) knows exactly who didn’t land a role in the upcoming Star Trek XI: Poor William Shatner. And the reason why we all know this is because the guy wouldn’t shut up about it in 2007. It could’ve been a story about the man’s all-time favorite Disney characters, and he still would’ve found a way to complain about not being asked to participate in the new Star Trek film…Just shut up, sell another kidney stone and come to terms with the fact that no one really cares…Those rosy cheeks might garner a smile during a Priceline commercial, but they don’t belong on the Enterprise. At least, not anymore.”

123. jonboc - December 19, 2007

…I love Shatner..BUT….

Boy is that line getting tired….as if it somehow validates the Shatbasher’s position.

I’ll give Shat one thing…his awesomeness and popularity sure does irritate a lot of people! Maybe those folks need to look a bit closer at themselves and ask why are they so bothered by it?

While it makes perfect sense for fans of Kirk and Star Trek to be happy and even excited at the prospect of seeing the lead actor of Trek return to the iconic role he created, especially after being killed off, it makes little sense for fans to be so against it. By the same token, if someone can’t stand Bill Shatner or Kirk, it makes perfect sense to be against his possible return. I’d wager many of these people were quite happy to see the good captain killed off in Generations amd are non too thrilled at the prospect of his return.

No matter how many times they type the words “I like Shatner BUT…” the back handed compliments and outright insults are telling. They didn’t like him then, and they don’t like him now.

124. J.D. Lee - December 19, 2007

WOW….If the Shat’s comments are true..my respect for the shat is sadly over..

I hope the new movie is successful and Chris Pine’s performance is brilliant… we need a new kirk that the new generation will look up to…

Make us prd Chris!!! Don’t screw up!! we need a new Kirk!!

cuz the old one does not exist to me anymore.

125. J C - December 19, 2007

122.He sold a kidney stone?

126. Xai - December 19, 2007

#125 JC

yep

127. J C - December 19, 2007

126 Uh .Wow.That’s different.Wonder how much he got.Anyone know?

128. Robert April - December 19, 2007

Is THIS where I post my “Bring Back Shatner As Kirk” comments?

129. litenbug - December 19, 2007

123. jonboc – December 19, 2007

“While it makes perfect sense for fans of Kirk and Star Trek to be happy and even excited at the prospect of seeing the lead actor of Trek return to the iconic role he created, especially after being killed off, it makes little sense for fans to be so against it. By the same token, if someone can’t stand Bill Shatner or Kirk, it makes perfect sense to be against his possible return. I’d wager many of these people were quite happy to see the good captain killed off in Generations amd are non too thrilled at the prospect of his return.”

Are you implying that someone cannot be a true fan of Trek if he or she isn’t fully behind a role for Shatner in this movie?

And further…
“By the same token, if someone can’t stand Bill Shatner or Kirk, it makes perfect sense to be against his possible return. I’d wager many of these people were quite happy to see the good captain killed off in Generations amd are non too thrilled at the prospect of his return.

No matter how many times they type the words “I like Shatner BUT…” the back handed compliments and outright insults are telling. They didn’t like him then, and they don’t like him now.”

People can’t change their minds? Or decide they want things to move on? Or see that this actor agreed to kill his best-known character for a paycheck? Or insult the director and his decisions? Or…?

And after all that… he wants IN?

130. Xai - December 19, 2007

127 JC

try google

131. Dave - December 19, 2007

I still like the idea of having the timeline change make Kirk “Alive” when he’s not supposed to be, and to fix it, will ultimately mean his death. Very much like TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise” but would give our hero a fitting death.

132. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - December 19, 2007

Jonboc

sorry but you are way out of line. being a fan of kirk and shatner is not an all or nothing proposition. I love Kirk. i love shatner. I think some of the things he has said this year are embarassing. I think the movie should focus on the story and only work him in if it fits.

why do you find it so hard that people can believe these things? they are not conflicting statements. And you sir are not a better fan than I or anyone here

133. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

Re: # 107

I want to take this moment to thank Michael Hall for quoting “The Sopranos.” I needed that.

Where’s Livia when we need her? She’s dead too, right? Can SHE be in the movie? When are we gonna start arguing about that?

134. I AM THX-1138 - December 19, 2007

I have said it before and I will end up saying it again:

There are going to be a lot of needlessly disappointed people come Christmas next year. This movie is going to be DIFFERENT than what they are used to. They can either accept the reality of the changes or they can move along. I have had to open my own mind a bit as to what is going to change. The Enterprise is going to be different. McGillion won’t be Scotty. And in all likelyhood, there will be NO APPEARANCE BY SHATNER. Time to face facts. No amount of internet cajoling will change anything. Shatner can praise mr. jj or belittle him and it JUST WON’T MATTER.

Can’t wait for the Movie.

135. jonboc - December 19, 2007

129- “Are you implying that someone cannot be a true fan of Trek if he or she isn’t fully behind a role for Shatner in this movie?”

I’m not sure what to label you if you really are a fan of “STar Trek” (not the spin-offs) which was 99% centered around Jim Kirk and his adventures, as portrayed by William Shatner, and yet you don’t like the man or the character of Kirk. It’s kinda like saying you love apple pie..as long as you leave the apples out of it.

“People can’t change their minds? Or decide they want things to move on? Or see that this actor agreed to kill his best-known character for a paycheck? Or insult the director and his decisions? ”

Certainly people can say they don’t want someone they “used” to like playing a favortie character again because the actor agreed to have that character killed off for a paycheck.( depsite the fact that it could be done easily with good writing, as witnessed by it being done many times before)….and yes, for some inexplicable reason, someone who used to love Kirk but now hates the character, could easily never want to see him again… and yes, someone could let the personal life of an actor dictate whether or not they like a fictional character. People can and apparently ARE exhibiting many of these traits.

I’m not saying people can’t do it, I’m just making the observation that it’s more than a little on the odd side.

136. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

Also, I’d like to state right now that if anyone wants to start a message board devoted exclusively arguing about everything *I* happen say, go right ahead. Feel free. Just throwin’ that out there.

137. jonboc - December 19, 2007

#132 “I think the movie should focus on the story and only work him in if it fits.”

ok…you’re a a fan of Kirk and Shatner and you ARE agreeable to the idea of them working Shatner in, as Kirk, if it fits the story. Correct?

Like I said, “.. it makes perfect sense for fans of Kirk and Star Trek to be happy and even excited at the prospect of seeing the lead actor of Trek return to the iconic role he created, especially after being killed off, ”

You just validated that part of my statement, so I’m not real sure what it is that you are diagreeing with.

138. NZorak - December 19, 2007

I find myself caring less and less whether or not he’s in the movie. He always was full of himself, but this is getting ridiculous.

139. J C - December 19, 2007

130. $ 24,000 to Golden Palace casino.

140. Anthony Pascale - December 19, 2007

One thing that I have always said is that no one has the inside line on how to be a fan…no one likes the right show, no one is a better fan.

and yes it is possible to be a fan of TOS, Shatner and Kirk and not be happy about every one of his statements. It is also possible to be all those things and not DEMAND that Shatner be in the movie regardless

141. Xai - December 19, 2007

135. jonboc – December 19, 2007
129- “Are you implying that someone cannot be a true fan of Trek if he or she isn’t fully behind a role for Shatner in this movie?”

“I’m not sure what to label you if you really are a fan of “STar Trek” (not the spin-offs) which was 99% centered around Jim Kirk and his adventures, as portrayed by William Shatner, and yet you don’t like the man or the character of Kirk. It’s kinda like saying you love apple pie..as long as you leave the apples out of it.”

Last I checked, you are not the person responsible for labeling people as a Trek fan or not. Or any other kind of label.
And I see by reading the above.. I share that opinion with others.

142. Jupiter1701 - December 19, 2007

Well, it’s been over 140 posts now, and I think we finally have come up with a consensus on this William Shatner issue:

Over one billion Chinese don’t care.

143. Xai - December 19, 2007

I really think Shatner as Kirk was at his best in TWOK. Beyond that movie, I don’t feel the performances were his best work.

144. Xai - December 19, 2007

#142 Jupiter1701
re:Chinese
but some will as they make a penny and a half for each bootleg “Star Trek” dvd they produce.

145. Gary Seven - December 19, 2007

I for one would feel lied to, and manipulated if it turns out that all of this Shatner whining was a plan to create publicity and interest for the movie. I understand it may be an effective marketing mechanism, but I don’t think it is respectful to the fans to lie and manipulate them in this way. I am surprised that so few people have discussed this perspective. Am I the only one?

146. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

#144.

No way, no way. That moment in III when David dies and he stumbles back into the chair? Heartbreaking.

His timing in IV is spot on, his scenes with the klingons in VI are marvelous, and as for V. . . well, I happen to like V – much deeper and more entertaining than people give it credit for. I NEED MY PAIN!

147. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

I meant to reply to #143.

148. Xai - December 19, 2007

I see your point.

149. VOODOO - December 19, 2007

Here we go again.

No doubt Shatner will be all over the net saying that he is not in the film tomorrow + it is a bad business decision. Only to be followed by Bob Orci saying that they haven’t decided if he will be in the film (despite the fact the script is “locked”

Although, I do take it as a good sign that they have not ruled Shatner out yet.

For Christ’s sake just put Shatner in the film already.

150. Jupiter1701 - December 19, 2007

#144

True dat.

OK, I’ll amend my statement:

6,638,619,549 people on the planet Earth don’t care. This is by most measure almost a total landslide of humankind uncaring in regards to whether or not William Shatner is in the next movie.

However, there may be a larger percentage of space aliens from another planet who care. See, they’ve been monitoring our “historical tapes” and were quite upset when their Godhead, The Kirk, met his untimely demise. They were so p*ssed off they launched a fleet to destroy all life on Earth. Takes about 14 years to get here from their planet, more or less (depends on how many times they stop for potty breaks).

So unless they get some sort of proof that the only Kirk-God they know is still alive, it’s the end of the world as we know it. But I feel fine. You see, we dolphin know when the party’s over, man. So all I’ve gotta say is:

“So long, and thanks for all the fish.”

151. J C - December 19, 2007

Put him in a Next Gen reunion movie for TV.As far as I’m concerned He’s Next Gen material now.

152. VOODOO - December 19, 2007

Shatner was clearly joking when he said “he hopes the film flops”

153. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

#148 Thanks.

#150. Oh yeah – I read that one. It’s an Ursula K. Leguin novel.

154. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 19, 2007

If he even said it, VOODOO. And the Cinematical piece is stupid. It states, “the guy wouldn’t shut up about it in 2007.” No, correction: You, hack writer, are the one who won’t stop talking about it. That piece, like the bombing “quote” relayed by the anonymous “Hollywood reporter”, demonstrates what the real problem is – the media keeps repeating the same bit over and over, attempting to put an ugly spin on and sensationalize it for tabloid audiences, and in some cases, even putting words in Shatner’s mouth. And some of you are falling for it! As he did in numerous episodes where the crew had fallen victim to some mind controlling force, Kirk would slap you back to reality in this situation.

Good luck finding clarification on that “quote”, Anthony. Something tells me Roddenberry has spoken to Shatner more recently than any numbskull at KGMB.

155. Jabob Slatter - December 19, 2007

In spite of being accused of being a “Shat Basher” by some of the more primitive minds in this forum, I am going to venture forth with the unpopular opinion. Personally, I don’t care to see him in this movie. And aside from FInal Frontier, I’ve liked Shatner as Kirk. I just watched TMP and TWOK the other night, just to see him. The first one isn’t great, but I remember going to it when it first came out and how awesome it was when he first appears.

So don’t go bashing me as a Shat Basher just because I think one of his Star Trek movies was awful. But the last time he played Kirk in Generations, he wasn’t even playing Kirk. He was just being William Shatner. I’m not interested in seeing him play the character any longer.

Just my preference. I’d prefer that instead of attacking me for this position, you disagree with me in a logical and rational way. I’m no less a fan because I don’t like every single movie.

156. Stanky McFibberich - December 19, 2007

I don’t care whether Shatner is in it or not. If I were him (or Nimoy) I would avoid it like the plague.
Too late for Nimoy.
Whether it bombs or is successful really doesn’t matter to me either. It has already failed on numerous levels in regards to being what I consider to be Star Trek. They might as well take an old print of Mary Poppins and slap “Star Trek” at the beginning. Would save a lot of trouble.
“Star Trek” is the sixties series, plain and simple.

157. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

#157.

Mr. Stanky, man, then why are you reading this forum? I thought it was only for dweebs who care.

158. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

oops, I meant #156. D’oh.

159. Stanky McFibberich - December 19, 2007

re: 157
Because I am a glutton for punishment :)

Because I am a fan of Star Trek and this project has the name “Star Trek” attached to it.

Because I imagine that deep inside of me, I have some kind of deluded hope that I will like it when it comes out. I would need Spock to calculate the actual odds on that happening.

160. NZorak - December 19, 2007

#157, 157

Because its the fan’s prerogative to whine when things change with the times.

Personally I was disgusted when they dropped Pierce Brosnan as James Bond and then made the latest movie a reboot. Guess what? I avoided the movie, and I will probably continue avoiding any further sequels that feature the fake Bond. It’s entirely my right to surgically remove myself from the fan base if and when they do something that is utterly against the best interest of the franchise.

That said, Shatner retired Kirk in Generations. it was his decision then and it’s a decision he should just learn to live with.

161. dalek - December 19, 2007

Shatner can say what he likes. He’s not in the film. He was never in the film. He’s been shut out of the film. No one from the film has bothered to keep him in the loop about anything. All thats been said is he’s not out of it, when his friend Nimoy who’s read the script said he’s not in it. I don’t believe that quote from the mediocre journalist, source, context? And if it is true it’s likely tongue in cheek.

The Hoff is back as Michael Knight, Indiana Jones is back as Harrison Ford (or vice versa) and Stallone is back as Rambo.

SO the main question is……. IS Arnie gonna be in Terminator 4???

162. Trek Nerd Central - December 19, 2007

Ah, hope springs eternal. I understand.

Personally, I have to stop reading and posting to this forum. I want to preserve the thrill when I see the film on its relase. I don’t want to know too much. So this is it for me.

Merry Everything to everybody. . . Happy New Year.

See you Christmas Day 2008!

163. Jabob Slatter - December 19, 2007

I beg to differ; TOS is not the only Star Trek. Both Next Generation and DS9 had some very good episodes. Voyager and Enterprise had a smattering of good shows, but were mostly inferior in my opinion. They were still Star Trek, and all shared enough of a common thread to be recognizably kin.

One might as well say that the third season of TOS wasn’t Star Trek, because is was worse than many NG, DS9, V and E episodes. I’m so surprised to see some of you already writing off this movie. Why so bitter and angry? If they try to mimic TOS it won’t live up to your expectations. If they try to re-imagine it you’ll tear them a new one. If the actors try to play the characters just like the originals, you’ll complain about now inferior they are. If they play the characters differently, you’ll whine that they aren’t being Kirk, they aren’t being Spock, etc.

Are you really fans? What in the world do you want? You’ve put these guys into the Kobayashi Maru scenario and can’t wait to flay them. I don’t believe you really want the franchise to continue.

164. i'm a bigger fan than you are so i win - December 19, 2007

what if they put shatner’s face sort of revolving around in the nacelle caps?
i think it would be a fine tribute and somehow more than a cameo…

…and perhaps he said “i hope the film is DA BOMB” and was misquoted?

i love this site more than i could possibly love the film, which is alot.

165. Chris Peterson - December 19, 2007

I’m drunk while I’m reading this and I’m still bored with the whole Shatner issue.

166. dannyboy1 - December 19, 2007

I’ve said this before elsewhere, but I don’t blame Bill for being angry after being consulted with Nimoy about being in the film and then being left waiting and wondering for so long without even so much as a courtesy phone call saying “Sorry Bill.”

If he was in the film he would know by now. The script won’t be changing due to the writers’ strike. Face it: SHATNER WILL NOT BE IN THIS FILM. And I for one have felt my interest in the project plummet.

167. Lendorien - December 20, 2007

Ugh. Not this tired subject again.

168. Alex Trekek - December 20, 2007

#110. i’m not good with words. more often than not i come off sounding like an a-hole. when i do, i’m trying to say exactly what you just said. thanks. i’m not hateful: i just don’t like the way Shat has acted this year.

169. NZorak - December 20, 2007

#163

“Are you really fans? What in the world do you want? You’ve put these guys into the Kobayashi Maru scenario and can’t wait to flay them. I don’t believe you really want the franchise to continue.”

Stop making so much logical sense or you threaten to make “fans” not look as ridiculous as they are. It would be a scary prospect indeed if people started looking at this issue with the same pragmatic mentality that the characters they claim to love so much would have themselves if faced with such an all-important conundrum.

170. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 20, 2007

For me, it is essential that Shatner is in this movie as old Kirk. If he is not in the movie I could only think of all the great moments he could have had with Nimoy and how this would have made the movie better. With these thoughts I could not enjoy the movie.

There are so many possibilites to bring back old Kirk and I cannot imagine a screenwriter not coming up with a great idea to bring him back. And I think it would make the movie so much better. Shatner and Nimoy together one last time, this would be so great!

I somehow have the bad feeling that they are killing off old Spock in this movie so I think that this may be the last chance to bring those two characters together again.

I cannot understand why someone would let slip such an opportunity. Kirk and Spock in one movie again… it is ridiculous to think that people wouldn’t find this fun and great.

171. Jan - December 20, 2007

I’m really fed up with this discussion. The more speculations we make and the more Shatner is complaining, the more I wish he will NOT be in this movie!

And I can’t believe that anyone of you won’t watch this movie because Shatner isn’t in! How silly is that?

172. John_Pemble - December 20, 2007

Holy Jesus H. It makes me not ask who put the “H” in “Jesus H Christ” as much as who gives a shit is JTK is in the movie as played by ol Bill. One year from now I plan to see the movie between Christmas and new year’s day and at no point from now til then will I buy anything Trek related other than a movie ticket. Note to Bill S, shut up! We get it you wanna be in trek and whether you are or not we just don’t care anymore. Excuse me, I need to go watch Jason of Star Command.

173. Iowagirl - December 20, 2007

#172
– ..we just don’t care anymore. –

Please, no Pluralis Majestatis!

Another day dawns, full of suspense and hope…

174. Irishtrekkie - December 20, 2007

well if anybody want my OPINION ! , nah i will say one thing about the shanter thing , but its good to see all there star trek fans are still full of passion , ……it makes me proud to be a trekkie lol. sure we make other fans of movies look like …….well just that fans . long live star trek !

175. DJT - December 20, 2007

#5 – ” By God, Jim, this has gone on long enough!!!
Get back your command! Get it back before you really do become just another long thread! ”

LOL.

I need some Romulan ale.

176. trektacular - December 20, 2007

I wish Shatner and Nimoy were in another film together that would do them both justice.
This new film is being made to appeal to the masses whether we like it or not. It won’t have the warmth that a reunion film could have if made for a smaller audience.

177. Sam Belil - December 20, 2007

#145-“I for one would feel lied to, and manipulated if it turns out that all of this Shatner whining was a plan to create publicity and interest for the movie. I understand it may be an effective marketing mechanism”.

You hit the nail 100% on the button!!!!!! Does Abrams and company have such little faith in their project that all this “he’s in it/he’s not in it” is just some b.s. marketing ploy to create more interest in the movie? I do feel somewhat manipuated by this. And as excited as I was about this movie, my enthusiasm is beginning to wane. I know there have been many posts an opinions on this subject but aren’t we (me included) just getting sick of this absolute nonsense???? For good or bad/right or wrong just come out and say it already. Either he’s IN or either he’s OUT — just stop playing these foolish games already!!!

178. Mister Sulu - December 20, 2007

Computer, activate internet!
A-ha-ha-ha…

179. DEMODE - December 20, 2007

You know, I really don’t want to know anymore if he is in it. I would rather go see it and be surprised to see him in it at the end. That would be exciting!

Best to keep it a surprise.

180. JJK - December 20, 2007

Maybe Shatner could play Young Kirk’s grandfather … or Great Uncle Tiberius! (ha ha!)

181. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 20, 2007

But wouldn’t it be better for marketing to reveal it before the movie opens so that the news can report about it? Maybe show him in the trailer or so? That would be cool.

182. Dennis Bailey - December 20, 2007

#135: “I’m not sure what to label you if you really are a fan of “STar Trek” (not the spin-offs) which was…”

Has it occurred to you yet that such “labeling” is both trivial and self-important?

You don’t get to vote on whether someone else is a “Star Trek fan” – it’s not your club or your rules. :)

183. Greg2600 - December 20, 2007

I can say with 99.9999999% certainty that William Shatner is currently not in the movie. Mr. Orci keeps saying there is a chance, but now with the writer’s strike, how is that going to be possible? Unless he’s already written a part for Shatner, at which point why wouldn’t they offer it? The whole situation just stinks. I know J.J. is no stranger to an avid fan base, with Lost, but it just baffles me how he’s allowed this to carry on?

184. Phil123 - December 20, 2007

I don’t know if this has already been sugested (or if its been done) but Antony, how about a poll, with only yes or no as an option:

Would you be happy if they ignored Kirk’s death (and therefor canon) and included Shatner in a meaningful role?

I think we would all agree that a Spock saves Kirk form the Nexus would be the death of the Trek francise. a small Shatner Spock dream or something Cameo wouldn’t be worth it and would cheapen the film.

But, ignore a crappy move in Generations and problem solved.

Actually, thinking about it, if you want Shatner in (and you may not) some on these boards months back sugested a small line like Spock’s in star trek 6 about having been dead before from Shatner to leave a canon explanation open to imagination.

185. Phil123 - December 20, 2007

sorry, forgot to say that the point of that poll would be to give to the writers as proof (if the vote was ignore generations and put him in) that the fans are prepaired to forgive a breach of canan, so go ahead and put him in.

186. Dave - December 20, 2007

Didn’t our favorite Captain once say “In every revolution, there’s one man with a vision!”

J.J. Abrams is that man right now and either we’ll love is story or hate it.

That being said there’s a possibility they had more than one draft of the movie, one wth the Stat, one without. Since strike rules allow them to use anything from a prior draft, they could still use Shatner even with the strike on… as remote a possibility as it is. Also, iit’s the FANS and the MEDIA that are making this an issue, not the pruducers, directors, or the Shat… they’re just answering the questions put to them with the est answers they have at this time. They don’t owe us an explaination, sneak-peak, plot summary or pictures. All they owe us is a release date on 12/25/2008.

I wsih people would quit dumping on Shatner. Acting is his job. It’s a business, not a hobby. Also, altho trek V was not the best movie in the franchise… it had some great character moments, which is what TOS was all about. Also, thre was a teamsters strike during trek 5 which is why the ending didn’t get made the way it was supposed to and PAramount wouldn’t dish out the cash for a top-notch effects studio. Look at the rock creature they made for it on the trek v dvd. They may as well have gotten the Gorn costume out of mothballs. Shatner was not to blame for the whole movie.

187. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#170 “I cannot understand why someone would let slip such an opportunity. Kirk and Spock in one movie again… it is ridiculous to think that people wouldn’t find this fun and great.”

Exactly, Admiral. I just do not understand how the writers can use “canon” (in this case, canon emanating from an old, depressing, let-down of a movie – Generations) as an excuse for not including Shatner, when the whole premise of the film reportedly involves hitting a Giant Reset Button on the whole Trek universe! You would think the all-time high popularity of Shatner, and one last great opportunity to reunite him with Nimoy, would outweigh any such concerns. If ever there was a time for the franchise to throw off the shackles of its self-imposed rigidity, to go for the entertainment jugular, and be as much FUN as possible again, that time is now. And no matter what anyone says, no one brought more fun to this particular party known as Star Trek than William Shatner. If I go see that movie a year from now and he’s not in it, and it’s confirmed that this was just because the writers couldn’t work around his “death”, I’m going to be pissed. It makes me a bit ticked off now, just thinking about it.

Anthony, any luck verifying the “quote” from the KGMB reporter, who goes by the name “Sunrise” and reported that the movie started filming 2 days ago? Hmm.

188. Daoud - December 20, 2007

Yes, but they got the rock creature right by the time the sequel, “Galaxy Quest” was made. :p

189. Daoud - December 20, 2007

That was to 186, of course.

