Abrams On Shatner and Star Trek Audience | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams On Shatner and Star Trek Audience January 18, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: 1-18-08/Cloverfield,Abrams,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

JJ Abrams called into the the Adam Carolla Show on Thursday morning to talk Cloverfield and Star Trek. In the interview Abrams joked you might need Dramamine to deal with Cloverfield’s shaky cam style. He also talked about the origin of the film title. Regarding Trek he discussed why Shatner has not been cast and how he is approaching the new Star Trek film. Details and audio below.

Abrams described Cloverfield as ‘Blair Witch meets Godzilla.’ He revealed that he always wanted to do a monster movie, but wanted to do it differently and chose to do it from ‘that guys point of view.’ Apparently that the name of the film evolved from them using a ‘shell company’ within Paramount called ‘Cloverfield’ to make the movie and keep it secret…and the name just stuck.

Carolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’ He then went on to say that he wanted to find a way to put Shatner in but it was ‘tricky’ because Kirk is dead.

Abrams went on to say that he has been a fan of the show, but not ‘insane’ about it (like he is for The Twilight Zone). Regarding the targets for the film he made it clear they have a wide mandate:

You don’t have to know a thing about Star Trek to get on board and love the characters. We are making it for the fans on the one hand, but the truth is that we are making this movie for people who don’t know a thing about Star Trek.

Listen to the Adam Carolla interview of JJ Abrams (Trek bit starts around 5 minutes in)

Audio courtesy of The Adam Carolla Show

Comments

1. Kirk, James T. - January 18, 2008

Abrams knows what he’s doing – im a fan of Star Trek, a newer fan, loved the original and love the sound and look to this new film – reminds me of blade runner in the look of the trailer – a real gritty sci-fi drama, lets hope the film doesn’t let up!

2. Robert April - January 18, 2008

Still trying to find a way to fit him in?

3. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 18, 2008

It WAS tricky? ;)

Really, no Shatner, no money from me.

4. VulcanBabe - January 18, 2008

Sounds more like Abrams didn’ t care to try too much…but the trailer does look good, I must admit!

5. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

It’s clear from the care and respect with which he’s approaching this film, that Abrams is a fan. However, it’s also clear that he’s not an expert on the franchise because there are several ways that he could have used the elder Kirk (and therefore Shatner) in the film. Here are a few examples …..

1. The TNG episode “Parallels” showed that in Star Trek canon, there are an infinite number of variations on the general star trek theme – all of them are valid. Just as in some realities, Picard was dead and in others he was alive, the same could be true of Kirk. The film could have been made in a star trek “reality” that was almost identical to the canon with which we’re familiar, with the minor change that Kirk didn’t die (perhaps this was a reality in which Picard died – this would certainly please the TNG haters around here!).

2. Picard was able to visit Kirk in the Nexus. Who’s to say that the new movie couldn’t also show him in the Nexus or have Spock or other characters contacting him there.

3. The script could have been written to use the Kirk character from the post- Undiscovered Country and Pre-Generations time.

If I can think of three perfectly plausible ways of bringing Kirk/Shat into the movie, I’m sure that others can think of many more. There must be another reason why Shat’s not in the film. Probably they didn’t offer him enough money or he was offended because he wouldn’t get top billing.

6. Chris Roberts - January 18, 2008

It Isn’t a good thing to compare Star Trek to Casino Royale.It threw out any contunity the bond films did have.Now it just amages me how anyone can call It Bond 21,and the next film Bond 22.Bond was more of a jason Bourne rip off.And consider those who praise Danial Crag and bash
Pierce Brosnon(Even though he saved the series after Timothy Dalton)
and how would you feel for people to say Chris Pine Is better than
William Shatner the way some claim Craig Is better than Sean Connery.

7. cugel the clever - January 18, 2008

In fact, further to point# 3 in my post, it would have been a very nice tie-in to Undiscovered Country, to have Kirk and Spock, on the final voyage of the Enterprise; reminiscing with the crew about the time they first met and their first voyage together.

8. Danpaine - January 18, 2008

….I’m beginning to think more and more that I’ll wait for the DVD to come out, then rent it before I think about buying it.

9. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

They never wanted Shatner.

Such creative people would surely have found a way if they truly wanted him.

10. Yendis - January 18, 2008

ahem,

even if they wanted to include Kirk, they couldn’t becvause that would require a rewrite. As there is currently a strike, there can be no rewrites.

Also, if they made mistakes, they’re stuck with them.

11. Ensign Ricky - January 18, 2008

Regarding the “Kirk is dead” thing….. I’ve often wondered if this is really the case. In ‘Generations’, Scotty watches as Kirk supposedly dies on the Enterprise B. Later in the movie, Kirk supposedly dies for real, but this is witnessed by only Picard…Scotty isn’t there.

Fast forward 80 or so years to the time of the Next Generation. Scotty is rescued from the USS Jenolan that has crashed on the Dyson sphere. So what are the first words that he says upon learning that the ‘Enterprise’ is the one that rescued him? “I bet that James Kirk himself brought the old girl out to save me” (to paraphrase). In Scotty’s mind, it is still the 23 century but it is still *after* the events of the Enterprise B incident.

In other words, Scotty saw Kirk die, but yet was convinced that he was still alive enough to rescue him. I’ll admit that probably was a writing continuity error at the time; never the less, doesn’t that imply that Kirk somehow survived and Scotty was aware of that?

Just my 2 cents.

12. Starman - January 18, 2008

Has anyone thought that maybe this whole “Shatner isn’t in the film” is a big joke on us?

13. Yendis - January 18, 2008

As there always remained a Guinan in the Nexus even when the real Guinan was rescued, wouldn’t there always remain a Kirk in the Nexus?

14. Scott - January 18, 2008

Is there still hope of Shat being in the film?

15. Benjamin - January 18, 2008

#6- James Bond was making film history while Jason Bourne was still in diapers. Who stole ideas from who now?

This is like saying that The Motion Picture stole ideas from Star Wars just because it came out second. Star Trek, and Bond, were the ones breaking barriers, not the other way around.

Casino Royale was the 21st James Bond movie… and Star Trek will be the eleventh. Thus “Star Trek XI.” It being set earlier in time doesn’t erase the previous movies. Where’s the problem here?

As for actors…. Daniel Craig is a far better *actor* than Sean Connery, who essentially played the same character all through his career. That doesn’t take anything away from Sean as a classic icon. It builds on it.

So will Chris Pine be a better Kirk than Shatner? We’ll wait and see. It doesn’t matter if he is — Shatner’s legacy is secure, don’t worry.

16. AJ - January 18, 2008

Blecch. If they even mention the Nexus in this film, I’ll barf.

“Relics” was made before ST:G, so it was not an intentional error.

17. Chris Pike - January 18, 2008

13,

Yes I always thought that – there is a “version” of Kirk still in the Nexus as time is not linear in the Nexus or may not even exist at all (quantum string theories have even stranger multiple universe/dimensional realities with time anomolies that are even more wierd than sci-fi!). As his Shatness himself said, this is science fiction and there could well be some way of writing this around. But I guess such a thing would interrupt the narrative of the screenplay as it stands…? Bob..?

18. Uncle Twitchy - January 18, 2008

Everything that has happened in the Star Trek universe post-GENERATIONS has been Picard’s Nexus fantasy anyway, so it really doesn’t matter.

19. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

Any effort to use Shatner-Kirk in the film would require so much convoluted plotting to explain how and why he isn’t dead that most of the movie would have been about that. At that, only hard-core fans would have an inkling of understanding what all the fuss ia about. Why? Because only hard-core fans know and care that Kirk died.

Of course, if they just skipped the explanation part, every reader of this site would jump at them with knives.

If it was my movie, Shatner would not be in it because i do not believe he can any longer play a credible Captain Kirk. The only way I might use him would be in a brief reunion scene with the other remaining TOS actors. They could all gather around someone’s grave or bed for 30 seconds of white-haired schmaltz.

20. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#6: Good movies with bad continuity are better than good continuity with bad movies. Plus, why would anyone be emotionally invested in aguing that one actor is better than another in a role? It’s all pretend.

21. Jay - January 18, 2008

I for one am happy about everything I hear from abrams on this movie. I love the fact that he’s focusing on a larger, newer audience. I’ve always wished that someone would bring some serious money and commitment to Star Trek and make it all it could be. I’ve always been disapointed in the movies after the first 2. Too many of them seemed like nothing more than a 2 hour tv episode shown in a movie theater. No ground breaking special effects, or camera angles. No new cool ideas. No real connection to our reality, or the idea of this being our future.

They just seemed too much like mass produced movies, much like the production value of a tv episde. Made on small budgets with a pre-calculated return based on the certain number of fanatic Trekkies that will go see it no matter how bad it is.

This movie looks to break that mold and THANK GOD!!… Hopefully we will finally see all of what Star Trek could be.

22. Chris Roberts - January 18, 2008

This film can be called number 11 because It will fit Cannon.There Is no way you can claim Casino Royale fits with earlier Bond films.Now while the earlier Bond films probally Influenced the Bourne novels there Is no doudt the bourne films Influenced Casino Royale.Now while Casino Royale was not as bad as what Ron Moore did with battlestar galactica I generally don’t like restarts and If the Casino Royale comparsions are allowed to hold soon some will be prasing the new actors and bashing the originals.

23. Michael Foote - January 18, 2008

I still say that if you want Shat in the movie, use the butterfly effect. You know, if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, it rains in New York. Romulans change time, Spock changes it back, Butterfly effect of time changes, Kirk didn’t die on Veridian III.

24. me - January 18, 2008

No Shatner!

He became too thick for Kirk

25. Superman - January 18, 2008

#3

I’m with you, Admiral.

This film could be Oscar-worthy, but I’ll not see it if Bill’s not in it.

\S/

26. dalek - January 18, 2008

They knew this before they scripted the film. Lame excuse if this means he’s never going to be in it.

I see no evidence whatsoever that they are “desperately” finding a way to include Shatner, like they previously stated.

27. Vulcan Soul - January 18, 2008

No need to fit that crying teenie attention whore really ;) A little humility is what that guy really needs!

28. Robofuzz - January 18, 2008

18: I have been saying that for years. Picard did not actually leave the Nexus and save the Enterprise D crew. He is still trapped in there living a fantasy – just like how he saw his wife and children.

29. TheBigJig - January 18, 2008

response to #6

**It Isn’t a good thing to compare Star Trek to Casino Royale.It threw out any contunity the bond films did have.Now it just amages me how anyone can call It Bond 21,and the next film Bond 22.Bond was more of a jason Bourne rip off.And consider those who praise Danial Crag and bash
Pierce Brosnon(Even though he saved the series after Timothy Dalton)
and how would you feel for people to say Chris Pine Is better than
William Shatner the way some claim Craig Is better than Sean Connery.**

Excuse me? Are you kidding? Do you know ANYTHING about James Bond… at all? Obviously not much, from that ridiculous statement.

First off, Bond continuity went out the window when Roger Moore continued playing Bond well into grandfather time. Each time Bond is replaced by a younger actor, continuity is disrupted. Brosnan was a KID whenever he saw Goldfinger in the theaters, so therefor HIS Bond could not have battled Auric Goldfinger or the forces of SPECTRE by the timeframe of Goldeneye. There is no way you can continue having a James Bond in his 30’s-40’s, with the stories and plots taking place in modern day time, and connecting it to his exploits battling bald, cat loving villains from the 60’s. So continuity and “cannon” do not work with James Bond.

And how is JAMES BOND a JASON BOURNE rip off? Are you referring to the re-booted Bond franchise? If so, and I hope you are, then you obviously haven’t done enough research into what Martin Campbell was trying to do with CR. Infact, Daniel Craig’s portrayal of Bond is the most accurate and loyal version of Bond EVER put on film. I am, of course, referring to the James Bond of Ian Fleming’s novels. I suggest you read them, because it sounds to me as if you think James Bond IS really nothing more than a wisecracking, skirt chasing pretty boy.

As for the rest of you… the idea of putting Shatner in this film is ridiculous and stupid. Kirk is D-E-A-D. Get over it.

I understand it’s Star Trek and science fiction and that anything can happen… and I understand there are ways, perhaps easy (though I think some of the ideas I’ve seen in this thread are cheap and uncreative) ways to resurrect his character, but do you guys understand the simple fact that you’d have to make at least HALF if not an entirety of the film about Kirk’s resurrection, just to give it justice? Doing that would completely disrupt the very idea of what JJ is trying to do. And who really wants to see another Star Trek movie with William Shatner as the focus of the film, besides nerds without girlfriends, who don’t make up a big enough percentage of the movie-going population to make the film a success anyway? Keep Shatner’s bloated pig-face away and let’s remember him for what he was, for God’s sake.

