


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shatner In The Movie Saga Still Not Over</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/</link>
	<description>the source for Star Trek news and information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:01:16 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mrbarkley</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-361563</link>
		<dc:creator>mrbarkley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-361563</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br />
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? </p>
<p>to do so be a direct violation of the temperal prime directive.<br />
request denied. </p>
<p>the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sean</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-358933</link>
		<dc:creator>sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:17:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-358933</guid>
		<description>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&amp;*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 ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I said this in a previous discussion but it seems to beg repeating:</p>
<p>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’. </p>
<p>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&amp;*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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Captain Fantastic</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-357651</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Fantastic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-357651</guid>
		<description>Oh God, i don&#039;t understand why people care so much.  shatner being in this movie would just be stupid (no offence to Shatner).  I&#039;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&#039;s quality, in terms of storyline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh God, i don&#8217;t understand why people care so much.  shatner being in this movie would just be stupid (no offence to Shatner).  I&#8217;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.</p>
<p>The whole Shatner debate is so old and pointless and I honestly think having him in it would be detrimental to the film&#8217;s quality, in terms of storyline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: COMPASSIONATE GOD</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-355488</link>
		<dc:creator>COMPASSIONATE GOD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:21:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-355488</guid>
		<description>Re:302. litenbug - December 22, 2007 
&quot;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.&quot;

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.

&quot;You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn’t just for new fans, but old as well. &quot;

But we cannot ignore something as telling as the statement &quot;its not your daddy&#039;s Star Trek.&quot; There&#039;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.

&quot;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.&quot;

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&#039;s death could have been mentioned.

&quot;you don’t sway me..I don’t sway you&quot;

Well, that we can agree on with no doubt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re:302. litenbug &#8211; December 22, 2007<br />
&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>Again, you are incorrect. To reiterate, based on their last high-profile work&#8211;Transformers&#8211;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.</p>
<p>&#8220;You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn’t just for new fans, but old as well. &#8221;</p>
<p>But we cannot ignore something as telling as the statement &#8220;its not your daddy&#8217;s Star Trek.&#8221; There&#8217;s no other way to read that, other than TPB making an effort to cater to a new generation&#8211;a new taste, as in the case of the new Battlestar Galactica.</p>
<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>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&#8217;s death could have been mentioned.</p>
<p>&#8220;you don’t sway me..I don’t sway you&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, that we can agree on with no doubt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VOODOO</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-355461</link>
		<dc:creator>VOODOO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-355461</guid>
		<description>Shatner&#039;s appearance or lack there of has already been decided. There is no way that they haven&#039;t decided which way they are going to go at this point.

Two scenario&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shatner&#8217;s appearance or lack there of has already been decided. There is no way that they haven&#8217;t decided which way they are going to go at this point.</p>
<p>Two scenario&#8217;s exist.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I am 99% convinced the Shatner issue has been already decided one way or the other. I can&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Please give Kirk the ending he deserves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-354159</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-354159</guid>
		<description>#294
I agree.
Look at Emergency 911 &amp; TJ Hooker.
Those two shows suck real bad (sorry Shat).
I would never waste my time.
And Shat&#039;s  the main star.
Not everything non-Star Trek gig
can be Airplane 2 or Boston Legal!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#294<br />
I agree.<br />
Look at Emergency 911 &amp; TJ Hooker.<br />
Those two shows suck real bad (sorry Shat).<br />
I would never waste my time.<br />
And Shat&#8217;s  the main star.<br />
Not everything non-Star Trek gig<br />
can be Airplane 2 or Boston Legal!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-354104</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-354104</guid>
		<description>I THINK HE SHOULD PLAY KIRKS DAD!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I THINK HE SHOULD PLAY KIRKS DAD!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iowagirl</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-354046</link>
		<dc:creator>Iowagirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-354046</guid>
		<description>#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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#303<br />
Thank you for your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t think it makes much sense to have another lap of that discussion &#8211; 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Closettrekker</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-354009</link>
		<dc:creator>Closettrekker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-354009</guid>
		<description>#298--William Shatner has, for years, had the priviledge of portraying Gene Roddenberry&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#298&#8211;William Shatner has, for years, had the priviledge of portraying Gene Roddenberry&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8211; 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: litenbug</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/comment-page-7/#comment-353986</link>
		<dc:creator>litenbug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/19/shatner-in-the-movie-saga-still-not-over/#comment-353986</guid>
		<description>294. COMPASSIONATE GOD
Sorry, I am not swayed in this.
I&#039;ve done more than watch Orci and Kurtzman&#039;s work. I see what they say in interviews and  I&#039;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&#039;ve done some homework. I did qualify my opinion to state that I don&#039;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&#039;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-&quot;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.&quot;
  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-&quot;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.&quot;

You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn&#039;t just for new fans, but old as well. 

You mentioned &quot;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.&quot;
That terrible part of canon you mention...I assume is the death of Kirk, by Shatner&#039;s hand. He had the power to say no to the script. And while Kirk&#039;s death could have been written in as a line, that&#039;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&#039;s dead. We will see if Shatner is once again brought back, although from what I&#039;ve heard..again, doubtful.
  The rest is opinion...you don&#039;t sway me..I don&#039;t sway you</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>294. COMPASSIONATE GOD<br />
Sorry, I am not swayed in this.<br />
I&#8217;ve done more than watch Orci and Kurtzman&#8217;s work. I see what they say in interviews and  I&#8217;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&#8217;ve done some homework. I did qualify my opinion to state that I don&#8217;t know what time will bring. We all wait.<br />
However, I still feel your OBSERVATION was not that. It seemed to imply a lack of talent..primarily because they didn&#8217;t appear to include your favorite actor.</p>
<p>Re: 242. Litenbug &#8211; December 20, 2007<br />
“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”.</p>
<p>CG-&#8221;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.&#8221;<br />
  We spoke of fresh faces and who the target audience is<br />
Litenbug.-“They need and want both new and old fans. Lindelof has stated that.”</p>
<p>CG-&#8221;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>You are here enough to have read the other quotes as well. This isn&#8217;t just for new fans, but old as well. </p>
<p>You mentioned &#8220;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.&#8221;<br />
That terrible part of canon you mention&#8230;I assume is the death of Kirk, by Shatner&#8217;s hand. He had the power to say no to the script. And while Kirk&#8217;s death could have been written in as a line, that&#8217;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.<br />
  But now, he&#8217;s dead. We will see if Shatner is once again brought back, although from what I&#8217;ve heard..again, doubtful.<br />
  The rest is opinion&#8230;you don&#8217;t sway me..I don&#8217;t sway you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