190. Chi Chi Malook - December 20, 2007

WE WANT SHATNER!!!!!

191. J C - December 20, 2007

Shatner in a cameo as someone other than Kirk.We don’t want a sequel to “Generations”

192. Scott - December 20, 2007

#170 & #187,
Agreed!
Give the people what they want!
Nimoy & Shatner together again in a new Trek Movie.
Its a no brainer JJ!!!!!!!
Don’t offend the over 30 crowd with No Shatner film.
Yeah I would agree Shat can be a blow hard,
but I still love him as Kirk & he deserves to be in the film.
Its a respect thing people!
#190 is right on!
WE WANT SHATNER!!!!!

193. jonboc - December 20, 2007

141- Last I checked, you are not the person responsible for labeling people as a Trek fan or not.

Never said I was. I just made an observation that I find it extremely odd how anyone can say they love Star Trek (TOS) yet dislike Kirk and Shatner….since the show just kinda happens to be center around that character I really have a hard time understanding that particular mindset. Naturally, If you or anyone else says they LOVE Pepperoni Pizza, then orders and pays for one…then picks off all the pepperoni before eating it…well…sure, live like you wanna live….more power to you. It’s just a bit bizarre. Just sayin’.

#135: quoting me —-> “I’m not sure what to label you if you really are a fan of “STar Trek” (not the spin-offs) which was…”

You don’t get to vote on whether someone else is a “Star Trek fan” – it’s not your club or your rules.

Never said I wanted a vote. Just making an observation.

If someone wants to call themselves an “All in the Family” fan because they love “The Jeffersons”, go right ahead. If you’ve seen “Goldfinger” a thousand times, yet you can’t stand Sean Connery as James Bond but you love Moneypenny, more power to you. If you want to claim apple pie is your favorite desert …as long as the apples are replaced with oranges…go right ahead. Never said you couldn’t or shouldn’t. But it would be my observation that such behaviour is rather unusal.

194. Shannon T. Nutt - December 20, 2007

For goodness sake people, don’t you KNOW what Bill is like by now? His comments about “I hope the movie bombs” are totally tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who knows Bill and what he is like will confirm this.

Bill loves STAR TREK and Leonard is probably his best friend in the whole world, and I can assure you that regardless of whether there’s a place for him or not in the film, he wishes it nothing but the best. He’s just having a little fun with the media – and all you suckers are falling for it. :)

195. Dennis Bailey - December 20, 2007

#170 “I cannot understand why someone would let slip such an opportunity. Kirk and Spock in one movie again… it is ridiculous to think that people wouldn’t find this fun and great.”

First, Kirk and Spock will be in this movie. These fictional characters will be played by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto.

Second, it’s actually ridiculous to expect the studio to ignore experience in this regard – after ST 4 audiences stopped turning out to see Shatner and Nimoy play Kirk and Spock in sufficient numbers to satisfy the studio that continuing the TOS-based movies was worthwhile. If the people at Paramount thought the only way to produce a Trek movie was to feature the original cast we wouldn’t be seeing another Trek movie at all.

196. ZoomZoom - December 20, 2007

#124 drama queen! Thats even more petulant than Bill is being made to look by certain websites!
Like Shat even cares if hes in it or not. Why should he! I wouldn’t if I was him. He has nothing to prove.
JJ, Orci etc on the other hand have a huge job at hand. I have my doubts-until proven otherwise.

197. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#195 “First, Kirk and Spock will be in this movie. These fictional characters will be played by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto.”

Why waste valuable time splitting tribble hairs? We all know what he meant: the REAL (fictional though they may be) Kirk and Spock. The new guys may amount to a nice tribute at best.

“it’s actually ridiculous to expect the studio to ignore experience in this regard…”

You’re proceeding from a false assumption. No one is asking for a movie that features a pair of 76 year olds as the leads. Only that Shatner be allowed to join Nimoy in passing the torch to the new cast. And yes, Admiral_Bumblebee is totally right – audiences would LOVE that aspect of the movie.

198. Xai - December 20, 2007

193. jonboc – December 20, 2007

Good grief. I’ve never said I dislike Kirk… just the opposite. However, Shatner, through actions and words, makes me rethink who I want to appear in ST08. And I think it’s a little too incredible to revive yet another dead crew member, even if it is the William Shatner. Besides, it’s not up to me.

And as for you labeling and determining who’s a fan and who’s not…. keep digging the hole. I find it facinating to see what analogy you’ll come up with next. Chocolate pudding without the chocolate?
More people than I have now commented on this. I think you’d do well in dropping it before the hole gets too deep, fellow fan.

199. Dansk - December 20, 2007

Just today KGMB’s Hollywood reporter claims that Shatner said of the new Star Trek movie: “I hope that movie bombs.”

If that’s true, any respect I had for Shatner (which admittedly wasn’t much after his whine-fest the last few months) it’s completely gone now. What, is this guy 5 years old or something? “If I can’t have it NO ONE WILL!!”

200. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#199 …

A) I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the “reporting” from the undoubtedly highly intelligent and credible source who goes by the name “Sunrise” and reported that the movie started filming a mere 2 days ago is probably just total bullsh*t. Where’s the rest of KGMB’s interview with Bill? I guess they lost it.

B) There’s been no “whine fest”. Read post # 154.

201. litenbug - December 20, 2007

200. Shatner_Fan_2000 – December 20, 2007
Even discounting the “bomb” content, this was reported in the story above.
Quoting Anthony…
“Of course Shatner is not helping himself with all his talk about not being in the film being ‘foolish’ or ‘a bad business decision.’ In fact his complaints landed him on Cinimatical’s “Lame in 2007″ List. But it appears he may not have learned to keep quiet.

While you may not label this a “whine fest”, he’s certainly not helping his cause.

202. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#200 … He’d like to be included; a natural reaction that many of us would have under similar circumstances.

He legitimately believes he would add something positive to the movie. Many fans agree.

And what of the equal number of comments he’s made calling Abrams “wonderful” and “talented” and saying that he plans to see the movie and he hopes the film is a big success? Those comments aren’t anything that can be used against him, so they tend to be conveniently overlooked.

203. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

Once again, to all the people wanting William Shatner in the movie and not being prepared for the inevitability that he won’t be:

You will be disappointed.

This movie will not be to your liking. I am wondering what it is that you are trying to get across to those of us that are going to enjoy this movie? Perhaps you are on this board to “get it off your chest”. You certainly aren’t going to accomplish anything tangible other than engage in arguments without resolution. My suggestion would be to either make peace with the reality of the Star Trek movie you are going to get or leave the future of Star Trek to others who want keep enjoying new adventures with Kirk, Spock, et al.

” Because I imagine that deep inside of me, I have some kind of deluded hope that I will like it when it comes out. I would need Spock to calculate the actual odds on that happening. ” #159-words actually uttered by Stanky on this very thread.

I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I knew that he hadn’t totally given himself to the dark side I think he’s coming around.

204. Jon C - December 20, 2007

If they use Shatner they should do it the way Richard Donner used the old ’50’s Superman tv stars in ‘Superman:the Movie”.In ‘spot them if You can homage cameos.That might be fun.But I would find Shatner as Kirk tremendously distracting.

205. The Vulcanista - December 20, 2007

#166

Now, how are you so sure that such a phone call didn’t take place?

There are some mighty presumptuous posts being made here today.

Kobayashi Maru, anyone? ;-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

206. Harry Ballz - December 20, 2007

(deep voice) “Come, Stanky……..come over to the DARK side…..” :)

207. jonboc - December 20, 2007

196- Good grief. I’ve never said I dislike Kirk… just the opposite. However, Shatner, through actions and words, makes me rethink who I want to appear in ST08.

In other words, you’re letting your dislike of the actor, William Shatner, through his actions and words, influence your thoughts on the character of Kirk being in the new movie. FIne. Again, I don’t know why it ts so hard to dis-assocciate the actor from the character, but whatever.

And I like that chocolate pudding comparrison..”.I LOVE chocolate pudding…just don’t put any chocalate in it! ”

Very appropriate! Good to know you recognize the enigma that is “TOS fandom that can’t stand Kirk” .

208. TJ Trek - December 20, 2007

Yes, I would tend to agree that something is up. or maybe it’s just shatner trying to get as much publicity out of this as possible. I would say “uh, why don’t we just wait and see next Christmas. Then we will know for sure”

209. The Lensman - December 20, 2007

“Only that Shatner be allowed to join Nimoy in passing the torch to the new cast. ”

Which part of Shatner and Nimoy passing the torch in Star Trek 6 did you not get?

210. Alex Trekek - December 20, 2007

#131. I’d never heard that that one. That would actually be alright. I have been against Kirk being in the film, but if if were an alternate timeline that gave him a proper, and hopefully this time permanant, death, that would be cool.

211. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#209 … Q: “Which part of Shatner and Nimoy passing the torch in Star Trek 6 did you not get?”

A: The part where Paramount decided to go back to the TOS well 15 years later, J.J. Abrams met with Shatner and Nimoy and boldly announced to the world, “…the involvement of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy means a great deal to us on many levels, not the least of which is just the respect of who they are and what they do. They are the carriers of this torch and, without being too reverential; we want to show them the kind of appreciation and admiration they deserve” … then cast Nimoy and started shooting and left Shatner out.

That part.

#204 “I would find Shatner as Kirk tremendously distracting”

That’s like saying you’d find the Lincoln Monument distracting on a tour of Washington landmarks. Shatner IS Kirk.

212. Iowagirl - December 20, 2007

#203

I fail to see the point of your post. We’re all trying to get across a thing or two, and most of the pro-Shatner posts are pretty clear.

Well, you for one were just trying to get across that Shatners non-appearance in the film is inevitable and that the pro-Shatner posters will be disappointed. The former is a mere presumption, the latter is surplus.

My suggestion would be to refrain from presumptions and make peace instead with pro-Shatner posters who put their heart and soul in stating their points of view because they do love TOS and because they regard this film as a unique chance for an encounter of the well-known, beloved portrayals and the fresh, new ones. I love Star Trek too much to just quit and I think it weird to be suggested such a thing just because my thinking differs from yours.

213. Dennis Bailey - December 20, 2007

#211:”Shatner IS Kirk.”

Was.

214. Chi Chi Malook - December 20, 2007

204

How is Shatner a distraction but Nimoy isn’t?

215. Chi Chi Malook - December 20, 2007

213

Is + always will be.

216. Harry Ballz - December 20, 2007

Nimoy isn’t a distraction because he can still pull off portraying an older Spock.

Shatner, after a decade of lampooning his own image, would come across as portraying…..well…..William Shatner……and that wouldn’t just be a distraction, it would be an abomination!

217. Xai - December 20, 2007

Jonboc.
1.Kirk’s in the movie. Apparently we only need one for the flick.
2.You have an amazing way of attempting to slidestep your foot-in-mouth disease. Will we be seeing your grading system on who in here is a good fan? Or is it like Santa’s list… naughty or nice in your estimation?

218. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#216 Oh, come on, Harry. In the recent past, you yourself have expressed a passionate opinion that Shatner should be in this movie. You’re just playing Devil’s advocate now, but this pot doesn’t need the extra stirring!

219. Jon C - December 20, 2007

214 CHI CHI MALOOK and 211 SHATNER FAN. Shatner would be a big distraction TO ME because Kirk is dead and Shatner is now older than Kirk was when He died.Among other reasons.

220. Closettrekker - December 20, 2007

I wish Bill would stop making more of an ass out of himself. It is just sad. He stopped playing Jim Kirk in the movies a long time ago, anyway. Somewhere along the way he started just being himself, and that is not the same thing.
James T. Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise–not William Shatner. He played the role “well” for about 35 years. Let it go! It is someone else’s turn now. No one needs his corny sense of humor (in his old age), nor his suddenly great “business sense”. This is about the spotlight and a shattered ego. Now he is wishing the new Star Trek to flop? I am losing respect for Bill by the minute…

221. nscates - December 20, 2007

It may make me less of a fan, but somehow the thought of all of these people getting their panties in a wad because Shatner is in or out, selfish or selfless, kirk or ex-kirk , beloved or reviled – makes me laugh out loud. What a contentious lot trekkies are! So much for the vaunted IDIC principle which trek was supposed to embody – clearly the concept with the least credibility with the fans.