I understand that an easy, 15 minute mcguffen bringing the character of Kirk back from the dead would satisfy those of you who REFUSE to see the film unless the Shat is in it, but the rest of us ON planet earth would much rather see something that makes sense and doesn’t re-hash tired sci-fi just to satisfy the geek squad who complains that the bridge of the “new” E isn’t metrically accurate to the original model.

30. The Master - January 18, 2008

HMM, Casino Royal was a remake of the original Bond Film by the same name. If Memory serves James Bond at that time was played by someone who was not Connery. Connery first played 007 in Dr. No. In the original Casino Royal Bond was a minor character, If memory serves. the Franchise started with Dr. No.

31. dalek - January 18, 2008

#29 “As for the rest of you… the idea of putting Shatner in this film is ridiculous and stupid. Kirk is D-E-A-D. Get over it.”

You mean the majority of TrekMovie visitors who voted in a poll a few months back that they wanted him in the film. Sorry, but loud as you are, statistically you’re in the minority there.

32. CW - January 18, 2008

It will probably be a Fast and The Furious 3 moment: Spock in his hi-tech EVO, pulls up next to Shat in his Plymouth SuperBee. Shat calls him ‘Kid’, something about having all the time in the world and ZOOM!!! Off they go…….

33. TheBigJig - January 18, 2008

30, Casino Royale 2006 was NOT a remake of the 60’s CR which was made seperately from the Bond franchise and was a satirical comedy starring david niven. The two films are not related. at all. And until that particular film, Royale was made into a TV movie in the 1950’s before the film franchise and also has no relation to the official films.

and 31, I could give a rats ass what a TrekMovie.com poll says. I may be in the minority, but that is where sensibility lies. So neener neener neeeeeener.

34. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#3 and #25–That’s unfortunate. Star Trek was always much more than the sum of its cast. It is a positive look at a utopian future for humanity. Shatner was great as Jim Kirk from the 60’s-80’s(Kirk was my TV hero), but at some point, he stopped being William Shatner as James Kirk, and started playing James Kirk as William Shatner (IMO).

#16–I’m with you. I hated that movie (but not as much as I hated STV).

#21–Although I liked STIV, as well as the first 2, I hear what you are saying and I agree. I think everything (filmwise) after STIV is unworthy. I hope Star Trek can get back to being Star Trek. We’ll see. I’ll give it every chance to succeed in my eyes.

35. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

Groan, not another William Shatner thread . . .

(Closes lid on laptop, with two hands slams computer repeatedly against head.)

36. dalek - January 18, 2008

#33 :P to you too lol

Trek and Bond are chalk and cheese. It’s like comparing X-Files to Superman. Continuous myth vs revisionist interpretation.

37. Chris Roberts - January 18, 2008

James Bond fans have long ago been willing to pretend Bond Is an ageless character.
With Casino Royale you can longer pretned that.It Is not fair to call it the 21st bond film.and the next one Bond 22(It should be called Bond 2) and you do realaze that Sean Connery Himself was not a perfect adaption of the Bond of the novels.Bond was super serious In the novels.Much of the action Sequenzes In the film were Invented by the film makers,and Bond was not a rookie In the Casino Royale novel.The fact remains If we want any Cannon perserved for Star Trek Casino Royale Is not the film that should be compared to.

38. trekee - January 18, 2008

@20 – “It’s all pretend.”

Nope, sorry – you’ve lost me there…

39. MikeG - January 18, 2008

I share other’s dissapointment that William Shatner will not be in the film, but we have to have faith, and trust that since the people who are making this film are also Trek-fans, I’m sure they had good reasons for the choices they made.
At the same time, this IS Star Trek, and, apparently, some degree of time-travel is involved in this new film. So, perhaps “old” Spock will inform “young” Spock to watch out for Kirk in the future, thereby saving him… and maybe – just maybe – Shatner will appear in the next film. (I can’t be the only one who thought of this, right?)

40. YUBinit - January 18, 2008

On JJ… BS! If Spock can die and come back so can Kirk. Might take somone clever to do it… OH, nvm.

41. The Enemy - January 18, 2008

Right…ok, here is the thing:

1. If anything Bourne in itself is a rip-off of the novel Bond, in which Ian Fleming made Bond a heroic, dashing, but cold-hearted bastard, who cared for nothing save for Queen and Country and the mission. Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne is just a re-hash of this exact same charatcer, but the only difference is that the identity of Bourne can be put on like a mask, when needed. Ludlum himself, has cited Fleming as the spark that made him want to write spy novels.

2. Call it what you want, but CR was the first and, in my humble opinion, the best adaptation of the charatcer that first sprang from the pages of the novels. Props to Connery and eveything else, but Craig was THE personifcation of Bond that was needed for the REBOOT of the series. Haggis, in an interview during press for CR, said that he wanted to return Bond to his roots as a character and strip down all of the cartoonish aspects of him that had come up in the films, and in doing so he returned the character to the Bond of the books.

and 3. Kirk in this film would destroy everything, and I mean everything, that Abrams is attempting to do with this film. Like TheBigJig said, an entire film or half of a film would have to be devoted to this idea and story of the resurrection. Personally, I wouldn’t see it. I have seen the Kirk Trek Movies and they are great, but seriously, it is time to move the hell on.

This is a brave New World, people. Get used to is, becuase Abrams is at the helm and he is going to make Trek the awe-inspiring, sci-fi epic that we need.

42. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

29. TheBigJig – January 18, 2008
and
31. dalek – January 18, 2008

Don’t make me come up there… :-)

Everyone is so passionate about their Star Trek. Let’s make room for opinion, okay? For example, I would LOVE to see Captain Kirk again but it doesn’t seem logical (sorry) to include him because of the complicated situation he’s in, um, being, he’s dead. Plus he is almost 77 and it would be rather difficult to make him look like he did in “Generations” Even if they finally did find a way to write him in, could he pull off hitting the gym and losing the bloated look caused by underlying health issues? (Sorry guys, but you gotta admit he does look a bit “puffy”.) I love him for bringing his “Kirk” to me, but I think his time has passed. Ow that hurt. I hate to say it, but I think it may be true. With all of the resources he has, why hasn’t he pulled everyone together to make a “Trek” movie? If anyone could pull that off, couldn’t the great Willam Shatner? Just a thought… (Or has he tried that and failed? I’ve heard rumblings that the rest of TOS cast weren’t too fond of him.) It’s a shame that Kirk can’t be in it but in keeping with the way McCoy has said it many times,

“you’re dead, Jim”.

Moving on…

I hope this installment doesn’t come out looking like a “Twilight Zone” episode given that Abrams is such a huge fan of the show. Guess it’s possible he’ll do a good job. Just like I was delightfully surprised at Peter Jackson’s LOTR in light of the movies he usually made.

Wishing you luck, J. J. Can’t wait to see it.

Rabid fan kg.

43. The Enemy - January 18, 2008

Leave it to the only chick that posts on here to make everything right again…

44. Tox Uthat - January 18, 2008

Assuming time is involved in XI:

Current Spock finds out about the Romulan plan (assuming this is the general idea) to kill young Kirk. Spock decides to take action and travels back in time.

Current Spock travels back but make a stop in the 23rd Century a few days before the launch of E-B. He wasn’t in contact with Kirk at that time and never had closure. As a plot device, during the conversation, he unknowingly picks up a bit of information.

Spock continues on his mission and deals with young Spock, which in turn uses the then unknown information to the benefit of the mission.

Mission success, Kirk contributes to his own past and Shatner is in the movie.

In any event, looking forward to XI.

45. Craig - January 18, 2008

I don’t disagree that there’s anything wrong with a change in tone, per se, but the way some people here talk about it, they seem to be trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. The idea that changing a formula or tone is always valid has been proven wrong by any number of TV programmes that become crass or boring (e.g. Friends or The Simpsons) when they start to drastically change their approach. It’s also stupid to think that turning Star Trek into something action-driven is going to improve it; Classic Star Trek was always more about ideas, relationships and dialogue.

46. Captain_Neill - January 18, 2008

Abrams has admitted he is making this for the non fans more so than the hard core fans, I hope he does not alter all we know and love about Star Trek to get that mainstream audience

47. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

“Corolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’ He then went on to say that he wanted to find a way to put Shatner in but it was ‘tricky’ because Kirk is dead.”

Sorry, guys. I had to.

48. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

There’s a cannon preserved at the battlefield memorial down the road.

You’d think people who are going to fixate on canon would at least be clever enough to spell it correctly.

49. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#40: It took an entire movie to bring Spock back. I don’t wanna wacth an entire movie devoted to bringing Kirk back.

Besides, if, at the time time, Nimoy had been 30 years older (and looked it) and 70 pounds heavier, Spock would have stayed dead.

50. Dr. Image - January 18, 2008

To state the obvious:

Abrams has to make money for Paramount.
Abrams probably laughs out loud when Roberto reports to him that fans keep mentioning, “canon.”
Abrams is pulling exactly what Berman did, but this time, with far LESS respect for Trek history. (And frankly, I’m shocked.)
Above all, Abrams knows that ultimately nobody really cares, and that everyone will end up falling into lock-step anyhow.

You all are proving him right.

51. Jupiter1701 - January 18, 2008

Regarding#46:

I see your point. But in this day and age, for a big-budget film you MUST get the mainstream audience. This is not some artsy-fartsy indie film that costs $3 million to make and the wine and cheese crowd goes and sees.

No, it’s a major motion picture with a production budget of $130 million. With the costs of marketing, distribution, and the local movie theater’s take added to that cost, the film probably needs to make well over $300 million just to break even.

You can’t make a movie for a niche market and expect to pull in that kind of money.

The best any Star Trek movie made was a little over $100 million domestically. If there aren’t mainstream butts in the seats come Christmas, this movie will flop and Star Trek will be dead.

Instead of people whining about the Enterprise being built on the ground and William Shatner not being in the movie, instead they should be talking up the new movie to non-fans. In fact, I’d even go so far as to promote that it is a reboot made specifically for them, and if they like other sci-fi movies they might love this one.

I was never really a James Bond fan, but I heard enough about the last movie being somewhat of a reboot (and a good movie that stands alone), that I went and saw it. Since then I’ve been watching some of the older Bonds and getting a little more into it.

That is what needs to happen with this new Star Trek movie.

52. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#40–You know that was a completely different scenario. Spock’s body was rejuvenated by the Genesis effect. Spock’s katra was alive and well in McCoy. Kirk and co. went to Genesis, retrieved Spock’s body, returned it to Vulcan, and had the body and Katra rejoined. This required that to be the basic plot of the entire film. For James Kirk to be ressurrected, there would have to be a major committment in plot detail made towards that happening. I, for one, do not wish to see that again. I also do not think it is within JJ’s vision for this film to do it. He is the artist. Who are we to decide what picture he should paint? Let him make his Star Trek film. Allow him to create his own art. Once it is completed and shown to the world, the people can all put on their robes and his art can be judged. This may very well be a great film which rescues Star Trek from oblivion. Shatner did not make STV a good film, nor did he save Generations from mediocrity. This, of course, is my opinion–but I do not think I’m flying solo here. Star Trek is not an actor, it is an idea, and William Shatner is not Captain of the Enterprise, James T. Kirk is.

53. TREK LIVES! - January 18, 2008

Using the NEXUS as a continuity crutch is the worst thing anybody could inflict on Trek. Face it, KIRK was killed. HE IS DEAD. At least with Spock, they had a semi-plausible explanation because the Genesis device (that was able to turn death into life) was involved. Thats sci-fi. The Nexus is garbage, Generations is garbage, and TREK continues to be hurt by that movie. So yeah, Shatner was paid a LOT OF MONEY to kill KIRK. He had the ultimate say in killing Kirk and he agreed to do it for a of money. Trying to explain how a dead Kirk could show up would rewrap this Star Trek reboot with the garbage of the stain that is GENERATIONS. People yearning for Kirk, get over it. If you don’t like it, you can always not watch it, and keep the TOS and 1-6 on constant repeats for the rest of your lives..until the day when you die …. alone

54. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

52. Closettrekker – January 18, 2008

Wow — well said!!

kg

55. Stuart Duvall - January 18, 2008

As much as I’d like to see Shatner back in this film I can’t say I’m still not a little pissed that he allowed the character to die in Generations. What was he thinking? No one twisted his arm and made the decision for him. His death certainly didn’t make the film “better”.
While I agree that there are several factors that made it necessary for the Abrams to go a different direction (most notably the fear of it becoming the Shat Show) …. its a tough pill to swallow knowing that he still lies buried and will never return. (snif)

56. Deep Space 913 - January 18, 2008

I have said it before on other boards, and I will say it again…….William Shatner is THE Captain Kirk. I love him as that character as much as any one in here. HOWEVER, this movie can (and hopefully will) succeed without him. I absolutely can not comprehend why some folks will NOT see this movie simply because one actor is not in it. Would it be great if Shat was in it? You bet your butt it would, but on the other hand, Would it be a great movie without him? Yeah, it probably can be. With or without the Shat, I am there opening day. Probably there opening weekend a few times. ;-)

57. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

Since James Bond has worked its way into this thread, consider this:

Sean Connery is 77. If someone decided to bring him back as Bond, do any of you imagine that anyone except the most fanatical Connery fans could even imagine him playing a credible Bond? The same logic applies to Shatner, who is 76.

In either instance, you’d have a movie that drew applause from 1 percent of the potential audience and snickers from the other 99 percent.

Shatner allowed Kirk to die because he was tired of playing him. The captain is dead. Long live the captain.

58. Greg2600 - January 18, 2008

Sorry JJ, not going to sell me on the “tricky because Kirk is Dead” excuse. Because for that matter, anything you do in this or subsequent films will have to be 100% in line with previous canon, or you’re a lier. Should be saying they couldn’t work a part in for the stature of Shatner, not this cockamamie reasoning. Come on now, if you’re doing a time travel piece, then the obvious place for old Kirk is that Spock changes the time line, thereby changing history so that Kirk lives and shows up and saves the day. What is so tricky about that?

As for the James Bond discussion, Bond has no continuity, never has. I include the Daniel Craig films in with the rest, including Sean Connery’s “Never Say Never Again,” which should be official! 1967 Casino Royale was a ghastly mess. I liked the new Casino Royale a lot, but not one of the top Bond films. I like Daniel Craig as an actor, too, but not as James Bond. He’s too short, and way too muscular. Is this Jean Claude Van Damme, 007?

59. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

43. The Enemy – January 18, 2008

Awwww, gee…

kg

#47 / #52. Closettrekker – January 18, 2008

Good point. My guess is they were desperate to pass the “baton” so-to-speak and connect the two series but that’s all they could come up with. And, rather than not have anything at all, I’m delighted to see them on the screen in any case, even if I do not particularly agree with the story. Just to let you all know, I couldn’t come up with ANYTHING NEAR THAT. Don’t have a fertile enough imagination. Too bad we couldn’t pool all our ideas and help them discard some of the less-palatable ones. Wouldn’t that be just the brain-storming session! (or WWIII).

Regarding ST:V, I wasn’t really impressed with it either. It looked like it was being forced into a “what William Shatner thinks it should be” mold. I’d rather he stick to BEING Captain Kirk than trying to direct. To be fair, I guess all directors put their slant on the film they are directing. That’s what happens — Hitchcock, Huston (sp?), Coppola… Some brilliant films would have been disasters with the wrong director at the helm (no pun intended). And some definitely were turkeys because of the director.

Let’s see what Abrams can do before we cast the final ballot and give him the needle.

#53 TREK LIVES! – January 18, 2008

I didn’t know that Shatner accepted a lot of money to “kill” Kirk. Was he opposed to it and they had to entice him or did he think it was a great idea? (And does he actually admit it anywhere?)

kg

60. S. John Ross - January 18, 2008

#57, to be fair, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Shatner play Kirk for the entire film; Chris Pine is doing that. Audiences would certainly accept Connery as “Elderly Bond” in a movie framed in flashback with a young action-hero playing “Young Bond,” and I think that’s comparable to what folks are hoping for with this film.

Connery starring, center-spotlight, as Bond? Tricky these days, probably snickerworthy, especially when the stuntman comes into view. Shatner starring as Kirk? Impossible as far as I’m concerned, because some of the original crew are no longer with us and there wouldn’t be any point, regardless of the age factor. But Kirk as “old Kirk?” Sure. Nobody would snicker if Shatner played an elderly man. He’s well-suited for the part.

61. Greg2600 - January 18, 2008

57 – justcorbly, you are very illogical. Nimoy is the same age as Shatner and he is in the film. I don’t know why everybody insists on comparing James Bond films with Star Trek? James Bond has a history of replacing characters with numerous actors, like changing casts for a Broadway musical.

PS: Sean Connery did return as James Bond, in voice only, for video game “From Russia With Love.”

62. YUBinit - January 18, 2008

#52

You just made my case. Someone wrote that scenario who was creative enough. Hence my statement. So in writing and bouncing and approving by those making the call on the script it’s obvious either it was intentional from the start that Shat was never to be in it, or they are admitting to not having the writing chops in saying it was “tricky” and couldn’t do it.

63. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#57–Excellent point. Nostalgia will not sell this movie to newer, younger audiences who only know Shatner as a corny old man on Boston Legal and the guy from the Priceline commercials (ok, maybe that’s an exaggeration). The point is, if Trek is to survive, it cannot depend on TOS fans from way back like us. The Jets bringing Joe Namath out of retirement will not make them competitive, nor will shoving a 76 year old actor into the mouths of teenage-twenty something moviegoers (who, let’s face it, will make or break this film at the box office) save Star Trek. We have Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock, who is just as “iconic” as The Shat (I don’t care what anyone says), in the film. That is OUR tribute. It also is apparently a part of JJ’s vision for the story. It seems that we have the film version of the original Big “E” as well (the first glimpse sent a chill down my spine). People, William Shatner, as much as anyone helped kill off the character during the TNG era. Now, it does not help matters that he will not let it go (if just for the sake of his own dignity), but I have. Star Trek lives.

Now with one last tribute to the Shat, “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!”
I love that.

64. Tom - January 18, 2008

jj did not have to resurrect the character. a simple flashback would do. Think of James Caan in Godfather 2. One small scene in a flashback which everyone remembers. Everything else about this movie seems great. Leaving Shatner out when all parties are interested is just baffling. Those few minutes could in no way hurt the story or movie.

65. CW - January 18, 2008

I’m just gonna take a “wait and see” attitude and render a final opinion later.

66. Trek Nerd Central - January 18, 2008

The fact that Abrams hasn’t come out and said, SHATNER’S NOT IN THE MOVIE!!!! AT ALL!! AND WON’T BE!!. . . EVER!! SO GET A GRIP!! AND DEAL WITH IT!! to me says in fact the opposite. Shatner is in the movie.

If he weren’t in the movie, period, then Abrams wouldn’t be saying anything along the lines of “we’re trying,” because they can’t be trying thanks to the writer’s strike.

In short:
Liar liar pants on fire.

Personally, I’ll see the movie either way. I’m up for it either way — Shatnered or Shatnerless.

67. RTC - January 18, 2008

Kirk was my hero when I was a kid. Still ‘the man’ in my opinion. But to write this movie just to get him back into the franchise isn’t going to pay the dividends William Shatner thinks. Why stop there, for that matter? If the ‘must have Kirk’ crowd feels that strongly, start the petition to add all of the original cast, including McCoy and Scotty by using CGI as was done for those creepy Orville Redenbacher popcorn ads not long ago.

68. jonboc - January 18, 2008

#57 “Sean Connery is 77. If someone decided to bring him back as Bond, do any of you imagine that anyone except the most fanatical Connery fans could even imagine him playing a credible Bond? The same logic applies to Shatner, who is 76.”

Utterly ridiculous. Characters..since they happened to be PEOPLE.. can age. I would love to see an aged James Bond every bit as much as I would enjoy seeing the Trek universe through the eyes of an aged and wiser Jim Kirk. The limited thinking of some fans that a character must cease to exist , just because they grow old , continues to astound me.

69. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#62–I beg to differ, that is, on the contention that I made your case. They obviously did not want to make another entire film dedicated to bringing someone back to life. Why would they? How would that resurrect the franchise? It would not. It would just satisfy old fans who did not like the way Kirk bit the dust. Those fans will break no box office records, that’s for sure. Again, this is about recruiting new fans, as much as anything else. Otherwise, Star Trek will end up being nothing more than fans films on the net and conventions with dwindling turnouts. It deserves so much more IMO. “Mr. Sulu, ahead– warp factor 6!”.

70. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#60: Yes, but if they’d killed Connery’s Bond off, they’d have a problem, right? I agree that Shatner can play an old, overweight Kirk in a short scene. it’s just that it would take an entire movie’s worth of plotting to explain it. That kind of movie would not make money.

#61: Yes, Nimoy is the same age. Two factors allow him to play a credible Spock. One, he is thinner than Shatner. He doesn’t seem as old. Two, the character of Spock was allowed to age. The Spock in the last movies and the Spock in the two TNG shows was an older character. On the other hand, Kirk was not allowed to ‘grow old gracefully’ but remained locked into the derring-do captain’s chair.

Bottom line: Nimoy looks little different than he did the last time he played Spock. Shatner looks a lot different than the last time he played Kirk.

And, once again: Kirk is dead. If Spock had not already been resurrected, do you imagine he’d be in this movie?

Besides, and most importantly, Star Trek is not about Kirk.

71. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#68: Nothing limited about thinking Kirk is dead.

72. SPB - January 18, 2008

#62 –

Of course they could find a plausible way to work Shatner back into TREK XI. But it would probably take the full 2 hours to tell that story.

Let’s hear YOUR idea on how to convincingly bring back Kirk/Shatner without resorting to a ridiculous amount of exposition that would take away from the story they’re TRYING to tell with TREK XI, i.e. the maiden voyage of the Kirk/Spock crew of the Enterprise.

73. Bono Luthor - January 18, 2008

I hope it’s not too late to get Shatner in as Kirk. Surely he could be alive when Spock returns to his time due the changes to the timeline caused by events in the movie?

That way we know how our heroes end up, but we no longer know quite how they go there, so get to go on the journey all over again.

It just seems like too much of an opportunity to pass up/mess up.

I’m not in any way anti the people making this movie, they are the creatives behind some of the entertainment I have enjoyed most over the last couple of years and I’m very excited by the prospect of this movie.

I just think it will be very sad to have this movie without him.

I also couldn’t give a damn about continuity given quality of much of the last decade of Trek. Screw continuity!

There! I said it, and it felt GOOD!

74. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

“but not ‘insane’ about it (like he is for The Twilight Zone”

If Shatner is not in the Big Screen remake of the TZ ep with Shatner in it, I won’t see the movie!

We could use a GOOD TZ Movie. Of course, they could get M. Night Shamalalamadingdong to direct. If he promises to do a good one, like Sixth Sense, not like his last few flicks. imho

75. CmdrR - January 18, 2008

somebody had to bring it up:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G9f4TJ8XNRs

76. ShatisDead - January 18, 2008

Cult of Shat in full effect! He’s dead, Jim. Its easy Shatner took a big fat paycheck to get himself killed in Generations – to a point where the rest of the original crew was cut out to make room.

Shatner, the one man in the universe, who had the power to prevent Kirk from dying from falling onto some rocks, let it happen. Why? Because of cold hard cash.

Shatner is not Trek. He was a big part of it, but so was the rest of the crew, and more importantly the stories is what drove the TOS and spawned an empire.

This movie is Trek’s last hope. If it fails, thats it, game over..no more big time trek. So if you Shat blowhards want to waste it by spending 3 hours trying to re-explain the Nexus, how it works, how what we saw in Generations wasn’t real or didn’t matter, go right ahead..you’ve killed the franchise. All so you can see a man that is no longer Kirk but a puffy blowhard who puts his interests in front of everyone else’s – go right ahead.

77. Sharr Khan - January 18, 2008

“This film could be Oscar-worthy, but I’ll not see it if Bill’s not in it.”

That’s the most silly thing I’ve read in awhile – almost as silly as someone claiming they’ll refuse to go to the new Indy film cause it might have a full trailer for the new Star Trek movie in front of it.

Really the Shatner cult is nearly as annoying as the GR cult.

78. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#64–I don’t disagree with the GF2 angle, but only if it would BENEFIT the story, and not just come off as unecessary and placating for the sake of the Shat cult. Wasn’t that scene shot during the filming of GF1? I always liked that scene. Did you ever notice how nearly everyone in the scene except Connie, Tom Hagen, and Michael are dead by the time you see it?

79. Danpaine - January 18, 2008

#64 – that’s all I’m sayin’

80. sean - January 18, 2008

#5

1)If you’re making a film for the general audience, you don’t use a plotline that convoluted to bring a character back. You don’t bring old fans in by telling them everything that happens in a movie isn’t happening in ‘their’ universe. Plus, most new fans in the general audience are going to mentally check out the minute you mention ‘parallel universes’.