I chuckle every time I see a Shatner related article because I know it will descend into nitpicking, name calling and belly aching in 20 posts or less. Definitely a source of amusement for me on an otherwise slow news day.

Just to ring in my opinion: I want a good movie. I know that it will be different from the other movies and I’m okay with that. Sure I’d love to see Shatner in the movie, if they can do it without jumping the shark, but it’s not required for me to think the movie is worth seeing. That’s it. I’m not interested in changing anybody’s mind or disputing semantics. I don’t care whether I’m on Dennis Bailey’s side or Iowa Girl’s, or whether ANYBODY agrees with me at all. My opinion matters as much as anyone else’s here, which is to say: not at all. Anthony could shut this site down tomorrow and JJ Abrams would STILL make ST XI.

So, my fellow ST fans, do what you like. Hell, argue until you’re so pissed off you scream at your computer screen and start typing in all caps. Be snide and sarcastic with each other, whatever. Just remember: it really makes no difference. But I’m getting a hell of a laugh from it.

222. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#220 “Now he is wishing the new Star Trek to flop? I am losing respect for Bill by the minute…”

For the 1,701st time … we have ZERO proof that he said that. The report, by some Pulitzer Prize winner called “Sunrise”, also stated that the movie started filming 2 days ago.

Life must be very uncomplicated when you believe everything you hear…

223. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

OK, Iowagirl, you just keep chasing that dream.

I don’t see what is so presumptuous about saying that Shatner isn’t in the movie as he has said it, Leonard Nimoy has said it, mr. jj has said it, the writers have said it, Anthony has said it, and it has been reported by several media sources. My point is that you fight for a cause that has a snowball’s chance in Hell. I don’t recall saying anything about you directly. I was aiming my comments at the people who say all the negative things about the movie because one actor isn’t in it. What I am saying is that maybe this movie might not be for them. Or you, if you are part of the aforementioned crowd. The comments “attributed” to Shatner would be a basis for the comments I have presented and seemed to me to be relevant to the thread at hand.

But, again, keep fighting the good/possibly hopeless fight and I will keep stating my opinions.

224. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

“Last week … Mr. Orci told TrekMovie.com that nothing has changed on the Shatner front and a decision either way was still possible.”
-Orci by way of Anthony

“you fight for a cause that has a snowball’s chance in Hell.”
-I AM THX-1138

Maybe Iowagirl just doesn’t believe in the no win scenario. Good for her! And you, sir, are coming off very Borg-like!

225. DEMODE - December 20, 2007

#213:

There is no _”WAS”_ about it. Shatner will always be Kirk. Chris Pine… if he’s good on screen, he will be remembered as Kirk too. You don’t say Michael Keaton “WAS” Batman, or Sean Connery “WAS” James Bond, just because a new actor is playing their roles now. I think that is slightly disrespectful.

226. Iowagirl - December 20, 2007

#223

They all said he isn’t in the movie SO FAR. This may be a negligible difference for you, but for many of us it’s a crucial one.

And you weren’t just saying that this film might not be for the pro-Shatnerians – you suggested to leave the future of Star Trek to others who want keep enjoying new adventures with Kirk, Spock, et al. I don‘t consider this suitable as most of us want to keep enjoying new adventures, but we all prioritize differently regarding the prerequisites for this enjoyment.

So you‘re right, I will keep chasing my dream and I will keep stating my opinions just like you.

And I agree – it‘s perfectly possible for us to coexist.

227. VOODOO - December 20, 2007

Thousands of posts on Shatner on this site alone is reason he belongs in the new film.

Shatner is the flashpoint in the Star Trek universe.

228. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

“And you, sir, are coming off very Borg-like! ”

Huh?

What are you talking about? You both seem to get your panties in a pretty big bunch if someone doesn’t think the same way you do. Do you even read the whole post or just pick the stuff you have the best chance of disputing? The part about “nothing has changed on the Shatner front” would be referring to the fact that he is not in it. But maybe he could be. Somehow. Maybe.

Once again, my post was aimed at the people who think that the movie will flop or should be avoided because Shatner isn’t in it. If you feel this way, what is the point of trying to drag those of us down who genuinely are excited about the prospect of this movie? Now who is being perceived as negative? If it’s alright, may I like, at least initially, the concept of this movie? Please?

229. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

And Iowagirl, if you would like the continuing adventures of Kirk and Spock and co. there are other sources for you. Books, The New Voyages, video gaming are all there for the perusing. But until you write your own books or film your own stories, I’m afraid that you will have to leave the future of Star Trek up to others. And envision or cast who you wish.

230. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#228 … I can assure you, you aren’t enough to bunch my panties. :) For the record, I like a lot of what I’ve heard about this film also. But not all. I will see it on opening day. I was merely pointing out the obvious flaw in what you were doing: telling Iowagirl that resistance was futile when, in fact, the heading of this article/thread states that the outcome of this issue has NOT been decided. I haven’t said a thing to “drag people down”, but your telling Iowagirl she has a “snowball’s chance in Hell” doesn’t exactly earn you a place in the Mr. Positivity pageant.

231. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

202. Shatner_Fan_2000 – December 20, 2007

Fine, I’ll include his “wonderful” comments as well. Neither of us know how many of either he’s said…soo..

How does he really feel? It’s certainly not consistant.

232. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

For the record, is that the first positive post you have had about the movie? The “resistance is futile” line is adorable, but can’t be attributed to me. More of a paraphrasing. Please to be informing then as to what effect you hope to have? A finished script is usually a telling decision that the issue HAS been decided.

And if I had known that there was to be a pageant, I would have waxed.

233. Greg2600 - December 20, 2007

Harry, while I agree Nimoy has kept in better shape than Shatner-weight-wise, he’s still going to look old. As for pulling off the character, that depends on the script. Unification was a huge disappointment and one of the lousiest episodes of TNG. Basically Nimoy was there doing Spock-isms and little else. Shatner could pull it off, but his advanced age is a problem. That said, did you watch the Roast intro with those two, or Mind Meld, or the convention footage? They are a great team, like Matthau and Lemon, Laurel and Hardy, etc.

234. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

227. VOODOO – December 20, 2007
“Thousands of posts on Shatner on this site alone is reason he belongs in the new film.”

multiple repetitive posts from about the same 20-40 people over a years time does not show massive support, sorry.

235. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#232 “For the record, is that the first positive post you have had about the movie?”

Nope.

“Please to be informing then as to what effect you hope to have?”

Who says I hope to have any? I’m just here giving my opinions, like you.

“A finished script is usually a telling decision that the issue HAS been decided.”

Are you calling Orci a liar, then?

“And if I had known that there was to be a pageant, I would have waxed.”

That’s alright. You probably didn’t have a snowball’s … oh, never mind. :)

236. trektacular - December 20, 2007

Jesus, and they say TNG fans are nerdy- Iowagirl, jonboc, Shatnerfan, crazyloon make me change my mind.

237. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 20, 2007

Shatner in the film would be great. Trek is not Trek without him. In the event he’s not in the film (and this is not some studio gimmick), well, that is a bad decision.

Oh, by the way, who really cares about Cinimatical’s “Lame in 2007″ list? Shatner’s legend will live on, long after bullcrap lists (and the creators of such lists) are long forgotten.

238. Iowagirl - December 20, 2007

#228
I don’t think I gave you the impression of affronting you because you don’t think the same way I do. I had the contrary impression. But, we maybe had a misunderstanding here.

#229
I keep perusing those sources, as well. But people also keep discussing the possible changes of the Enterprise, the uniforms, violation of canon, etc., etc. It’s what fans do. Fans do bother about Star Trek and they do bother about the new film. I won’t refrain from analyzing things. I am aware that Abrams & Co. probably won’t hear our voices or/and don‘t care. But I am interested in Star Trek and I will continue to state my opinion – further on I surely won’t stop watching the grand 79, the films, reading books and respecting established TOS. Best of both worlds. And envisaging is part of the game since the writing “Star Trek“ was screened for the first time.

239. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#236 If ever a mind needed changing …

240. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

If Shatner was in this, he’d have spilled the beans by now and we would not be getting these inconsistent statements.
He believes he’s not in it and has stated that.
I’d love someone to explain to me how they can think he’s in this or has a chance to be in this when he says otherwise. You don’t believe him? Now he’s lying, but that’s ok?
but…
When JJ or Orci make a statement that says we want him, but his character died and that ties our hands…. they are suddenly the bad guys.

How do some of you get through the day with inflexible thinking?

241. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

“Who says I hope to have any? I’m just here giving my opinions, like you.”

Resistence is futile.

“Are you calling Orci a liar, then?”

What are you getting at? Is he planning on finishing the script during the writer’s strike?

“That’s alright. You probably didn’t have a snowball’s … oh, never mind.”

No reason to get all catty, Miss Puerto Rico.

242. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

237. COMPASSIONATE GOD – December 20, 2007
“Shatner in the film would be great. Trek is not Trek without him. In the event he’s not in the film (and this is not some studio gimmick), well, that is a bad decision. ”

In your opinion.

I could agree with your first sentence if he’d not help kill Kirk off. The character is dead and I don’t think we can stretch the incredible any further with ANOTHER “Raising of the Dead” even if this is “SciFi”.

Shatner is not the end-all, do all for this film. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are. All those parts have been cast.

243. Harry Ballz - December 20, 2007

C’mon, everybody…………….GROUP HUG!!! :)

244. Sam Belil - December 20, 2007

Sorry #242 — Shatner is a huge, huge part of the ST universe, arguably he is the face of the franchise (no matter how much we all may not like his ego). Nine out of ten times when people mention ST, the first character they people identify the franchise with is Kirk. I have stated before I believe that the film will be a good film (though my enthusiasm has been waning) — with or wihout him. I believe it will be a better film with Shatner playing “old” Kirk, NOT his Grandfather, NOT his Uncle, Not his Great Grandmother in drag, etc. etc. The Batman, Superman, James Bond comparisons do not apply here, since ONLY one person has been playing James T. Kirk over the past 40 years.

If Shatner is not needed in this film, then why is Nimoy needed (a rhetorical question) — can’t Quinto then be made up to play “Old Spock” also?????

245. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

Sam, the Enterprise is a huge part of the Star Ttrek universe and they are going to change that, too. I wasn’t happy with that at first and then all these people came on here and posted images of Gabe koerner’s E which I thought was ugly (if you’re reading, Gabe, sorry). Then Gabe himself came on here and showed some new renderings he made that were reminiscent of the old E with a lot of nice new touches. I liked it. Now, Gabe isn’t the one who is actually designing the new E, but it made me more comfortale with the fact that it could be changed and it wouldn’t be the end of the world that I thought it would.

What I’m trying to say is that the folks who must have Shatner in the movie should try to be a little more flexible in their perception of what will make a good film. Try to keep an open mind. Allow for the possibility that you can change your opinion of a thing. It makes the crow taste better if you find out you actually like it.

246. Stanky McFibberich - December 20, 2007

re: 203 THX
“I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I knew that he hadn’t totally given himself to the dark side I think he’s coming around. #159-words actually uttered by Stanky on this very thread.”

I wouldn’t read too much into that. And I don’t consider the “dark side” to be an accurate description of one who thinks this movie is a bad idea.

247. I AM THX-1138 - December 20, 2007

Too late, Stanky. No take backs. You wrote it and now it’s true. You are an official lover of the new movie.

Stanky is pro Trek XI!!

Let it be shouted from atop the highest hills for all to hear!

(you can sit next to me on opening night–I’ll pay for the popcorn and sodas)

248. VOODOO - December 20, 2007

234

You are correct, but I think you can look at this board as a microcosm of Trek fandom.

As a matter of fact I think it is safe to say the less passionate fans of Star Trek would be more likely to prefer to have Shatner back. Shatner is the face of ST to the masses. Most people only recognize TOS + to a lesser degree TNG. Mainstream fans simply don’t care about modern ST.

249. Jabob Slatter - December 20, 2007

I don’t want to see Sean Connery play James Bond again.

I don’t want to see William Shatner play James T. Kirk again.

Closetrekker and Harry Balz are right. Nimoy can still play Spock, but Shatner ain’t Kirk any more. Just like Connery isn’t Bond.

Shatner himself has said he doesn’t want to do a cameo, that he wants a more integral role to play. I don’t think they’re prepared to do a rewrite that large, nor should they. Besides, the writers strike prohibits that anyway.