2)No. No one wants the Nexus used ever, ever, EVER again.

3)Shatner is 17 years older than he was in 1991. They couldn’t exactly use the old X-Men trick, as that would make him look better than he did. And he now looks nothing like he did in TUC. Nimoy, you might be able to pull off that trick with. Shatster, not so much.

81. Chris - January 18, 2008

What I don’t understand is the lack of originality that it would take for both Kirk and Spock to “set up” the new movie. Right after ST:VI (The Undiscovered Country) Kirk and Spock are sitting in Kirk’s quarters reminiscing about their careers and their friendship, and that could be a 5 minute segment that would fulfill the requirements of the movie and keep “canon” intact. Why is this such a hard thing?

82. dalek - January 18, 2008

There’s no such reason why bringing Kirk back should take a big chunk of screen time ala Trek 3. That’s a random fans “condition” thats been invented nothing at all to do with screenplay writing, story structure etc…. There’s no such rule, no such condition, and I’ve no sympathy for the writers, they came up with a story so if they are finding a hard time its their own fault for not coming up with a better story to have Kirk in it.

83. sean - January 18, 2008

#6

Pierce Brosnon also killed Bond (The World is Not Enough, anyone?). Timothy Dalton was TRULY James Bond, and a massive improvement over Roger Moore. Dalton was Craig at a time when people weren’t ready for it.

84. ShatisDead - January 18, 2008

#81 – Because Kirk died in generations. Go ahead and try to explain what time frame the movie is in to moviegoers. And is this movie simply going to be a bedtime story between Kirk and Spock! Heck why not make it a holodeck simulation ! Whoops that was done already was stupid as anything.

#82- – Go ahead and give us a scenario that doesn’t involve a good chunk of time or storytelling. Or a convoluted explanation. Please I’m begging you..if you are so sure.

85. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#83: So right. Dalton’s Bond was the closest to Flemming’s creation. I.e., not really a hero, and a guy who might actually enjoy hitting people.

86. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 18, 2008

#57 “Shatner allowed Kirk to die because he was tired of playing him.”

So very untrue. The TOS films had been cancelled by that point! So he took the opportunity to play what he hoped would be a great death scene. Plus, Bill hoped his exciting novel The Return would be adapted into a film.

#60 “I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Shatner play Kirk for the entire film; Chris Pine is doing that. Audiences would certainly accept Connery as ‘Elderly Bond’ in a movie framed in flashback with a young action-hero playing “Young Bond,” and I think that’s comparable to what folks are hoping for with this film.”

Thank you. Said it 100 times. And it could totally be done, with enough creativity!

#76 “Shatner took a big fat paycheck to get himself killed in Generations – to a point where the rest of the original crew was cut out to make room.”

Made up! Nimoy & Kelley declined to appear. Doohan and Koenig were then asked to be replacements.

87. ShatisDead - January 18, 2008

Why do you think Nimoy and Kelley declined to appear….ask yourself that question…think about it very hard…I will give you a hint … $

88. sean - January 18, 2008

#82

I could not disagree with you more. Bringing Kirk back is a HUGE event. You can’t do it casually off-screen or in 1 minute of expository dialogue. As you can see from the suggestions on just this one site, any attempt to bring back Kirk will be convoluted or complicated at best. You can’t exactly do that in 15 minutes of a film. They wrote a story here that wasn’t based on the resurrection of James T Kirk. You can bet your sweet bippy that the majority of fans would expect a decent chunk of the film to deal with that. Otherwise, no matter how much you THINK you want it, you’ll feel unsatisfied.

89. dalek - January 18, 2008

#84 whatever i come up with you’ll say “Wouldnt work” but you don’t want to see him back anyway.

Anyway the most logical is that Spock either warns Kirk or mind melds with his younger self to make sure Kirk lives in the 24th century and safeguards time to make sure Soran is still stopped; but Kirk lives. Then Kirk appears in the final minutes of the film after Spock returns home to the 24th C.

90. Tom - January 18, 2008

#78

That is true. It may have been shot during GF 1. What better way to pay homage than having Shatner and Nimoy together for a scene in this movie. I think it would strengthen the characters of the new cast. You can envision the evolution of these great characters.

91. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

33. TheBigJig

You crack me up!!

kg

#39. MikeG

Um, I hadn’t thought of that. It’s a great idea provided Shatner lives long enough to see that done and can whip himself into good enough shape to be on film. (I know, I know, some of you adore Denny Crane but I … nevermind. I don’t want this to become the “Denny Crane” thread.)

I’m all for a premise that brings him back if it is done well and with dignity, without looking pathetic. And in the last movie they were all in (ST:VI) some were looking pretty rough and I heard fans expressing that it was beginning to look pathetic. It’s a nice dream but I guess I’ll have to grow up some day.

Better get some housework done.

(Maybe I should change my posting name to “SuzyHomemaker”…)

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

kg

92. Lt. Iowagirl - January 18, 2008

#3, #25

Agreed, Admiral and Superman. Count me in your silly, unreasonable, retro, stick-in-the-mud Shatnerians and BBK bunch who won’t see the film if Bill’s not in.

Aahh, that’s good.

93. Jay - January 18, 2008

wow i wish people would quit obsessing over Shatner. Get over it people. he’s not in the movie….

Every idea that i’ve read in this thread to bring him back sounds lame and contrived and in my opinion would make for a boring movie.

This may be a shock to some of you, but most sci fi and casual star trek fans aren’t going to want to see a movie that is half or all about how Kirk was saved. After seeing this trailer, and i’m sure the subsequent trailers that will come, they will be expecting something very new and different from what they’ve seen before. Meaning, they won’t be surprised that Shatner is not in the movie.

At this point in his career, as many have suggested, he just doesn’t fit the part any longer. He’s moved on to a loveable misfit on Boston Legal, and it would be hard to see him playing a serious Kirk. One of the things i hated about the later movies was that they were too corny. Tried too hard to be funny and hip instead of a sci fi movie.

I expect so much more from this film and I just can’t see how Shatner, playing Kirk as he was in the end, would fit the look and feel of what i’m getting that this movie will be.

94. Jay - January 18, 2008

#91 Katie… i agree completely… they just got too old… i mean come on, is it really that believeable that the bridge crew of a star ship is mainly made up of 60+ year old people? Your helmsman and “Lt.” is in his 50’s? A rank and position that should be held by a 20 something person?

It was getting pathetic, even hard core fans could see that. That’s why doint this film makes so much sense. The most loved and most enduring Star Trek characters ever made were the original ones created by Gene in the original series. Since the original actors are either too old, or too dead, to play the parts, it makes sense if you want to do a new, refreshed version of Star Trek that you would want to center around the most successfull characters and story, and that you would need to cast new people in the roles.

It’s neat that Nimoy can be in the film to kind of tie it to the original… that’s cool. But you only need one of those actors to do that, not the whole crew. Most of the film should center around the new cast and the new adventures that they will hopefully take us on.

95. dalek - January 18, 2008

#93 as long as they say its still a possibility i reserve my right to obsess over William Shatner. And as of now, its still relevant, because no one has said it isnt going to happen. It’s still an issue.

96. kin_far - January 18, 2008

Take my word – Kirk will be in it. Old Spock will whisper to new Spock, “Kill Khan” and it will change the course of events and Kirk will live again. Movie ends with Kirk and Spock having a bowl of Plomeek soup together.

97. Khan - January 18, 2008

Just throw him into a brief post-credits teaser with no explanation a la X3. Solved.

98. S. John Ross - January 18, 2008

#82: Well said.

There’s also the lingering possibility that, whether or not it “requires” a “whole movie” to bring a Star Trek character back to life, they may already be making that whole movie, anyway. We already know it involves timestream-fiddling, and one of the consequences _already in the script_ might well be changing Kirk’s fate to something more dignified (or at least, to something more uncertain). Maybe so, maybe no, but it’s hardly out of the question.

And to be clear, I’m totally not one of those Shat-HAS-To-Be-In-It guys; my decision to see or not see the film will be based on the trailers and/or comments by peers I respect, and I’ll happily see a Shat-free film. Happily. But there are really exactly four factors that determine whether Shat appears:

(1) If Shat wants to do it.
(2) If the filmmakers want to do it.
(3) If Shat and the filmmakers can agree on how it might be done.
(4) If the Writer’s Strike doesn’t prevent the necessary fiddling (any story concerns can be addressed elegantly if the writers are on the job and on the ball).

Those factors – all real-world concerns – are, when it comes down to it, the only ones that actually determine what happens re the Shat. If I _were_ a Shat-Fanatic (again, I’m not) the factor I’d be most concerned about is (3). Given the likely resolution of the strike in the semi-near future and the plausibility of pickups, the largest threat to a William Shatner appearance is William Shatner himself, who might well refuse a scene he considers too slight.

In other other words, if Shatner doesn’t appear in this film, I’d personally lay odds that Shatner himself would be the reason (while acknowledging three other, less likely, possibilities).

99. Jay - January 18, 2008

who cares if Shatner is in the film. I for one am convinced he won’t be and that’s fine. I don’t care.

I’m more concerned with how the new actors perform in the classic roles of the oringal series and how the story of this film is laid out. Hopefully it will be a good adventure.

It’s funny. The thing that killed star trek in the first place – unoriginal thinking, boring movies with low production quality, is exactly what i’m seeing here from so many self-professed trekkies. Every idea here centers around the tired idea of bringing Shatner back as Kirk, and therefore bringing Kirk back to life.

Boring.

I for one am glad Abrams is taking a whole new fresh approach to this film and breaking the mold of the boring, low production Star Trek movies that have come before.

100. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 18, 2008

#87 “Why do you think Nimoy and Kelley declined to appear….ask yourself that question…think about it very hard…I will give you a hint … $”

??? They weren’t in it because their parts weren’t substantial enough. Leonard Nimoy has stated this as recently as the 2007 Comic Con; he felt the lines written for Spock were too generic.

101. Tim Handrahan - January 18, 2008

End of the film:

Spock returns to the 24th century after helping alter the timeline

Spock: “Are you not Dead?”

Cut to Kirk (smiling): “Didn’t take.”

Fade to the 23rd century….

Space….The Final Frontier

102. A. - January 18, 2008

I’m still waiting to see where he complains. Using the current logic, Abrams is complaining Kirk died in #7?

103. Son of V'ger - January 18, 2008

Nimoy not being in Generations wasn’t about money, he WAS offered to direct it along with appearing as Spock. When Nimoy bowed out, Kelley declined too citing he had a better farewell in TUC.

Re J.J. Abrams: He’s no Nicholas Meyer & don’t expect JJ to revive the francise as TWOK did.

104. Tom - January 18, 2008

Sure doesn’t sound like they are trying to include him anymore

105. Tom - January 18, 2008

Is this the “official” word from the director himself? Is this finally over?

106. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#86–“Thank you. Said it 100 times. And it could totally be done, with enough creativity!”

True. It could. I’m not sure that it would be very creative, but it could be done. None of that matters, though, because that is not the movie Abrams is out to make. This is probably not a movie framed in flashback. If it was, how would any sequels play out? Would they all involve Kirk and Spock thinking about the good ole days? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would like to see Trek films up until they check me out of here! That will not happen if this one does not work, and bringing in Shatner will not help attract young fans to the franchise. Demanding that Abrams put in The Shat is just saddling him with unnecessary baggage when we have asked him to go out and win a fight for us.
Now, I’ve said THIS 100 times. The last few times around in the Trek movies, Shatner did not bring the character of James Kirk. He simply put on a Star Fleet uniform and played himself, answering to someone else’s name. That was awful, and I do not wish to see that again. He could have lost the passion for the character along the way, and maybe he’s gotten it back now, but if I were Abrams I wouldn’t want to bet my movie on it. As much as I still enjoy watching STIV, I really don’t think he has truely put all of himself, as an artist, into the role of James T. Kirk since TWOK. It’s almost as if he took it upon himself to evolve the character into a silly(we already had Checkov), sarcastic (we already had McCoy)figure that voluntarily pandered to the SNL crowd. Let’s just get back to a young Jim Kirk–fistfighting and fornicating across the cosmos the way the young Bill Shatner did, shall we? If you must, find him another role in the film, the way Scorcese did for Robert Mitchum in his remake of Cape Fear. That might get a chuckle in the theater, and nowadays, that’s about all Shatner can do in a Star Trek movie.

107. Chris Peterson - January 18, 2008

yawn…

108. Anthony Thompson - January 18, 2008

The Shatner controversy. I won’t miss him in the movie. I say this as someone who became a fan about 37 years ago. Why? because in the series he played Kirk; in the movies, he was about 80% Shatner and 20% Kirk. He didn’t take it seriously, except perhaps in the first film. He hammed it up and left the intensity at home. His performances were MEDIOCRE at best. So, no, I won’t miss him in the new film.

109. S. John Ross - January 18, 2008

#106: I definitely agree that the last few times, Shatner was simply Shatner in a Starfleet uniform, and not Kirk in any real way. I also agree that it would be sensible to have him playing a different character entirely (Starfleet brass, an Academy instructor, etc), but I’ve piped both those tunes before and nobody listens :)

110. YUBinit - January 18, 2008

Hey folks bottom line if one original TOS member is in it, then really ALL living members should be as well. All or nothing. It’s pointless to argue when Nimoy is on board, that no others should be. Leave him out, or include everyone.

It’s simply the respectable thing to do, both to the fans and to those that created what gave everyone here a reason to be here in the first place.

Now if MONEY is the factor in who is or who isn’t then just quit jerking everyone around and SAY SO. If it isn’t about the money, then admit that the production team flat out aint as talented as they would have us believe, or the so called fans that keep blowing JJ’s horn.

Might I suggest… PLANTS?

111. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#89–What about how he would affect (potentially) any events after Generations and prior to STXI? Even just speaking to someone and swaying an opinion on one thing or another could alter established history for the entire population of the Alpha Quadrant. The Borg Invasion, The Dominion War–anything like that could have its outcome altered, causing deaths or preventing ones that are not supposed to happen. I’ve said this before, too. That would be an incredibly unSpock-like thing to do, and I doubt if Nimoy would even have agreed to that project as he did this one. Besides, Spock has the knowledge necessary to do something like that as far back as the original episode, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday”, so why would he not do that more immediately after the Soran incident, when there was alot less established history at stake and moral balance to lose? Talk about illogical! he may have come around about the needs of the few, but versus the needs of billions? Remember who we are talking about. I can hear Iowagirl now, “Kirk went back and saved him”. That’s true, but he did not wait years and years to do it, and changing history in the process.
Using Shatner in a flashback scene set in the past(just before the Enterprise-B incident) is the only way I see it working, but only if it is BENEFICIAL to the story (and Shatner plays Kirk–not himself). If it serves no good purpose to JJ’s storyline, then its presence can only be disruptive to the flow of the film. That’s my sometimes not-so-humble opinion.

112. Harry Ballz - January 18, 2008

Here’s what probably happened:

JJ: Mr. Shatner, we want you to make an appearance in the movie.
Shatner: Great! A starring role, of course!
JJ: Er, no….a short appearance at the end.
Shatner: I insist on a large part and lots of money!
JJ: Hey, thanks for coming by for a chat!

End of story, end of opportunity!

113. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#108, #109–Good. I’m not the only one who recognizes that. I’m weary of hearing how only Shatner can be the real Jim Kirk. he stopped being that long ago. I think he played Kirk so well early on because the creator and the early caretakers of Trek were always there to keep him reined into the role. With the later films especially, I think Bill was obviously given too much free reign with the character, and Star Trek suffered in the process.

114. johnconner - January 18, 2008

This whole thread is full of people being obtuse on purpose.

You do NOT need to take the whole movie to work Kirk being alive in. Why would you? Just because STIII did it with Spock? How limited your imagination must be to cling to that as a reason.

It’s so easy to do, and the best way would be like the end of a Twilight Zone. (Kinda funny that J.J. is a fan, apparently.) The events of the movie, whether they involve Spock’s actions or not, happen as they should, without any ham-handed shoehorning of ANY EXCESSIVE DETAIL. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say the new movie rocks, and you are blown away by the story. And Kirk living or dying in STVII is such a non-issue that you haven’t even really thought about it the whole time.

End of film, Spock’s back in his own time. Kirk appears. It doesn’t matter where, when or how, he just does. Obviously something happened in the timeline, but like a Twilight Zone episode, Kirk living is an unexpected twist. Spock is as surprised as the rest of us. Maybe Spock didn’t do anything at all to try and avoid Kirk’s Nexus death. Or maybe you retrace the film and it all comes together like the 6th sense. What the hell ever.

(Boy, do I ever agree with whoever said this movie should avoid the Nexus at all costs.)

Anyway, I’m front row center regardless of how all this Shatner’s in/Shatner’s out crap plays out. But to say “he’s dead” and “but teh Generations”, etc. sounds more like a bias than it does a true objective reading of the situation.

115. dalek - January 18, 2008

#111 since Kirk was not on DS9 voyager or the Enterprise E nor would be serving in Starfleet as he retired, there’s nothing in the timeline he could majorly affect.

However, since his death has never been mentioned post-Generations, there’s nothing that says his revival could not fit in with anything thats happened.

Braga is on record saying that the events of First Contact created an alternate timeline. So he wasn’t too bothered lol

116. Will - January 18, 2008

Did anyone else notice the big sigh (and not in a good way) from the people in the studio when it was mentioned that Nimoy would be in the film, have a little respect!

117. sean - January 18, 2008

#114

You’d really find that satisfying? Just having him show up with no explanation at all? I’m sorry, but having him show up in the end like that would change the entire film. Suddenly it’s not about the story they’ve created, it’s about ‘Hey Kirk shows up in the end! Ain’t that grand?’. If they really want to get things going again, they should avoid that kind of plotting until, maybe, movie # 2. They’re contracted for 3, after all. Give them some time to come up with something memorable and that’s worth the time.

It’s honestly nothing to do with bias. I love William Shatner, and I wouldn’t mind seeing him in a movie again. I just don’t want it to come across as forced or foolish. I’m not saying it has to be the focus of the entire movie, but come on, it needs to take up a decent amount of screen time out of respect for the character and the audience!

118. Khan - January 18, 2008

I defy anyone to watch Bill as Denny Crane and then as Kirk in STVI and then try to make the case that both performances are the same or just “Shatner being Shatner.”

119. johnconner - January 18, 2008

#117

I really don’t think so. Here’s where I agree with everyone who insists that Kirk is in the movie, just not Shatner. Having Pine as Kirk through 99% of the movie gives the character PLENTY of respect.

And it WOULD be the story they created. And it would need to be pulled off with complete logic and dramatic impact. In my mind, that’s a hell of a lot more than “just shows up at the end.” Something that makes you think of what you’ve just seen in a different, or new, light can be a fantastic way to end a film. You just have to do it the right way all the way through the movie.

120. SPB - January 18, 2008

#110 –

Sorry, the last thing TREK XI needs is appearances by Nichols, Koenig and Takei, ON TOP of Nimoy and (maybe, MAYBE) Shatner. Shall we drop in CGI recreations of Kelley and Doohan while we’re at it?

Having Spock in TREK XI makes sense, because he was always the most developed character in all of STAR TREK, and he’s universally recognized by almost everyone on the planet, regardless of whether or not they’re a Trekkie.

Sorry, but the others’ characters (outside of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy troika, followed closely by maybe Scotty) were never that important to begin with… certainly not to justify shoe-horning them in to this new TREK film.

121. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Whew. That was close if you know what I mean. :-)

Re: #94. Jay – January 18, 2008

Yes. I am really pleased that Nimoy is doing this. You’re right. It’s an excellent way to connect it to Trek.

Maybe this is a whole “new” Trek for the younger generation — like we were then. Well, some of us anyhoo. I was 11 when it first graced the screen. Crap. I guess you guys will do the math… :) Having a new version of the crew doesn’t bother me at all but you know those it will bother will talk about it. Just think — they can do stuff they wish they had back then and this time we have the technology to do it. Look at the DS9 Episode where the Orb of Time took them back to the Enterprise when they were on the Space Station with the Tribbles. I loved that episode!! It was cool the way they were able to pull the two together. The naysayers will disagree but I hope I’m not alone on that one.

Anyway, I hate to burst any bubbles but we can only have the originals for so long, guys. We’ve already lost McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, Ilia… (not to mention Gene himself). They are all going to pass. If, in your opinion, the whole franchise should end because the originals are gone, I SO disagree. I’ll take it in any form.

So — I’m glad that there is a rebirth, reboot, recast WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. I will keep watching and hopefully there will be enough out there who will also — to make it lucrative enough for the powers that be to continue.

Hey do you think the movie will spawn a new series? (Look out — INCOMING!!!!!!! I’ll bet I get creamed for that one.)

Back to work.

Ya, right.

kg

122. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Wow. Those smiley faces are starting to really irritate me. Sorry about that, guys. Think I’ll give them a rest.

kg

123. Mary Jay - January 18, 2008

I didn’t want to put in my two cents at first, but eh… here goes.

I totally agree with Jay (#94). I want this movie to be new, to be fresh. I want to see the youth of those characters I love. I want to know what they were like when they were about MY age. I want to learn more about them, learn something I didn’t know before. Honestly, the fact that Leonard Nimoy will appear in the movie is leaving me cold. Neutral. Don’t mind if he is, don’t mind if he’s not. I will not go see the movie because we will see good ol’ Spock. I want to see this movie to see young Spock, how he was like, was he as Vulcan as ever? What kind of young man was Kirk? Why did they described the character of McCoy as danger-loving in the casting? I want to know that, I think that is what attracts me to this movie, to be able to see, hear, live with those characters once more. Not the actors, the CHARACTERS ;-)

I don’t hate Bill Shatner, far from it. But I don’t see the point of him being in the movie. IMO, putting him in it will only take away screentime for what I really want to see. So, no Shat for me, sorry.

And for the record, I don’t watch Boston Legal. It’s probably a good show, but not my cup of tea. The fact that Shatner is in it is not a motivation to me. Same goes for the movie.

124. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 18, 2008

#106 “bringing in Shatner will not help attract young fans to the franchise. Demanding that Abrams put in The Shat is just saddling him with unnecessary baggage when we have asked him to go out and win a fight for us.”

This movie already has as much youthful MTV crowd appeal as it needs. A gargantuan budget, young cast members who look like models, and the writers of Transformers. It also has Leonard Nimoy, to no detriment whatsoever. And plain and simple … Nimoy plus Shatner is better than just Nimoy! We all know that much is true. The DUO should’ve been item #1 on Mr. Abrams’ wish list.

“It’s almost as if he took it upon himself to evolve the character into a silly(we already had Checkov), sarcastic (we already had McCoy)figure that voluntarily pandered to the SNL crowd.”

You think Shatner ad-libbed lines like, “I was like you once. So full of duty and obligation that I couldn’t see past my own uniform”? No. The character aged. His perspective changed. He mellowed. It’s a large part of what TWOK was about. And it happens in real life too. Shatner didn’t stop acting in the later films, you just couldn’t deal with him getting older.

125. Khan - January 18, 2008

Anyone actually listen to the audio? This is a moot point. Abrams laughed at Shatner w/ Corolla et al. He clearly stated that he would have liked to put him in, but it didn’t work out. Past tense. None of this “we are still trying” crap. I’d like to see Shatner, but good for Abrams for finally putting this to rest.

126. The Vulcanista - January 18, 2008

#123 Mary Jay

I agree with most everything you said, except the bits about Nimoy and Boston Legal. I’m pretty jazzed about Nimoy’s participation. AFA BL, Shat’s given some excellent performances. This past Tuesday’s was just about brilliant.

Oh, well. To each, her tea! :-)

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

127. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#115–I have to disagree with the premise that just because he would be retired, and not “directly” involved with anything, that he could do no damge, however unintentional. He would have to be sealed in a case to guarantee that. Any interaction with anyone could indirectly affect the events of established history, and thus potentially billions of lives. As far as Braga’s statement, that may be true. However, any alternate timeline established by the events in First Contact would have been as a result of a reaction by Picard and his crew to the Borg attack on the past. Spock’s potential revival of Kirk would not be simply reactive, but purely intentional, otherwise you are talking, again, about a major plotline change(involving the Nexus, I suppose, NOOOO!!!!)whereabouts Spock is forced to bring Kirk back in JJ’s story. So we are back to a very unSpock-like act, or an unnecessary gratuitous appearance of the Shat that is out of place in the Abrams story.
Once again, the only acceptable solution (IMO) would be to feature pre-Generations Kirk in a flashback—but ONLY if it benefits the progression of the story!!! If it did, and Shatner accepted such a minor role in the film (also questionable), then I tend to believe it would be happening already (assuming he can still play Kirk as Kirk and not pollute the film by playing himself in a Star Fleet uniform as he has in the last few films).
Nimoy is every bit as iconic as Shatner, his character does not present the kind of problems (resolving the issue of death) that Bill’s does, and Leonard will not challenge the director’s vision by laying his ego on the table. Why is it, for some, that only an appearance by Bill in this movie will validate it? Why is it worth more to some of you than a good story, the original Enterprise (at least a version that works on the big screen), and an invitation to a new group of fans that might actually be accepted and result in more TOS-era Star Trek? I cannot figure that out, and I have been a lifelong fan of the franchise who has had to watch Shatner (in the later films) and Berman/Braga (in the spin off series–with the exception of the last seasons of DS9 and ENT) run it into the ground (obscure networks and bad films).