I grew up with the original Kirk, and I’m pumped to see somebody new play him and all the others. I’m going to reserve judgment on the film until I see it.

250. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

248. VOODOO – December 20, 2007

“You are correct, but I think you can look at this board as a microcosm of Trek fandom.”
Your microcosm of passionate fandom on this site currently has 57% of users saying they don’t think William Shatner will be in the film. That’s based on Trekmovie’s poll up in the corner. That’s still not proving your statement.

I don’t see a massive upwelling of outrage over his exclusion in the cast in the Average Joe sector of the potential ST08 movie goers. The news item several weeks ago was primarily reacted to by fans and the news never really sustained a group effort to letter-write the studio or hold rallys of support. While BBK has it’s site (and I admit, I don’t know their site visit numbers)… where’s this huge mass of humanity that wants this to happen?

As a matter of fact I think it is safe to say the less passionate fans of Star Trek would be more likely to prefer to have Shatner back. Shatner is the face of ST to the masses. Most people only recognize TOS + to a lesser degree TNG. Mainstream fans simply don’t care about modern ST.

251. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

continued….

I didn’t ask about TNG or the sister series. Captain Kirk may be the face of Star Trek. But that face truly is 35-40 years old now. Shatner, like us all, has aged.

252. Litenbug - December 20, 2007

sorry for confusion… got carried away with the cut and paste… I should not eat paste…ick

253. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 20, 2007

Re: 242. Litenbug – December 20, 2007
“The character is dead and I don’t think we can stretch the incredible any further with ANOTHER “Raising of the Dead” even if this is “SciFi”.

That’s the point; TALENTED sci-fi writers–or writers who happen to pen sci-fi for the occasion can make the impossible seem possible. That’s how great sci-fi works. Anything less speaks to the failings of the writers, not the plausibility of the story.

“Shatner is not the end-all, do all for this film. Kirk, Spock and McCoy are. All those parts have been cast.”

I’m not talking about unknowns the fan base or general audience does not know and at this point, cares little about. I’m talking about Shatner’s and his character being crucial to the identity of the Star Trek.

254. Irishtrekkie - December 20, 2007

remember when enterprise finished, and there was no new star trek to fight about ,. …………simpler times ,

255. The Vulcanista - December 20, 2007

#254

Leaner times. }:-(

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista. }:-|

256. Harry Ballz - December 20, 2007

#218 Shatner_Fan_2000
“Oh, come on, Harry……….You’re just playing Devil’s advocate now”

Shatner Fan, you’re absolutely right! I WOULD like to see the Shat appear just for a sense of symmetry and closure. I argued the other viewpoint just to get a reaction.

Once in a while I like to “throw a cat in with the pigeons” just to stir things up a bit. :)

You were right to take me to task on it…..Congrats and well done!

257. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 20, 2007

#256 … Haha! I knew it. I know you’re just having a laugh, Harry, and I have gradually come to appreciate your cornball sense of humor (now that I think about it … does anyone here really have a choice??), so it’s all good. :) I’m sure you are aware, though, that when the subject is Shatner’s participation or lack thereof in XI … it’s like you’re bringing an extra gas can to a wilderness fire. :)

258. Harry Ballz - December 20, 2007

Would you say we’re all in agreement that IF the Shat is to be in Trek XI, it would be both recommended and preferred if his appearance made sense as to HOW it fits into the storyline?

259. Litenbug, the unknown, untalented, non-writer - December 20, 2007

253. COMPASSIONATE GOD – December 20, 2007

I am sure Mr. Orci and Mr.Kurtzman are worried about meeting the standard of excellence and TALENT you demand. I know they will lose sleep tonight. After all, they didn’t check with you during the writing…did they? Why stick with continuity when they can just write anyone in.
The “plausible” story you need smacks like an echo of the life, death and life of Kirk’s famous first officer and friend. While fanboys and girls may cream over his triumphant return from the dead, the general public says “huh?” and wonders if the good crew of the Enterprise can truly die. I can even hear the whispers in the theater…”I thought Spock was the one that was dead.”…”No, he came back to life… and Kirk did die I am pretty sure… now he’s back to life too? Jeez!” Where’s the drama? No doubt truly talented writers can overcome an obviously overdone ploy… one…more…time.
It’s one more hurdle to overcome in a story NOT based on the search and resurrection of old Kirk. The story progresses…then..let’s go here and watch Spock raise old Kirk from a 13 year old grave or into the Nexus that nobody liked. The notion of a “The Search for Kirk” likely isn’t happening here.
Once more, had Shatner not helped kill Captain James T. Kirk years ago for pay, he could be enjoying on-location shooting, his own trailer and star billing in ST08. He and Nimoy would be “passing the torch” together. In this reality however, people are wondering why the beloved primary identity of Trek is alternately critical and complimentary of the project and it’s director and not acknowledging a mistake in judgment he made 13 years ago.
He could be working with the production team as special consultant or better. He could still make such an impact on this production by working with Pine and bringing his experience as an actor and director back to Trek.
You may not have much use for the “unknowns”, but I believe this movie has a chance of doing well and those unknown actors will become the Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise for 21st century viewers.

IMO.

260. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 20, 2007

Re: 259. Litenbug, the unknown, untalented, non-writer – December 20,

“I am sure Mr. Orci and Mr.Kurtzman are worried about meeting the standard of excellence and TALENT you demand. I know they will lose sleep tonight. After all, they didn’t check with you during the writing…did they?”

1. That was pointless flaming which only weakens any point you were attempting to make.

Moving on…

2. If “Transformers” ‘is what your faith is based on, then you will not get the point made. Taste is taste, but Star Trek’ requires certain kind of talents. ’nuff said.

“Why stick with continuity when they can just write anyone in.”

The mistake was acknowledging Berman’s useless “continuity” in the first place. It was under his so-called leadership that the franchise sent fans running for the hills, so there was no true logic in respecting anything created during his reign of terror and Trek-killing.

“The “plausible” story you need smacks like an echo of the life, death and life of Kirk’s famous first officer and friend. While fanboys and girls may cream over his triumphant return from the dead, the general public says “huh?” and wonders if the good crew of the Enterprise can truly die.”

The general public does not even remember that horrible film, or much else about TNG’s film efforts. This is not like valid complaints about continuity errors found in the Star Wars prequels, which did not lock with facts in the original Star Wars films–the latter were seen and memorized by a couple of generations, so prequel mistakes would be pointed out in an instant. That’s not the case here; who amongst longtime Trek fans would even care, lat alone remember Generations? How many would protest if Generations–and the entire Berman era were summarily disregarded? Not many.

“I can even hear the whispers in the theater…”I thought Spock was the one that was dead.”…”No, he came back to life… and Kirk did die I am pretty sure… now he’s back to life too? Jeez!” Where’s the drama? No doubt truly talented writers can overcome an obviously overdone ploy… one…more…time.”

For argument’s sake, why not? McCoy was killed by the knight in “Shore Leave” and restored to life by the end of the episode; in “The Changeling” Scotty was killed by Nomad and restored before the hour was up, so technically, death/resurrection TOS characters occured long before “The Search for Spock” and fans did not complain “oh, they already tried that with Bones, so why do that with Scotty, too? That’s too much!!” Again, TALENTED sci-fi writers can make the impossible seem possible, but the issue of returning from the dead would not matter if the PTB did not acknowledge worthless TNG continuity.

“You may not have much use for the “unknowns”, but I believe this movie has a chance of doing well and those unknown actors will become the Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise for 21st century viewers.”

Longtime fans are part of the 21st century viewers this production hopes will fill many theatre seats; if New Trek had to rely (strictly) on the fresh-faced uninitiated, how far do you really think this experiment would go?

261. trektacular - December 20, 2007

Heres a question that probably won’t get answered-Shatner didn’t save what you guys call a bad movie in Generations, what makes you think he can save the new Trek movie if its end up being bad?
If the new film has a good story, it won’t make one difference whether Shatner is in it or not.

262. The Vulcanista - December 20, 2007

#258
Agreed.

I’ll have my peeps call your peeps so we can get this fuss over with. Let’s do lunch. Youlookfabloveyabye!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

263. I AM KIROK!!! - December 21, 2007

Star Trek without Shatner is like having severe food poisioning without explosive diarrhea

UNTHINKABLE

264. JJK - December 21, 2007

I take it this is another time-travel story. If so, all the future Spock has to do is instruction Young Kirk to (1) avoid the port side of Enterprise-B like the plague and (2) wait about 13 years or so and then jump through the nearest time portal (preferably one that bears no resemblance to Harlan Ellison’s!). Then, voila, after fewer than 3 lines of dialog, Old Kirk materializes right before their eyes! :)

265. Chi Chi Malook - December 21, 2007

I’m not getting in a flame war with dorks who don’t understand that people in the mainstream don’t care about Star Trek unless William Shatner + Leonard Nimoy are involved.

Some of you guys can’t understand why the new film isn’t a Voyager or Enterprise film. You just don’t get what Shatner brings to the film + why he should be in it. I won’t be able to convince you so why bother.

They have tried to do Star Trek for 15 years without Shatner + Nimoy and the series has nearly died out because of it. It is foolish not to have Shatner in this film from a commercial point of view.

266. Sam Belil - December 21, 2007

#245 – Why do they need to change the Enterprise. If this is a time travels story does not logic dictate that it should the way it looked in TOS! In DS9! in Enterprise! Can someone please explain to me why the Enterprise needs to be given a different look, just for the sale of change????

Regarding Shatner, read what #265 stated, he could not have stated in any better!!!!!! You rock Chi Chi Malook!!!!!

267. USS SANTA - December 21, 2007

#11, in case you havent noticed, the SHAT has in fact been losing weight for a couple of months. Its quite noticable in his face. He’s looking more like James T. Kirk by the day. Cant wait to see him in the movie.

268. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 21, 2007

#260 and 265 … BRAVO! I salute you both, gentlemen! Especially Compassionate God, who wrote, “The mistake was acknowledging Berman’s useless ‘continuity’ in the first place. It was under his so-called leadership that the franchise sent fans running for the hills, so there was no true logic in respecting anything created during his reign of terror and Trek-killing.”

Ahhh. Clarity of thought is such a wonderful thing to behold. :) Abrams seems in many respects to be wiping the slate clean and starting over. That being the case, Shatner and Nimoy should’ve been the FIRST items on his “How to Make Star Trek Fun Again” wish list, and then he could’ve built from there.

269. Kirok Fan - December 21, 2007

I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but I think it’s ironic that Shatner is quoted as saying “I hope that movie bombs” in a report that is about reporters misquoting or misrepresenting what people have said.

270. Harry Ballz - December 21, 2007

Shatner’s like the chubby girl in high school………..losing weight in hope of being asked to the dance! :)

271. Ivory - December 21, 2007

265

Well said.

272. Kirok Fan - December 21, 2007

HEY! LOOK:

http://trekweb.com/articles/2007/12/21/Damon-LindelofnbspReveals-That-There-Are-Still-Ongoing-Talks-with-William-Shatner-for-an-Appearance-in-New-Star-Trek-Movie.shtml

273. Kirok Fan - December 21, 2007

This is what Lindelof has just said:

“There are still ongoing talks,” reported Lindelof. “We’re pretty much exactly where we were with Comic Con … Look, the reality is Trek was up and running and in existence and iconic before we came so we’ve been basically invited to the party that these guys have been throwing for the last 40 years, so obviously it would be HUGE if Mr. Shatner wanted to be any part of the franchise. It’s a challenge for us, though, because they killed Kirk off … But hey, it’s Trek, anything’s possible, right?”

So I’m still really hopeful. I wonder if the poll Anthony is taking would have come out much different if this Lindelof interview had appeared first.

And based on what Lindelof has said, I bet even he would agree that it would be “foolish” to not offer Shatner some sort of role.

274. Ivory - December 21, 2007

“There are still ongoing talks”

Does that mean between the creative team amongst themselves or between tptb and Shatner?

275. Sam Belil - December 21, 2007

From Hollywood.com:

Warped Factors: Inside the New ‘Star Trek’ Film
By Scott Huver, Hollywood.com Staff

J.J. Abrams
The new crew has beamed aboard and is ready to boldly go where, actually, a certain few have gone before.

With nearly a year before a finished film beams into theaters, the newest incarnation of the classic TV-series-turned-film-franchise known as Star Trek has already became the most anticipated reinvention of an iconic movie series since Batman Begins and Casino Royale. Hollywood.com has opened hailing frequencies with the command team behind the new project as well as some of the series’ original stars.

Ever since writer-director-producer J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost) was tapped by Paramount Pictures to re-imagine Trek’s retro-60s origins for a brand-new take on the 40-year-old franchise–films featuring Captain Picard the Next Generation cast went into drydock after 2002’s less-than-stellar Star Trek: Nemesis–speculation on the fresh course has multiplied faster than a cargo bay full of Tribbles.

And yes, for the new incarnation it’s OKAY if you don’t know what a Tribble is, according to executive producer Damon Lindelof, who promises that the new film is being designed to appeal to a fanbase far beyond that of traditional Trek loyalists–we dare not enter in to Trekkie vs. Trekker debate here–while also reviving interest among die hard fans who found themselves more than a little burned out after no less than ten feature films in theaters between 1979 and 2002 and four TV spin-offs airing from 1987 to 2005.

“All I can say is I think it’s going to be really, really cool,” says Lindelof, who as executive producer of Lost is no stranger to holding spoilers close to his vest. “We’re making the movie for the fans, but more importantly we’re making it for a whole new generation of fans. We want our wives to come and understand what the hell’s going on. We want our kids to understand what the hell’s going on. It’s not your daddy’s Star Trek.”

Karl Urban
Well, it isn’t, and it is. The new film will feature the famous characters comprising the original series’ crew as they come together for the first time, interpreted by an all-new cast of actors. Among the central “triumverate” at the core of the film are Chris Pine (Smokin’ Aces), who assumes command as Capt. James T. Kirk, Zachary Quinto (Heroes’ Sylar) raising an eyebrow as the Vulcan first officer Mr. Spock, and Karl Urban (The Bourne Supremacy) scrubbing in as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy.

Rounding out the classic crew are John Cho (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle) as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana (Drumline) as communications officer Uhura, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead) as engineer Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, and Anton Yelchin (Fierce People) as ship’s ensign Pavel Checkov.

Other actors appearing in the film include Eric Bana as the film’s antagonist Nero; Winona Ryder as Spock’s mother Amanda Grayson; Ben Cross (Chariots of Fire) as Spock’s Vulcan father Sarek; Bruce Greenwood (Capote) as Capt. Christopher Pike, the original commander of the Enterprise; Australian actor Chris Hemsworth (Home and Away) as Kirk’s father; and actresses Rachel Nichols (Alias) and Jennifer Morrison (House) in as-yet-unrevealed roles.

And the new creative team set their phasers on stun when it was unveiled last summer that Leonard Nimoy, the actor who originated the role of Spock in the 1966 series and directed two of the most popular Trek films, had signed on to don his pointed ears once more. In fact, Nimoy’s participation has the Internet is abuzz over the tack Abrams, Lindelof and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (Transformers) would be taking as they integrated the once and future Spocks into the storyline.

Zoe Saldana
One of the more elaborate theories, reported most popularly by Ain’t It Cool News’ Drew “Moriarty” McWeeny, suggested that the series would feature time travel (most likely using the Guardian of Forever from the series most acclaimed episode, “City on the Edge of Forever” by the renowned Harlan Ellison) that would cause massive ramifications throughout the Trek timeline–and allow for radical departures from four decades of rigidly established continuity.

Such a science fiction conceit would allow Trek purists to preserve their long-standing vision of the epic storyline, while also unshackling the new films from the weight of the past and allowing for major revisions as the “prequel” series progresses. But Lindelof suggests that McWeeny’s theory, which purportedly came from his deep-seated studio connections, could be so much antimatter.

“If I were to tell you what I thought, it would shine too much light on whether or not he was hot or cold,” said Lindelof, “and quite honestly I think that kind of stuff is exciting that the fans are sort of saying ‘If Nimoy’s in the movie and Quinto is playing young Spock, what could that mean for the story? Let me try to devise a possible plot line.’”

Lindelof said he’s glad that he’s not charged, as a writer, with tackling any scenes addressing some of Trek’s most seminal ingredients. “It’s very comforting for me to be a producer on this movie, just be involved in the story. I’d be very nervous to actually write that stuff.” And then, with a twinkle in his eye, he can’t resist dropping a hint about at least one Trek staple that seems likely to be featured “But you know, no one writes a mind-meld like Kurtzman and Orci, That’s all I’ll say.

Zachary Quinto
A Tale of Two Spocks
The enormity of the shoes–and ears–he has to fill is not lost on Quinto, who started filming in early November. “It’s an incredible honor,” he told Hollywood.com. “The energy is just palpable and exciting. I’m really thrilled.” The actor has already had his first “pinch-me-I’m-dreaming” moment: “When I put the ears on. That was a definite, quiet, personal moment. It was me and the make-up designer…and my dog. You will be able to watch it on the DVD. They have a DVD crew checking everything out. It was really exciting.”

Quinto said he screen-tested with his co-star Pine prior to his casting as Kirk to determine the extent of the duo’s important on-camera chemistry, and they had a leg up on establishing a quick rapport. “I knew Chris before,” said Quinto. “It’s so weird, I’ve known at least three or four of the other cast members. Either I’ve worked with them or crossed paths with them, or I’ve known them socially in the past. That is really exciting. Chris is a phenomenal actor. I think he brings an echo of [William] Shatner’s energy, but completely himself. He’s really honoring the roll. I’m looking forward to working with him.”

“I remember when Sylar first appeared on Heroes,” recalled Lindelof. “I was like ‘That guy looks exactly like Leonard Nimoy!’ And then I didn’t know if he was going to be just a one-off [character[ and then of course Sylar became that show’s Ben, you know, a pivotal character. And fortunately [Heroes executive producer] Tim Kring and I are very close, so I was able to reach out to him and say ‘What’s your plan for Season 2 with this guy, because we’d really love to cast him as Spock.’ To Tim and Zach and J.J.’s and everybody else’s credit, we were able to make it happen. And just seeing him standing next to Leonard at Comic Con was a once in a lifetime experience.”

Chris Pine
Meanwhile, Lindelof says the team behind the film is flying at warp speed whenever they interact with the original half-human, half-Vulcan. “It’s unbelievable,” he said. “Unlike James Bond, the only person who’s ever played Mr. Spock is Leonard Nimoy, so it meant so much to us for him to literally be able to pass the baton to the next generation, as it were. And he and Zach get along great and Zach is just in awe of him as pop culture icon, but also as an actor. It’s going to be pretty cool when you see those guys with their ears on.”

Which begs the question: what about the other original star, the one without the pointed cartilage, who decked Klingons and canoodled with green Orion slave girls while bringing his dashing Kennedy-esque charm to Gene Roddenberry’s dynamic, utopian vision of the future. At last summer’s San Diego Comic-Con Abrams told a crowd of fans that he held high hopes that they new film would also feature William Shatner reprising his role as Captain Kirk (despite the fact Kirk was killed off in the seventh feature film, 1994’s Generations).

“There are still ongoing talks,” reported Lindelof. “We’re pretty much exactly where we were with Comic Con … Look, the reality is Trek was up and running and in existence and iconic before we came so we’ve been basically invited to the party that these guys have been throwing for the last 40 years, so obviously it would be HUGE if Mr. Shatner wanted to be any part of the franchise. It’s a challenge for us, though, because they killed Kirk off … But hey, it’s Trek, anything’s possible, right?

Nichelle Nichols
No Final Frontier
Despite the fact that thus far only Nimoy is beaming aboard, the surviving stars of the original series (DeForest Kelley died in 1999; James Doohan in 2005) are enthusiastic about seeing the characters they created continuing on in new, young hands.

“I am so excited,” Nichelle Nichols, the original Uhura, told Hollywood.com. “I feel like it’s very necessary that Gene’s[Roddenberry] idea of where we are in this world, as human beings, continue. The universe is vast and there is room for all of us. So, to be ‘reincarnated’ so to speak, by this lovely actress, I think that Uhura and I are very proud to have her.”

Nichols was intrigued to see more of Zoe Saldana’s work before her take on Trek is released. “I haven’t seen enough, I think I have saw one of the things she did, and I saw a picture, and I’m going ‘Oo la, la!’”

George Takei, the original Sulu who with Nichols also appears alongside Quinto on Heroes, is also enthused about his younger self. “I know the actor, John Cho–he’s a very fine actor. He’s a very funny comedian and I think that he’s going to bring a lot of the comedic element to Sulu as well.”

“One interesting thing that I noted: when I started Star Trek I was 27 years old,” recalled Takei “This is supposed to be a prequel and Sulu is supposed to be younger, but John Cho is now 35,” he laughed. “But he looks very young.”

“I think it’s great,” agreed the original Chekov, Walter Koenig. “Just as long as it’s a good film, keep it going. It’s a legacy that keeps giving. I’m sure that J.J. Abrams has a good handle on what he wants to do and the fans will be satisfied–I’m sure of that.”

“I am sure that he’ll do a terrific job,” Koenig said of his counterpart Anton Yelchin, though he hesitate a bit before offering some advice to the young actor. “Just go with your heart, mind, and soul. Do it the way that you feel it should be done.”

Eugene Roddenberry, the son of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, said he feels confident Abrams, Lindelof and company will deliver a film that fulfills the specific vision his father conceived.

“They by all means have my blessing,” Roddenberry told Hollywood.com. “J.J. Abrams is a fan of Star Trek, and as a fan of Star Trek I believe he will do right by it …There’s a lot of politics involved so I just hope that he can find a medium that makes everyone happy. And if not, that at least makes the fans happy…I do have faith in that movie.”

Roddenberry said his only concern was in “protecting the Roddenberry name and the philosophy, the idea of this united future. The minute a Star Trek comes out that shows a future where 300 years from now it’s collapsed and we’re not getting along, I would say that’s not Star Trek.”

“Star Trek’s important because you go to other planets and you can mask our social issues with the issues on another planet and say ‘Look at what’s happening to them–look at it from both points of view and let’s figure out,’” said Roddenberry. “Isn’t it great when they all come together to work together? That’s what I want to protect. When they go out there and they just start blowing people away, it’ll be great sci-fi, but it’ll be Star Wars. It’ll be fantastic sci-fi, but it won’t be Roddenberry sci-fi.”

Takei said he has no doubt that the new course will help ensure that Star Trek may never actually reach its own final frontier. “The Vulcans greet each other by saying ‘Live long and prosper,’” he explained. “One sure way to make sure our characters live long is to keep getting young again, getting young actors to play us, so yes. It’s in the tradition of Star Trek, living long and prospering.”

276. I AM THX-1138 - December 21, 2007

Sam, there are reports out there that have stated that the Enterprise has changed. Cawley claims to have seen it and said that it has changed. The point of it being changed is a non-issue.

Just like the point that there is no part in the script for Shatner. There is a writers strike going on and until that is resolved, there is no possibility of a part for Shatner being written.

Look, I’m not a Shatner hater or an anti-Kirk person, but if you feel compelled to lump me into some generalization to make yourself comfortable, so be it. I just want to get to the meat of your issue here. Can you live with the changes or can’t you? Will this be for you or should you avoid it?

I think you guys have put too much weight into some guy (Lindleoff/Orci) saying “maybe, maybe not”.

277. Kirok Fan - December 21, 2007

#276
Shatner’s involvement might not be as dependent on the writer’s strike as you believe.

The writers of this movie knew that the strike was coming. It is reasonable to believe that they might have written slightly different versions of the script. One to go ahead without Shatner, and the other to include him. If both were written beforehand, there would be no problem caused by the strike.

As for the script being “locked,” as everyone keeps mentioning, I think “locked” might just mean that it is done, and that the film will go ahead despite the strike. I don’t think “locked” necessarily means that they won’t feel free to use their alternative or earlier scripts when they wish to do so.

278. Ivory - December 21, 2007

They knew this strike was coming. If they wanted him in they would have written him in well before the strike.

279. I AM THX-1138 - December 21, 2007

I don’t wish to offend, but it sounds like grasping.

280. trektacular - December 21, 2007

You guys are the coolest.