Man, I need a drink. See if Bones has a bottle of that Romulan Ale he keeps for “medicinal purposes”…would you? Thanks.

128. NTH - January 18, 2008

#101-Spocks purpose-to save Kirk twice.He saves the young Kirk in the past from an as yet unknown danger.In doing so he tells the young Kirk that it is not his destiny to die alone and warns him that when the Enterprise B incident occurs his Nexus experiance will follow.He explains to Kirk what this experiance will be like and how he can escape———to a point in time which Spock confides in him.The Kirk that Picard frees from the Nexus is actually the “echo” of Kirk just as Guinan was and therefore the generations timeline is not altered.
Spock returns to the 24th century @ the end of the film

Spock “curious your still here”!

Cue to Kirk (smiling) where else would I be!

Fade to the 23rd century and a final shot of the new Enterprise

and the words “And the adventure begins” appear on the screen.

Space——- the final frontier

129. YUBinit - January 18, 2008

#113 Actually I recall from somewhere (maybe TWOK DVD xtras) that Meyers intentionally filmed Shat’s scenes over and over to tire him out of his over zealous inflections. And by so doing got a better performance some would say. But say what some will Shat IS Kirk and Star Trek isn’t a literary telling open to interpretation. The whole thing started in a visual media with THOSE actors are THESE characters. And in so being THAT is how Kirk acts… he acts like The Shat. There is no good or bad acting… THAT is him in my book.

And honestly if it weren’t for the inclusion of Nimoy, I really wouldn’t mind another playing Kirk. I might not be too crazy for it, but I wouldn’t be as bothered if there wasn’t the reminder and slap in the face in that Nimoy was involved.

As a child I was a HUGE Spock fan, and might argue “Kirk who? Nah Spock is the cool one!”. But I grew up, and realized Kirk does the TOS intro, Kirk commands the ship, and Kirk makes the big decisions. TOS is more about Kirk than any other single character (though I concede would be not very much fun without the rest).

I see Nimoy, so where is Shatner? Not around? Then why Nimoy?

130. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 18, 2008

#129 “I see Nimoy, so where is Shatner? Not around? Then why Nimoy?”

Agreed. That’s going to be the reaction of a lot of casual fans over the age of 18! I’m willing to give this movie a chance. I even agree with the idea of re-casting the roles. It had to happen eventually, and better 2008 than 1990, like ol’ Harve Bennett wanted.

But the thought of no Shatner just pisses me off! Plus, as I said, Nimoy + Shatner is FAR greater and more fun for the audience than just Nimoy. I love Nimoy, but Unification didn’t exactly set my pulse racing.

131. wacwaca - January 18, 2008

101.

They won’t do it and it’ll never happen but speaking from a place of pure geek boy fantasy and trekk nerddom it would be an awesome thing to see.

132. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#124–Shatner plus Nimoy is only better if Shatner’s presence, and resurrection, is beneficial to the story.
I disagree about the direction he took the character of Kirk towards the end. It looked to me, and many others, like he was either getting lazy in his acting, or attempting to pander to the SNL/MAD TV people who so often flatter him by doing parodies and such. I have to stand by my contention that he stopped being William Shatner as James Kirk, and started playing James Kirk as William Shatner. Even when he does those Priceline commercials, picture him in a Star Fleet uniform, and you would have his later version of the Kirk character doing the ads.
I never said that he ad-libbed. It was more like changing the character’s mannerisms and facial expressions, etc. It had nothing to do with dialogue that Harve Bennett or anyone else put in or directed. Its how he executed the dialogue and how he projected himself. It was not Jim Kirk. It was, however, Bill Shatner all the way. I find it hard to believe that you could miss that. I guess I never watched Star Trek just because of Bill’s presence. I watched it because it represented how I wanted the future to be, and I loved the characters–especially Kirk, Spock, Scotty and Bones.I still love those characters. I never thought it should be the William Shatner Show. If Jim Kirk grew old and turned into Bill Shatner, then I guess you’re right—I definitely could not deal with him getting older.

133. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#130–Unification did not set my pulse racing either, nor did anything set in that time period or TNG related. What makes you think that having Shatner will make any more casual fans show up than the the last few times around? I’m sorry, but did you like those films? By those films, I mean anything post STIV. I cannot speak for you, but I would hope that this movie will be much better than any of those mediocre efforts. I watched them all, but only once–maybe twice for First Contact. I have seen the TMP-STIV films hundreds of times, and spent “I don’t want to even think about how much time and money” doing so! Well, gotta go for the day. Peace and Long Life, my friend.

134. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#91: About that business of Shatner ‘whipping himself into shape’…

The man is 76. It’s tough to whip yourself into shape when you’re in your eighth decade.

Just wait. You’ll see.

135. dalek - January 18, 2008

#127 The mediocre TNG movies you speak of will still be available to watch no matter what happens with JJ’s Trek. All Spock has to do is tell Kirk to keep out of history’s way (like Picard did in FC to his crew). Kirk living is not going to stop the Borg attacking earth, The Baku insurrection, or Shinzon pursuing Picard.

In fact read the Shatner novels and Kirk’s return fits into all these. Anyway chalk and cheese arguing about that. It’s back to the TOS time. TNG is history now. It will always be available on video and DVD. The stars are Kirk and Spock again, and there’s nothing more important than the main protagonists life.

136. Bryan - January 18, 2008

Bravo #129!
Just as John Wayne was John Wayne in ANY character he played.
He didn’t have to act…he was the Duke.
Wiliam Shatner IS and ALWAYS Kirk.
I don’t give a rat’s A– if he is old and puffy as people have stated.
I don’t care if they remove his toupee and shows us for once and all his crome dome!
Put him in the film….SOMEWHERE!!!!!
How can a small nod to what he and the other six original cast members created.
This web site and everything Trek has wrought over these 40 plus years would not be happening had not the CHEMISTRY between the original cast not been what is was!
They ARE Star Trek……Come on JJ throw us old trek farts a bone and put the Shat in SOMEWHERE.
They are not immortal and time is not kind to NO OnE including YOU JJ!

137. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#98: Let’s be honest. if you were spending millions on a Trek revival film, would you gamble all of that with a plot that laid out the backstory for the resurrection of a character played by a man who might not be alive when the second film is made? That may sound harsh, but it’s reality. If it was your tens of millions of dollars, would you take the chance that Shatner would be alive and capable of acting at, say, 82? Would you expect to find investors?

138. Bryan - January 18, 2008

By the way here is the Trek XI teaser trailer folks…..

http://www.dailytrek.de/index.php?id=120064406189840

139. justcorbly - January 18, 2008

#114: Will you volunteer to travel to all those theaters to explain your ideas for the audiences?

Audiences will comprise two kinds of people: Those who know that Kirk was killed off, and a far larger group that does not know. If you bring Kirk back, you need to explain it for the first group. You won’t need to explain it to the second group, but his resurrection is of absolutely no dramatic value for them.

140. ShatisDead - January 18, 2008

Lets not forget Shat was responsible for the abortion that was Star Trek V!!!

141. Dennis Bailey - January 18, 2008

Look, the deal with bringing Shatner/Kirk back being “tricky” is this:

The movie’s not about old Kirk nor is it about old Spock. It’s about the younger versions of all of the characters.

Old Spock can easily be brought in to service that plot as a supporting character because the character is in a kind of dramatic equilibrium – we left him years ago, in good health, involved in some productive but vaguely outlined good work.

Since Kirk was dead last time we saw him, whatever process is used to resurrect him no matter how brief becomes a big dramatic focus in the story – not to mention, a major focus for Old Spock.

Not the movie they’re doing.

142. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Re: #134. justcorbly – January 18, 2008

“About that business of Shatner ‘whipping himself into shape’…
The man is 76. It’s tough to whip yourself into shape when you’re in your eighth decade. Just wait. You’ll see.”

Are you kidding? I’m already there!!

Actually it was more meant to mean if he would slim down and tackle the health problems he would be more likely to succeed in getting in (but it’s too late now). Not only that, it couldn’t hurt his longevity either. I’m hoping he’ll be around much longer. I really like him. As it is the man seems to have unlimited energy. It couldn’t hurt and I’d love to see him as Kirk again if it would work but that unlikely given his age now…. But we’ve been going in circles with that one so, nevermind.

I know he sometimes seems egotistical but I will mourn deeply when I hear that he has passed away, whenever that is.

Re: #137. justcorbly

That’s what I’ve been thinking. I hope he is around but c’mon… Chances are slim and I agree that it could be difficult to get $$ backing on those grounds.

P.S. to those tired of the circles: this is one of those topics that will be debated for a long, long time. I apologize, in advance, for participating but I love discussing Star Trek. Don’t have any “enlightened friends” to talk to about it. (They’re not going to see that posting because they’re not interested in Star Trek so I’m okay.) HA! Actually, they’re relieved that I’ve found an outlet (much to your chagrin).

kg

143. Litenbug - January 18, 2008

141. Dennis Bailey – January 18, 2008

Bingo!

144. Victor Hugo - January 18, 2008

BTW, it wouldn´t hurt to have a TNG character in the future with Spock, Riker for example, just like in the “Return of Captain kirk”, he was just there, Captain of a ramdom ship, taking Spock to visit Kirk´s grave.

And well, it also wouldn´t hurt to add a minor ENTERPRISE reference here and there. It´s the Starfleet Academy, they could add a Captain Archer statue somewhere, not to mention Zephram Cochrane´s. Besides, they need to add details ANYWAY, and now that we saw bits of that time period, it´s less work for the production team.

What? More easter eggs for the silvery special edition DVD!

145. CloverTrek - January 18, 2008

I agree with Dennis. I’d also say that J.J. Abrams wasn’t fair in saying they were working on a way to fit William Shatner into the movie. And now J.J. says he’s not in the movie, citing “Star Trek: Generations.”

Bottom line:
* Negotiations with Shatner didn’t work out. He likely wanted a better role, something the script doesn’t provide. Nimoy is instrumental; Shatner isn’t.

* Shatner won’t accept a cameo.

* The writer’s strike is preventing new scenes from being added. Maybe Kirk will return… but ONLY if the Writer’s Strike ends and the casting negotiations work.

* And given the secrecy of this project, whether Shatner is in or not… they’re NOT going to tell us.

Christmas 2008 is going to be very, very interesting.

146. Litenbug - January 18, 2008

50. Dr. Image – January 18, 2008
To state the obvious:

“Abrams has to make money for Paramount.”
Obviously.

“Abrams probably laughs out loud when Roberto reports to him that fans keep mentioning, “canon.””
Only in your opinion and in public statements and interviews he indicates he’s a real fan and likes what has come before this movie.

“Abrams is pulling exactly what Berman did, but this time, with far LESS respect for Trek history. (And frankly, I’m shocked.)”
What evidence of this statement?

Above all, Abrams knows that ultimately nobody really cares, and that everyone will end up falling into lock-step anyhow.
Your fellow Trek fans aren’t sheep.

147. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

Listening to this interview, it is clearer to me than ever that Abrams is only on board the new Star Trek because he sees an opportunity to revitalize the franchise by starting fresh with it. Abrams wouldn’t have signed onto a new Star Trek film in the TNG line, or in the DS9, VOY, or ENT lines for that matter.

He is doing this movie because he has been granted freedom with it, the freedom to envision it in a bold new way, one that will catch the attention of new viewers and the more open-minded long-standing fans of Star Trek alike. This doesn’t mean he is ignoring canon, but he is likely avoiding canon as much as possible. You can be sure he didn’t come to the project with any intention of engaging with things like the Nexus, or the exact specifications of the Enterprise bridge dome, or the color of the bridge railing.

And when it comes to Shatner, he’d rather avoid the whole issue of Kirk’s death altogether than have to wrap his head and the whole script around the question of how he could reappear. For this, I give Abrams a great deal of credit. It’s in with the new, not getting bogged down with what has been established, and yet still respecting the core vision of Star Trek as we have all known and loved it.

148. sean - January 18, 2008

#119

If that’s the story they’ve already crafted, great. Super. Fantastico!

What I’m saying is, it appears that’s NOT the story they’ve written. And if it’s not, then they’d have to A)re-work the entire thing so that it works (something made quite impossible given the writers strike) and B)toss whatever the central theme of their original story was. It seems from all involved that they’ve got a pretty good story going right now, so I think that would be a mistake.

Again, I think a lot of Trek fans THINK they’d be happy to see Old Kirk no matter what, but if it’s done in an unsatisfying way, they’ll have wished he’d just been left in peace.

149. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 18, 2008

As to Adam Corolla and his guests, however, I think they’re more than a little uncouth for publicly calling Shatner a “blow-hard”… and I’m not even a Shatner fan. Abrams acted very much correctly for standing up for Shatner’s reputation as an icon in the world of Star Trek, even though it is now impractical to include him in STXI.

150. Mike Thompson UK - January 18, 2008

Still think if Nimoy had said NO which was a big possibility they would have gone with Bill.

50% happy as Leonard is In

50% sad as Bill is not cast.

151. johnconner - January 18, 2008

#139:
“Will you volunteer to travel to all those theaters to explain your ideas for the audiences?”

Ridiculous notion. No need at all if I – as a screenwriter – have done my job.

“Audiences will comprise two kinds of people: Those who know that Kirk was killed off, and a far larger group that does not know. If you bring Kirk back, you need to explain it for the first group. You won’t need to explain it to the second group, but his resurrection is of absolutely no dramatic value for them.”

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer: you don’t need to belabor ANYTHING, especially not to the point of eating into any substantial screen time. Hell, off the top of my head, Old Spock at any time could say ” … that’s something Jim Kirk might have said, if he were still alive. But (continue narration)…” There. Done. Audience knows Kirk’s dead. Proceed with kickass movie until twist ending, which again, needs no special framing and setup if done with enough skill.

And I disagree that his “resurrection” would be of no dramatic value to Star Trek fans.

But like I said, whatever. Having Nimoy’s a plus IMO. Shatner would be a plus plus. :)

152. johnconner - January 18, 2008

#148

Fair enough. I wouldn’t want an unsatisfying Old Kirk shoehorned uncomfortably.

But impossible to do with quality? That is assuming too much, I think.

Plus, I think it’s fun to speculate, because even though we THINK we know what’s happening, I have a sneaking suspicion that we as a fan base, in reality, have NO IDEA. :)

153. A. - January 18, 2008

“You don’t have to know a thing about Star Trek to get on board and love the characters. We are making it for the fans on the one hand, but the truth is that we are making this movie for people who don’t know a thing about Star Trek. ”

You know, I really think JJ is doing the right approach with this thing. Remember, TOS was not made for the fans. IT was made for AN AIUDIENCE. I thinking making a film FOR THE FANS would needlessly include things SIMPLY to include them. By focusing on a story with cherished characters is spot on. Having said that, Including 1 of the two main former actors who made these characters legendary is stupid. I’m sure it will still be a good story but it won’t have quite the same draw. But again, it seem they aren’t out for the fans. They’re out for the story.

154. Kirk923 - January 18, 2008

I think that there are only two feasible and acceptable ways to have Shatner in the film. One, that the film’s future scenario be set in the original Star Trek movie era. For example, right after Star Trek VI, when the crew are on there way home after their final adventure and not even touch upon what happened in the NextGen era, therefore not violating that canon, just steering clear of that timeline. Basically, keep the original trek original. The other is an idea someoene mentioned earlier that if the film does involve the older Spock and Romulans modifying the timeline, that somehow the old Kirk (Shatner) may end up alive and well in the 23rd century after all.

155. Edith Keeler - January 18, 2008

Well I, for one, am glad that Abrams decided not to use the Cawley cameo he shot. I guess that means there is still a slot open for some gratuitous over acting.

156. A. - January 18, 2008

Abrams shot a Cawley Cameo? What for?

157. Phillip - January 18, 2008

All I want is a good movie. If they had a good story that included Shatner they could have pretended “Generations” never existed. I would have been fine with that. Certinley you want some continuity, you want Kirk to behave like Kirk and Spock to be Spock. I would love to see Star Trek movies as thier own beginning and end. I dont need them to be bridged together. Give me the characters I love with a great adventure and I could care less if it doesnt fit with someones bad idea for an ending ten years ago !

158. Adam Cohen - January 18, 2008

You do know that insisting Kirk is dead as a reason for not including him in the movie AND at the same time ignoring canon (if the filmmakers are doing so, it remains to be seen) are two diametrically opposed notions.

No Kirk, because he’s dead– but canon is not a priority. Hmmm….

159. Xai - January 18, 2008

Every so often I see posts regarding Shatner’s absence and “if J.J and the writers were better, it would be no problem”. What a load of tribble droppings that is. These people are professional and have a habit of talking to us here. They aren’t hiding

1. Shatner helped kill Kirk, making it difficult to write him in…(and NO, you just can’t have him appear at the end and make it all better. That kind of story-telling is dam poor)
2. After the things Shatner has publicly said, good and bad..including insulting JJ, why would they want him? He can’t make up his mind if Trek XI is good or a bad business decision.
3. He doesn’t want a cameo… he wants the star treatment again.
4. The story isn’t about a Kirk revival. That’s because he helped kill the good captain years ago.

160. Kirk923 - January 18, 2008

You know what Xai, your absolutely right about Shat taking the $$$ to kill off Kirk in Generations, for sure!!! But I guess I’m just one of those old school fans who would love to see the Shat back one last time on screen as the hero I grew up with but only if the store supports it…

161. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Re: #157. Phillip

“Give me the characters I love with a great adventure and I could care less if it doesn’t fit with someone’s bad idea for an ending ten years ago! ”

Yes! I totally agree.

#159. Xai

“…3. He doesn’t want a cameo… he wants the star treatment again….”

I’ve been tempted to come to the same conclusion.

Re: #152. johnconner

“Plus, I think it is fun to speculate, because even though we THINK we know what’s happening, I have a sneaking suspicion that we as a fan base, in reality, have NO IDEA.”

Hilarious but true. I think for all of our pontifications, we (especially me) will be rather embarrassed when the movie actually comes out; if we remember all the surmising we did. And just for fun I looked up the word “surmising” to make sure I was using it correctly and do you know what it said? It said:

“surmising: to make a guess about something; to conclude that something is the case on the basis of only limited evidence or intuitive feeling.”

Just about split a gut laughing. That’s what we’ve been doing. But it has been fun, hasn’t it?

kg

162. Kirk923 - January 18, 2008

I am not saying it should be done or not, but if they were going to bring back Old Kirk (William Shatner) into the movie, I think the best way is the scenario I suggested earlier about setting the Nimoy era in a 23rd century timeline right after “The Undiscovered Country” but before the catastrophic “Generations” therefore making this film part of the original Trek storyline of film canon and not even touching upon The Next Generation era at all… But you know what, either way, Shat or not, I am psyched about this film!!! I will go watch this movie 5 times with or without Shatner or Nimoy!!!

163. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

Xai #159

1/ What does it matter that Shatner agreed to kill Kirk off? Leonard Nimoy did the same exact thing in ST II. Besides every major character in TOS was “killed off”

2/ Shatner was clearly joking when he said things like “I hope that movie bombs”

It is true he hasn’t covered himself in glory, but some people take his sarcasm as hard fact rather than the tongue and cheek manner in which it was intended.

3/ What he says + what he means are usually two different things. If they gave him enough $ for a cameo he would be there.

4/ True the story is not about a Kirk revival. On the other hand if it is indeed a story about alternate time lines Kirk could be worked in. Also I think this may be the last time the character (played by Shatner) can be given a dignified end.

What better ending could this film possibly have than the original Kirk and Spock riding off into the sunset together combined with the introduction of a new cast?

It’s a no brainer. Shatner in ST XI can only be a good thing.

164. Jabob Slatter - January 18, 2008

The arguments about how Shatner could and should be in this movie are ridiculous. He ain’t in it, and I’m fine with that.

I hope to God you guys avoid the movie, because if I hear any of your whiney complaining butts behind me in the theater, I’m gonna bring out my inner Klingon.

165. steve adams - January 18, 2008

Mr Abhrams great
work on Cloverfield a real original !!
(Dramamine, I’ll remember that when I totally buy the dvd).
^
Thanks also for doing the Enterprise right and not altering it drastically.
^
Also thanks sooo much for respecting cannon enough to make the Nacelles look perfect also keeping Kirk dead is totally fine with me.
^
Shatner needs to loose some wieght before I call him Admiral Kirk, I mean let’s get real folks!!
^
(Shatner Un-dead- have hijacked this thread!)

166. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 19, 2008

#159 “He doesn’t want a cameo… he wants the star treatment again.”

I’d like to see your source for that claim, Xai? Oh, right. You don’t have one – you made it up!

“including insulting JJ”

Again … source, please? Making stuff up gets really annoying, fyi.

#165 “Mr Abhrams great work on Cloverfield a real original !!”

I saw it tonight. It was entertaining. But original? Not so much. It was EXACTLY what Abrams told that stupid dork Corolla it would be: Blair Witch meets Godzilla. Nothing more.

167. trektacular - January 19, 2008

Shatner is too good for this new movie, there I said it.

168. Michael Ayre - January 19, 2008

trailer looks good. at first i was against the film, but reading about it makes me want to see it now. and as for the shatner situation… who cares! he would of wanted the most screen time. JJ is one of the best writers/ directors out there, let him make the new vision and see if he can bring trek back from the dead. it needs a new style and shatner is old style.
plus least having nimoy in it says that he hasnt forgotton the Spock is still alive on romulus and the 24th century is still there for us
BRING ON DECEMBER

169. steve adams - January 19, 2008

#166 so can we agree that Shatners a bloated attorney?

170. Prospero - January 19, 2008

The problem with not having Shatner in the movie is that every single review is going to mention it. A significant portion of the audience are going to be thinking it all the way through. Hopefully both reviewers and audience will be won over and it will not matter or hurt the film and the future of the franchise. Given that both trailer and tour have occurred at the same time there is now even more emphasis on Shatner being not cast because Kirk is dead. By the time this film opens, without Shatner, the whole world will know these three words: KIRK IS DEAD. He is not alive. The young hero of this film ends up dead, forty or so years down an ‘established’ timeline. That is not really the sort of thing you want in the mind of a potential new audience when offering a new hero to them. It really is a gamble not casting Shatner, who is going to be very high profile when the film comes out and he is not in it. If he is in, he becomes saviour. If he is out, he will become the albatross swinging around the neck of Star Trek XI. The mistake was in suggesting he could be in it in the first place. Mark my words: this film is going to die on its ass if Shatner is not in it.

171. justcorbly - January 19, 2008

The presence of Nimoy or Shatner or anyone else is marginal to the film’s revenue. Only truely serious nutcase fans would decide to see or not see the movie based on their presence, and very few of those fans exist.

The same applies to canon. Whether it wipes the slate clean or slavishly adheres to canon will have, at best, a marginal impact on the film’s revenue. Only a tiny fraction of the potential audience knows about canon, and only a tiny fraction of them care.

The reason you establish canon and adhere to it, more or less, is because it provides a framework for scriptwriters and spawns story ideas. You don’t establish it to placate your most fanatic fans. You don’t avoid violating canon to keep them happy, either.

Shatner should not be in the film becase he doesn’t look like Kirk anymore. Even if he played a elderly Kirk, he’d have to play a Kirk who resembled Santa Claus. How many Shatner fanatics want that? Why would Shatner?

Nimoy can only be in it because he still looks like Spock looked when seen last.

I think it’s very likely that Shatner knows his Kirk days are gone and all the noise surrounding this issue is just PR.

But, who knows? I just know I don’t want Shatner in the film.

Let’s hope the movie is strong, intelligent, dramatic, and populated with adult characters. Let’s hope it is not two hours of watching twenty-somethings in space wring their hands in anguish amid a lot of big, bright, shiny, exploding toys.

172. johnconner - January 19, 2008

First off, I’d like to say that Shatner doesn’t need to lose weight or have a face lift or any other kind of nonsense to make an appearance as Kirk. People age. That’s the way life is. Kirk’s never gonna be in the same shape as he was in TOS, or TWOK, for that matter.

And as far as Generations being canon: so was TWOK. Then came STIII – whaddaya know, Spock’s alive. Both CAN BE canon. It’s not a mutually exclusive thing. Dare I say it? Oh, okay, I will. There are always possibilities. ;)

#159: “Every so often I see posts regarding Shatner’s absence and “if J.J and the writers were better, it would be no problem”. What a load of tribble droppings that is. These people are professional and have a habit of talking to us here. They aren’t hiding”

I hope you’re not talking about me. I like the movies these guys have done. I have confidence that they could write in any scenario that sounds feasible if they wanted to. I’m only offering up a way in which it could work without hijacking the movie. From what I’ve seen and heard, I think this movie’s gonna rock the house.