281. Shatner_Fan_2000 - December 21, 2007

#276 “I think you guys have put too much weight into some guy (Lindleoff/Orci) saying ‘maybe, maybe not’.”

Those guys are the producers/writers. And if they keep making these statements, why should we listen to you telling us they’re wrong? If Shatner ends up not being in the movie, so be it. But why are you so dead set on telling us not to have hope? Let it go already.

282. Litenbug - December 21, 2007

260. COMPASSIONATE GOD – December 20, 2007

1. That was pointless flaming which only weakens any point you were attempting to make.
2. If “Transformers” ‘is what your faith is based on, then you will not get the point made. Taste is taste, but Star Trek’ requires certain kind of talents. ’nuff said.

Sorry, that doesn’t address the thinly-veiled insult you threw at the Orci and Kurtzman… twice. You’ve not seen the script or the film. And if your insult and critique is solely based on the fact the Shatner may not appear, that’s a awfully limited viewpoint. We all want a good film, but my hopes don’t rely solely on one actor.

“Why stick with continuity when they can just write anyone in.”

The mistake was acknowledging Berman’s useless “continuity” in the first place. It was under his so-called leadership that the franchise sent fans running for the hills, so there was no true logic in respecting anything created during his reign of terror and Trek-killing.

You like to present your opinion as facts and we both know that doesn’t work. You’ve a bias against anything not TOS and it shows. TOS and non-TOS movies were all a grab-bag of good, bad and mediocre. That goes for the series as well. All of them.

The general public does not even remember that horrible film, or much else about TNG’s film efforts. This is not like valid complaints about continuity errors found in the Star Wars prequels, which did not lock with facts in the original Star Wars films–the latter were seen and memorized by a couple of generations, so prequel mistakes would be pointed out in an instant. That’s not the case here; who amongst longtime Trek fans would even care, lat alone remember Generations? How many would protest if Generations–and the entire Berman era were summarily disregarded? Not many.
Again with the opinion as fact. And like it or not… there are no “do-overs” of the scale you wish for. If that was the case… who decides? If Shatner is the face of the franchise… he should not have participated in Generations and Kirk’s death. And fans not remember Generations? You don’t read posts do you… for good or bad, there’s likely none here that cannot recall the film.

“I can even hear the whispers in the theater…”I thought Spock was the one that was dead.”…”No, he came back to life… and Kirk did die I am pretty sure… now he’s back to life too? Jeez!” Where’s the drama? No doubt truly talented writers can overcome an obviously overdone ploy… one…more…time.”

For argument’s sake, why not? McCoy was killed by the knight in “Shore Leave” and restored to life by the end of the episode; in “The Changeling” Scotty was killed by Nomad and restored before the hour was up, so technically, death/resurrection TOS characters occured long before “The Search for Spock” and fans did not complain “oh, they already tried that with Bones, so why do that with Scotty, too? That’s too much!!” Again, TALENTED sci-fi writers can make the impossible seem possible, but the issue of returning from the dead would not matter if the PTB did not acknowledge worthless TNG continuity.

Thus the need to not venture into ZOMBIE land one more time. All killed, all back and death has no sting, no drama. It’s overdone and hiding behind the statement of “TALENTED sci-fi writers can make the impossible seem possible” is all too easy.
As I recall..
Chekov dead at least once, maybe an illusion, dam Melkot cowboys…
Uhura Not killed, if I recall, someone had to be there to call 911
Sulu Don’t recall, but if it’s TOS, he probably died at least once.
McCoy Once by lance, saved thousands
Scott Bingo
Spock Blinded, infected, insane and yes,… toasted, killed and buried
Kirk dead, or thought to be, 79 times
Redshirts THEY have a right to be pissed.
The episodes you mentioned were not based on that characters death, it was a circumstance of the story. This revival, God-forbid it happen, would be compared directly to STIII and look like a copy even with the best efforts of any writer.

“You may not have much use for the “unknowns”, but I believe this movie has a chance of doing well and those unknown actors will become the Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise for 21st century viewers.”

Longtime fans are part of the 21st century viewers this production hopes will fill many theatre seats; if New Trek had to rely (strictly) on the fresh-faced uninitiated, how far do you really think this experiment would go?

I’ve already stated my opinion on this.

If it’s worth anything… the current poll above

Do you think William Shatner will appear in the new Star Trek movie?

Yes (43%)
No (57%)

283. Closettrekker - December 21, 2007

#222- regardless if the quote is accurate or not, that does not change the fact that Shatner has made an ass of himself for years…
#244- Nimoy is still relevant because:
A. He can still play the role, therefore no need for Quinto to get made over as Old Spock
B. Spock is still alive, while Kirk is not. This is, of course, assuming the story takes place (at least in part) when we’ve all been led to believe it does, and judging by the movie makers’ concern over Kirk’s death, it must.

284. I AM THX-1138 - December 21, 2007

I do it because I like you. I don’t wish for your feelings to be hurt or for your expectations to be unreasonable and unmet. As I’ve said before, you should keep clinging to your hope. I just don’t wish for your passion to devolve into vehement dislike for the movie if your wishes are not fulfilled. That would bum me out. I just want you all to manintain a sense of reality about the situation. You seem to be reading something much differently from the production team than I am. When they say that Shatner might be in it, I see that as a ploy to keep the fans who greatly desire him in the movie to maintain their interest. Kind of stringing you along, if you will. Where did I say the production team was wrong? As for letting it go, the same could be said of the “Shatner is in it, I just know it” crowd. I can’t let it go because I just don’t know when to shut up. And I rarely do (apparently).

But keep in mind, I do like you. You are like my extended, invisible brothers and sisters. There may be one thing (or two) that we may fight about and certainly disagree upon, but it rarely gets pointed out when we are on the same side of an issue. Keep hoping and posting. If your wishes are met, I will be among the first to express my happiness for you. I will be happy too. But until then, I will continue to take issue with things that I don’t agree with.

285. Litenbug - December 21, 2007

Maybe this thread ought to end on 284. I AM THX-1138’s post.
A good point.
We all want the best for Trek, we just don’t agree on how to get there.

286. Sam Belil - December 21, 2007

#276″ there are reports out there that have stated that the Enterprise has changed. Cawley claims to have seen it and said that it has changed. The point of it being changed is a non-issue” —

Of coursen change is an issue, why does the classic look (exterior) need to be changed/updated. Again — especially if we’re talking a “Pike-Period” story. Was the look of the Enterprise changed in “DS9″ and in “Enterprise”? No, it maintained its classic look for THAT specific period.

287. JFK - December 21, 2007

278. Ivory – December 21, 2007
“They knew this strike was coming. If they wanted him in they would have written him in well before the strike.”

It’s a big conspiracy, just like you thought.

288. VOODOO - December 21, 2007

Gustavo over at Trekweb claims that there are “ongoing talks with William Shatner for a role in Star Trek”

289. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 21, 2007

Re: 282. Litenbug – December 21, 2007
“260. COMPASSIONATE GOD – December 20, 2007

1. That was pointless flaming which only weakens any point you were attempting to make.
2. If “Transformers” ‘is what your faith is based on, then you will not get the point made. Taste is taste, but Star Trek’ requires certain kind of talents. ’nuff said.

Sorry, that doesn’t address the thinly-veiled insult you threw at the Orci and Kurtzman… twice. You’ve not seen the script or the film. And if your insult and critique is solely based on the fact the Shatner may not appear, that’s a awfully limited viewpoint. We all want a good film, but my hopes don’t rely solely on one actor.”

1. You were flaming.

2. No, but your hopes (like others) apparently rely on your positive opinion of Orci and Kurtzman, which–to be fair–should be based on their most high-profile work pre-Trek, which is another sci-fi concept: The Transformers. Logically, if we base merits on that last high-profile work, one cannot honestly sell themselves with fantasies of how good/great this as yet unseen production will be, considering what Transformers turned out to be. That’s not an insult, but an honest observation, whether you care to admit it, or not.

CG: “The mistake was acknowledging Berman’s useless “continuity” in the first place. It was under his so-called leadership that the franchise sent fans running for the hills, so there was no true logic in respecting anything created during his reign of terror and Trek-killing.”

Litenbug: “You like to present your opinion as facts and we both know that doesn’t work. You’ve a bias against anything not TOS and it shows. TOS and non-TOS movies were all a grab-bag of good, bad and mediocre. That goes for the series as well. All of them.”

Your opinion would hold water if not for one, unavoidable fact: Berman and his stooges–NOT the TOS TV and/or film cast & crew–was responsible for the steady destruction of the franchise. Again, a fact whether you are comfortable admitting that or not. Common sense and truth can only point to Berman’s efforts for the crap which pushed fans away. Generations was a part of that mess. Like it or not, therefore it is irrelevant to mention any problems in the TOS end of the franchise.

“there are no “do-overs” of the scale you wish for. If that was the case… who decides?”

Really? Spock’s return was pretty massive. Additionally, Enterprise–unfortunately part of Trek contiunity was routinely blasted for ignoring or altering significant Trek canon. It happens and is possible.

Who decides, you ask? The PTB. They can choose to reboot Trek in any way, shape or form, much as Batman Begins–while a Warner Brothers film like the nightmarish Burton/Schumacher films–is a complete reboot of the Bat-film franchise. THAT is how it happens, and the PTB can make that decision at the drop of a dime.

“And fans not remember Generations? You don’t read posts do you… for good or bad, there’s likely none here that cannot recall the film.”

You don’t listen to fans online and in real life if you cannot personally recall ANY who hardly watched any of Berman’s series–which would include the movies.

“Thus the need to not venture into ZOMBIE land one more time. All killed, all back and death has no sting, no drama. It’s overdone and hiding behind the statement of “TALENTED sci-fi writers can make the impossible seem possible” is all too easy.”

There is no “hiding” when I stand by the observation that TALENT leads to inventive, entertaining decisions. Further, this all ends IF the PTB simply ignored Bermanville and approached New Trek as a genuine reboot, as in the Batman example..

“This revival, God-forbid it happen, would be compared directly to STIII and look like a copy even with the best efforts of any writer.”

See my previous statement.

“I’ve already stated my opinion on this.

If it’s worth anything… the current poll above

Do you think William Shatner will appear in the new Star Trek movie?

Yes (43%)
No (57%) ”

I’m asking you if you actually think the PTB are strictly resing thier hope on new, 21st century fans and NOT the couple of generations who are FAMILIAR with the characters of this new film?

290. trektacular - December 21, 2007

Based on some peoples comments on this board if and when Shatner dies Trek dies. Makes sense.

291. Xai - December 21, 2007

289. COMPASSIONATE GOD – December 21, 2007

We are arguing opinions and items that may be moot points.

You’ve insulted the writers, inplying they lack TALENT only because they appear to have not included Shatner. This is a very narrow and selfish viewpoint.
While I think they will have produced a good script based on what I’ve seen and learned about them, I don’t know what they did..I will admit that. Your posts and comments on them lead me to believe you have already decided what you think of them and their work that has yet to be seen by the public.

There won’t be a the mass write off of all that was post-TOS. I am not going to rehash which series were on the longest, most awards won, etc. The TNG movie franchise was uneven. No mysteries there. Generations would have been fine had Kirk been given a more heroic end, is what I hear from many that like Shatner. Speaking of..
Your responses never mentioned Shatner’s part in killing Kirk. Was that an oversight? Berman and his bad boys hold a gun to his head?
CG…” I’m talking about Shatner’s and his character being crucial to the identity of the Star Trek.”
I guess he should have thought of that. If you think that Berman killed Kirk, you have to agree that Shatner at least held him down.
You already know the answer to your question. They need and want both new and old fans. Lindelof has stated that.
If TOS was to be revived, it had to be recast. It isn’t going to appeal to everyone. Nothing ever does.

292. litenbug - December 21, 2007

why does my post have Xai’s name on it?

293. Xai - December 21, 2007

This constant bickering over Shatner’s getting old. There’s no new news, just a rehash.

294. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 21, 2007

Re: 291. Xai – December 21, 2007

“You’ve insulted the writers, inplying they lack TALENT only because they appear to have not included Shatner.”

Xai, with all due respect, you are incorrect. My OBSERVATION about the writers is based on what i’ve posted a couple of times: recent work. It is no different than the kind of talk that swirlied about George Lucas when the 1st Star Wars was in production; people based theories and ideas about whatever was known about the director’s PREVIOUS work, which was American Graffiti. In this case, the last significant thing would be Transformers–a sci-fi film like the one they’re working on. This is the most fair assessment one can make–instead of the kind of leaping to celebrate an unseen film made by some fans.

Shatner not being in the film just points to a greater problem: acknowledging ANY of the latter years material which destroyed the franchise and pushed fans away. Where is the logic in that, Xai?

“Your responses never mentioned Shatner’s part in killing Kirk. Was that an oversight? Berman and his bad boys hold a gun to his head?”

But who was ultimately responsible? If Shatner never participated, slick writers could have referred to Kirk’s death as a passing reference. Since its canon, it would have served the same purpose.

“They need and want both new and old fans. Lindelof has stated that.”

He say that but the stand out comment: “its not your daddy’s Star Trek” part. That suggests new, uninitiated fans are the focus, instead of trying to recapture all of the faceless legions who abandoned the franchise.

“If TOS was to be revived, it had to be recast. It isn’t going to appeal to everyone. Nothing ever does. ”

Recasting is not the issue, as they are going into the past. Failing to ignore that which helped destroy the franchise, then using Nimoy, but finding no place for Shatner is the issue. Again, serious talents whether they write sci-fi for the task, or are seasoned sci-fi writers, can come up with anything…but holding on to a terrible part of canon makes no sense.

Start fresh as though the only universe that exists is that of TOS, this way no one is handcuffed by nonsense.

295. Stanky McFibberich - December 21, 2007

re:291 Mr. X
“If TOS was to be revived, it had to be recast. It isn’t going to appeal to everyone. Nothing ever does.”

No need for revival. There IS no TOS. It is Star Trek. Plain and simple.

Colossal waste of time and resources.

296. trektacular - December 21, 2007

You guys aren’t Trek fans, you’re Shatner fans plain and simple.

297. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 22, 2007

Re: 296. trektacular – December 21, 2007
“You guys aren’t Trek fans, you’re Shatner fans plain and simple. ”

For the sake of clarity, please define what a Trek fan is.

For the sake of reasoning, if “you guys” were just Shatner fans, then that would imply a love for all or nearly all things Shatner. Since no one has said anything indicating such a leaning, we can only come away with certain fans supporting Shatner due to his importance to the franchise, for the sake OF the franchise and new film–meaning theirs is not some act of blind fanboy worship in session.

298. Iowagirl - December 22, 2007

#296, 297

@ COMPASSIONATE GOD
Agreed.

@ trektacular
Although I haven’t been involved in the recent discussion, and I’m surely not one of the “guys” you’re referring to, I’d still like to answer your post.

With your absurd statement you’re only confirming that you do not want to properly discuss, but to polemize. The pro-Shatner posters do respect Shatner’s unique contribution to Star Trek and his portrayal of Kirk, and they are sincerely interested in getting a chance to see not only the new adventures of young Kirk, but to get old Kirk back alive, as well. Their respect for the actor’s achievements and their interest in the film’s possible significance happen to accompany each other.

299. ShawnP - December 22, 2007

#163 & 169 – Yes and yes.

300. Jon C - December 22, 2007

THE WAY TO SOLVE THE DEAD KIRK PROBLEM AND SHATNER RETURNING…Instead of wasting valuable screen time undoing ‘Generations’, a TV movie could be made with the Next Gen cast going back to Veridian 3 to undo Kirk’s death.It would be canon and would enable Kirk to appear as his old self in the movie.

301. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#300- The problem is, that would only work towards explaining it to diehards like us—and not the new generation of fans this team is counting on for the future (who are more likely to rent previous ST movies –hopefully STV won’t kill their interest–than to sit down at home and watch a made for TV movie), not to mention the TNG crew would need a good reason to disrupt the timeline. Nice idea on the made for TV movies, though. I would watch…

302. litenbug - December 22, 2007

294. COMPASSIONATE GOD
Sorry, I am not swayed in this.
I’ve done more than watch Orci and Kurtzman’s work. I see what they say in interviews and I’ve a co-worker who has interviewed them and came away with good feelings about them and their projects. So, I have not leaped to any conclusions, but I’ve done some homework. I did qualify my opinion to state that I don’t know what time will bring. We all wait.
However, I still feel your OBSERVATION was not that. It seemed to imply a lack of talent..primarily because they didn’t appear to include your favorite actor.

Re: 242. Litenbug – December 20, 2007
“The character is dead and I don’t think we can stretch the incredible any further with ANOTHER “Raising of the Dead” even if this is “SciFi”.

CG-“That’s the point; TALENTED sci-fi writers–or writers who happen to pen sci-fi for the occasion can make the impossible seem possible. That’s how great sci-fi works. Anything less speaks to the failings of the writers, not the plausibility of the story.”
We spoke of fresh faces and who the target audience is
Litenbug.-“They need and want both new and old fans. Lindelof has stated that.”

CG-“He say that but the stand out comment: “its not your daddy’s Star Trek” part. That suggests new, uninitiated fans are the focus, instead of trying to recapture all of the faceless legions who abandoned the franchise.”

You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn’t just for new fans, but old as well.

You mentioned “Recasting is not the issue, as they are going into the past. Failing to ignore that which helped destroy the franchise, then using Nimoy, but finding no place for Shatner is the issue. Again, serious talents whether they write sci-fi for the task, or are seasoned sci-fi writers, can come up with anything…but holding on to a terrible part of canon makes no sense.”
That terrible part of canon you mention…I assume is the death of Kirk, by Shatner’s hand. He had the power to say no to the script. And while Kirk’s death could have been written in as a line, that’s highly doubtful. Kirk saved or helped save two Enterprises and countless lives in that movie. He was a big par of it, not a throwaway line.
But now, he’s dead. We will see if Shatner is once again brought back, although from what I’ve heard..again, doubtful.
The rest is opinion…you don’t sway me..I don’t sway you

303. Closettrekker - December 22, 2007

#298–William Shatner has, for years, had the priviledge of portraying Gene Roddenberry’s vision of who the captain of the Enterprise should be (at least a compromise of that vision, since Chris Pike was his first choice, which Paramount was not so thrilled about). Somehow I think some fans are confused. Shatner did not MAKE Star Trek, nor did he CREATE the character of Jim Kirk. Gene did. Shatner was ALLOWED the opprotunity to play the role, and he did it well. This idea that Star Trek owes Bill Shatner something is ridiculous. If anything, Bill Shatner owes his iconic status to Star Trek! Otherwise, he is just a pompous old man, who never would have been allowed to make those ridiculously horrid albums in the 70’s, to do the corny cop show, to host SNL, to direct (and screw up) a Star Trek movie, to write bad novels, or to do those Priceline commercials. Shatner was never a great actor. He was HANDED a role perfectly suited for him when he was in his 30’s(having been nothing but a minor actor before then), and has made a living off of it ever since. When I was a child, he was the coolest thing on– to me. The truth is, he is a jerk, and most of us give him a pass because he played Captain Kirk! Every time he opens his mouth about this situation, I get a little more disgusted with him. I wish he would show some dignity for once, not to mention a little class. He should defer gracefully.

304. Iowagirl - December 22, 2007

#303
Thank you for your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to.

True, Roddenberry created Kirk, but it was Shatner’s convincing portrayal that was responsible for Kirk’s high recognition value, for him becoming a cultural heritage. It would be coherent to reason that because Kirk has become an archetype and Shatner has been the only person so far portraying him.

As for his pre-Trek career, I’d call receiving the Most Promising Actor Award, already having a seven-year contract by 20th Century Fox, a movie-debut in the Brothers Karamazov and the starring-role in The World of Suzie Wong quite promising. After Star Trek, he, like all other Trek actors had the typecasting problem, which he, unlike most of his fellow actors, successfully managed to overcome; most recently with his role as Denny Crane.

Anyway, I don’t think it makes much sense to have another lap of that discussion – all of this has been said numerous times before. But it should be made clear that your truth isn’t necessarily THE truth but rather your opinion which, I said it before, your are perfectly entitled to.

305. Tom - December 22, 2007

I THINK HE SHOULD PLAY KIRKS DAD!!!

306. Scott - December 22, 2007

#294
I agree.
Look at Emergency 911 & TJ Hooker.
Those two shows suck real bad (sorry Shat).
I would never waste my time.
And Shat’s the main star.
Not everything non-Star Trek gig
can be Airplane 2 or Boston Legal!

307. VOODOO - December 23, 2007

Shatner’s appearance or lack there of has already been decided. There is no way that they haven’t decided which way they are going to go at this point.

Two scenario’s exist.

1/ Shatner will be in this film in a cameo at the end (that will film in March) and they want to keep this quiet because it is a major plot point.

2/ Shatner is not in and they never wanted him. All the Shatner talk was a way to create plausible deniability to keep the Shatner/Kirk fans engaged + at least show they tried to get Shatner involved.

I am 99% convinced the Shatner issue has been already decided one way or the other. I can’t believe they would go into a $150 million dollar project and not know what direction they want to go in the the most popular Star Trek celebrity + the face of the franchise.

As a fan of Kirk who I take heart in the fact that they have not publicly ruled him out even at this late date. If they had zero interest in him they would simply have said it by now.

Please give Kirk the ending he deserves.

308. COMPASSIONATE GOD - December 23, 2007

Re:302. litenbug – December 22, 2007
“However, I still feel your OBSERVATION was not that. It seemed to imply a lack of talent..primarily because they didn’t appear to include your favorite actor.”

Again, you are incorrect. To reiterate, based on their last high-profile work–Transformers–it would be a stretch for anyone to think the ST project would illustrate a significant difference in qualiy, no matter the demands of the material. That is a fair assessment.

“You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn’t just for new fans, but old as well. ”

But we cannot ignore something as telling as the statement “its not your daddy’s Star Trek.” There’s no other way to read that, other than TPB making an effort to cater to a new generation–a new taste, as in the case of the new Battlestar Galactica.

“He had the power to say no to the script. And while Kirk’s death could have been written in as a line, that’s highly doubtful. Kirk saved or helped save two Enterprises and countless lives in that movie. He was a big par of it, not a throwaway line.”

Considering how facts, continuity, character personalities and other issues have been handled/changed over the Berman years (examples: Zefram Cochrane in First Contact, many elements of Enterprise) of major and minor positions in stories, Kirk’s death could have been mentioned.

“you don’t sway me..I don’t sway you”

Well, that we can agree on with no doubt.

309. Captain Fantastic - December 24, 2007

Oh God, i don’t understand why people care so much. shatner being in this movie would just be stupid (no offence to Shatner). I’m looking forward to something fresh and new, Nimoy is enough of a hook to the original crew for me not to worry about continuity.

The whole Shatner debate is so old and pointless and I honestly think having him in it would be detrimental to the film’s quality, in terms of storyline.

310. sean - December 25, 2007

I said this in a previous discussion but it seems to beg repeating:

What kills me about all this ‘No one remembers Generations/It’s a minor canon obstacle’ talk, is that Kirk’s death is being treated like a throwaway reference. This isn’t as simple as ‘Oh, the Enterprise suddenly has 29 decks instead or 26′ or ‘Spock has a half-brother no one ever mentioned’.

I mean, good lord, the character DIED. It was a huge media event at the time! Patrick Stewart and Wiliam Shatner were on the cover of f&*king Time magazine for god’s sake! They both were appearing on every nightime talk show from Leno to Letterman to talk about the fact that he was killing the character. TV Guide released a special Trek issue. Dozens of other mainstream publications were dedicating prime space to the movie/Trek in general. Trek was probably at the peak of it’s popularity with the general public at the time. Believe me, people DO remember he died.

I think it’s with that in mind that Orci says they have to take special care in how they bring the character in, if they do at all.

And on a personal note, all of my friends who are NOT ST fans happen to name Generations as one of their favorite ST movies. People remember it, even if we fans sometimes try to forget it ;)

311. mrbarkley - December 27, 2007

kirk was heroic in saving both ships in generations, to save him would damage the timeline in ways unthinkable. I think picard let it slip by him not to report meeting kirk in the nexus.
he was more worried about saving the photo album of his nephew and brother. generations was the right of passage for the star trek universe. would they go back and save data? or sisko?

to do so be a direct violation of the temperal prime directive.
request denied.

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

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