#159 again:
“1. Shatner helped kill Kirk, making it difficult to write him in…(and NO, you just can’t have him appear at the end and make it all better. That kind of story-telling is dam poor)”

You forgot “in your opinion” at the end. ;)

YES, I can have him appear at the end, just as much as you CAN’T have it. Once again, it’s not an “appear at the end and make it all better.” Ever seen Planet of the Apes? Sixth Sense? Twilight Zone? That’s what I’m talking about. Not some lazy “Bobby Ewing is in the shower, it was all a dream” BS.

#161: “Hilarious but true. I think for all of our pontifications, we (especially me) will be rather embarrassed when the movie actually comes out; if we remember all the surmising we did. And just for fun I looked up the word “surmising” to make sure I was using it correctly and do you know what it said? It said:

“surmising: to make a guess about something; to conclude that something is the case on the basis of only limited evidence or intuitive feeling.”

Just about split a gut laughing. That’s what we’ve been doing. But it has been fun, hasn’t it?”

God, yes. :)

I haven’t had this much fun since the seventies, when all we had were reruns and we heard a new movie was coming out. I’m glad you’re having a great time too!

#162: Good call on movie era not messing with canon. Thumbs up!

173. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#166– How can you suggest that calling his decisions “stupid” is not insulting? He said, and I quote, “It is a stupid business decision”, “…a stupid box office decision”, and “…a silly oversight”. If he had said these things about a project I was in charge of, I would surely take it as an insult, and I am willing to bet that most would agree with me. As far as JJ allowing something personal like that to get in the way of a good story, well, that’s something else. However, I think it is safe to say that he most certainly did insult Mr. Abrams. To be fair, it is also prudent to point out that whether he refused a lesser role and would only accept something more is purely speculative, although I have read of him saying that he would not accept a cameo, while later backing off on that statement. I believe I read that here (not on this thread, but in an older piece), but I cannot say for sure. Let’s say for now that it is indeed speculative. It would not exactly be out of character for Bill, according to some of his Trek co-stars’ accounts of working with him. Would it?
I am all for Bill getting a part (like Mitchum in the Scorsese version of Cape Fear), but resurrecting Kirk? Only if it really benefitted the story, and I am not sure that it does–and apparently, JJ isn’t either.

174. justcorbly - January 19, 2008

#172: If Shatner did not think Kirk should die, all he had to do was not sign a contract. Regardless of what he was or was not paid, he had the final call.

175. johnconner - January 19, 2008

#174:
I’m still waiting for a reason that Kirk cannot be resurrected a la Spock. Generations and Shatner’s participation in it is what it is.

176. Gallifrey1983 - January 19, 2008

I am glad that George Lucas did not bring Alec Guinness back for any scenes as Obi Wan Kenobi in Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. He was dead, deader than Kirk, we saw Kenobi cut in half.

It would take a whole movie to explain how Obi Wan could continue to exist after his duel with Vader. It could not have added to the story.

The voice Luke heard at the end of Star Wars? Just an Echo.

177. Gallifrey1983 - January 19, 2008

So Shatner is out, apparently for good this time.

I am glad that George Lucas did not bring Alec Guinness back for any scenes as Obi Wan Kenobi in Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. He was dead, deader than Kirk, we saw Kenobi cut in half.

It would take a whole movie to explain how Obi Wan could continue to exist after his duel with Vader. It could not have added to the story.

The voice Luke heard at the end of Star Wars? Just an Echo.

178. Randall - January 19, 2008

I think everyone’s missed a major point in all this arguing about Shatner’s absence from the new film.

I too believe it’s not the smartest decision to leave Shatner out. I think it could have been done–but the problem is this:

Clearly, in order to keep the continuity going, Shatner’s Kirk would have to be resurrected somehow. There’s no problem there, we simply invent a way for this to happen. BUT…. it would mean a complex story. The story of the new movie would, essentially, have to be *about* resurrecting Kirk. It would become the centerpiece of the plot. It would really have to be.

And I don’t blame Abrams for not wanting to make a movie out of that story—because it’s not the story he wanted to tell. It’s apparent that he wants to resurrect Star Trek itself (at least, I hope this is his intention) from the miasma that’s hung around it the last 15+ years, and that means working on a broader canvas—not simply focusing on Kirk and fixing mistakes from old stories done 10 years ago. A Shatner-Kirk resurrection would have dominated Abrams’ story. It would have had to. And he simply didn’t want to make a sequel to an old story arc. He wanted to go back to the beginning. It isn’t Abrams fault that a dumb decision was made years ago to kill off Kirk (you DON’T kill off heroic icons—it simply isn’t done–Arthur Conan Doyle learned this when he tried to kill off Sherlock Holmes. Edgar Rice Burroughs never tried to kill off Tarzan, for example–the idea violates the whole concept of the hero AS an icon). We therefore can’t blame Abrams for not wanting to waste his valuable storytelling time going back to fix someone else’s stupid mistake. Maybe in the next film he can do this, if he makes another one. But not in this one.

The one way it could have been done is if, in the end, all the time-traveling broohaha somehow changed the “timeline” and Kirk ended up alive again, with no involved explanation. It would have been a tad contrived and simplistic, and perhaps unsatisfying in that sense–but I doubt many people would have cared if it meant having Shatner’s Kirk alive again. I know I wouldn’t have. What matters to me is that the icon not die–I don’t care how it comes to pass. But this approach would have also meant a simple cameo for Shatner, at the end of the film. And it seems, from what we’ve heard, that no one wanted to do it that way.

Personally, I think that in itself is where the “business decision” here wasn’t the smartest—if it were me, I’d have said the hell with it, let’s just do it that way and stick Shatner in at the end, and voila—we’ve corrected the past and created a new Star Trek to boot, and we’ve brought back a heroic icon that should never have been killed off in the first place. No harm done, and in fact, you’ve improved things.

But for whatever reason, Abrams and team decided that wasn’t the way to go. Since we don’t know why that’s the case, then let’s stop sniping about it. Maybe Shatner himself screwed it by refusing to do a cameo-type appearance. Who knows?

179. justcorbly - January 19, 2008

#175: Nothing prevents writing a script that resurrects Kirk. Obviously, a decision was made not to do that. It might have been made for personal or financial or artistic reasons.

Trek is not centered on Kirk. He just happened to be the captain in the first series. I cringed when I saw Shatner and most of the rest of the crew in the last couple of movies. I don’t want to see Shatner as Kirk again. I’m not even sure I want to see Kirk again.

180. justcorbly - January 19, 2008

#178: The idea of rounding up the TOS cast for a 30-second reunion scene as the film’s epilogue appeals to me. But, if I was bankrolling the film, I’d balance the price those actors would demand versus the anticipated revenue it would generate. I’m not certain it would be a smart move.

181. A. - January 19, 2008

166. Shatner_Fan_2000 – January 19, 2008
“#159 “He doesn’t want a cameo… he wants the star treatment again.”

I’d like to see your source for that claim, Xai? Oh, right. You don’t have one – you made it up!”

He does that constantly.

“including insulting JJ”

“Again … source, please? Making stuff up gets really annoying, fyi.”

Try visiting the other thread, he makes up all kinds of stuff.

182. Greg2600 - January 19, 2008

If they are concerned by canon issues, how on Earth could Shatner have been brought in for a cameo? He can’t be cast as a different character, almost everyone can agree that would look foolish.

My point, is and has always been, that canon should not stand in the way of a good story or a potentially historic (in Trek lore) opportunity. I keep hearing that several of the Abrams team are big Trek fans. This is an opportunity to have Nimoy and Shatner together again, and you pass? This is the era of the long lost reunions (Rocky, Rambo, Led Zeppelin, Indiana Jones, Die Hard, etc.)

For those who say J.J. might not want Shatner’s return to dominate his film….well, whenever I see this movie, the first thing that is going to dominate my mind is the absence of Shatner. I’m sure it’s going to be a great movie, but to include just Nimoy, that is going to hang over its proverbial head.

183. johnconner - January 19, 2008

#179:

“Nothing prevents writing a script that resurrects Kirk. Obviously, a decision was made not to do that.”

Obviously? Unless you’ve heard someone say “Shatner’s not in the movie” (or something as definitive), which is not what ANYONE has said, including J.J. in the above audio, it’s not so obvious. Especially when they’re so secretive that every straight question is deflected. I’ve heard that phrase “it’s tricky because he’s dead” bandied about by not only Abrams, but other official sources as well. Not very definitive.

Someone else wondered this before in one of these threads: “Why don’t they just come out and say it – is he in or out?”

But they haven’t. Until they do, it’s a “probably not” at this point.

Look, I’m not a “Shatner in the movie at all costs” guy. If it goes ahead with just Nimoy, hey, I’m there front row. I just see people talking as if they know definitively one way or another, and the plain truth is … we DON’T. I’d love for some closure one way or another, but I don’t think we’re gonna get it.

184. johnconner - January 19, 2008

#178:

“Clearly, in order to keep the continuity going, Shatner’s Kirk would have to be resurrected somehow. There’s no problem there, we simply invent a way for this to happen. BUT…. it would mean a complex story. The story of the new movie would, essentially, have to be *about* resurrecting Kirk. It would become the centerpiece of the plot. It would really have to be.”

I respectfully disagree. :)

185. Mary Jay - January 19, 2008

#170 Prospero

The argument about: “By the time this film opens, without Shatner, the whole world will know these three words: KIRK IS DEAD. He is not alive. The young hero of this film ends up dead, forty or so years down an ‘established’ timeline. That is not really the sort of thing you want in the mind of a potential new audience when offering a new hero to them.”

Ahem… I do not agree at all with that. The best example I could come up with is The Godfather II. We know Don Corleone dies at the end of the first movie, and still, we are very interested to know how he started out in life, something we see in the second movie. I loved the performance of both Marlon Brando in the first, and LOVED Robert DeNiro in the second. The fact that Don Corleone ends up dead someday didn’t bother me. You know why? Because I know that everybody dies someday. Life’s unfair, but heh… that’s the way it is. If we were to agree with you, nobody would ever go see historic movies… “Heh, there’s a new movie about the life of Christopher Columbus…” …” Forget it, I don’t want to watch it, Columbus died…” Yeah, right… ;-)

So your argument that younger audience will not fall for this new younger hero just because he ends up dead when he gets old… well… it doesn’t really hold the road for me. You will have to find another argument to bring the Shat back ;-)

186. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#175– It has never been an issue as to whether he could or could not be, rather as to whether he should or should not be. Is it beneficial to the story? If it is, he should be in it (provided he can accept a minor role and that he does not play Kirk as horribly as he did in the last few films). If it is not, he should not be in it. It is that simple. Since you and I have no intimate knowledge of the story, how can we say that it IS beneficial to the already written story. Whether he is in or not, I hope this will be better than the last 3 ST films he DID appear in–where I still contend that he forgot that he was paid to be Bill Shatner as James Kirk, and not the other way around.
#182– If you are more of a Shatner fan than you are a fan of Star Trek, then you may very well be distracted by his absence. Star Trek, to me, was so much more than just the “William Shatner Show”. 24th Century Spock is apparently an integral part of the story. As evidenced by his complaints and criticisms over being left out, post-Generations Kirk is apparently not necessary to the story. I do not wish to see them veer away from the story just to resurrect Kirk and give us gratuitous Shat. The only viable option is to have Kirk appear in a pre-generations flashback interacting with Spock, but again, only if it benefits the story. It does not seem that JJ has taken Bill’s complaints about his decision thus far very seriously, so he may not be so personally insulted as to forgo a potential Shatner sighting in his film. If he is feeling insulted, however, and there is a way to make it beneficial to the story, Bill will have no one but himself to blame if JJ does not include him. I wish he had simply taken a higher road and wished them all success. I do wish it for them, and I trust that if bringing Bill in would not disrupt the flow of the film or make no sense, JJ and the “Supreme Court” would have sought him out and offered him a part to begin with.

187. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#185–Great analogy! GFII is my favorite movie of all time, and you are absolutely right.

188. Mary Jay - January 19, 2008

#186 and 187 You know what? I totally agree with you also!

189. justcorbly - January 19, 2008

#183: Well, i suppose if they dive deep enough into the time travel well, most anything could happen plotwise. That’s why I don’t like tirme travel stories. Most often, it’s just a cheap gimmick to make life easier for the writers. The stories should spring from the characters.

190. johnconner - January 19, 2008

186:
“It has never been an issue as to whether he could or could not be, rather as to whether he should or should not be.”

As for the first part of your sentence, I wish that were true, but even so, we’re not in a position to know the second part of your sentence either.

What’s the old saying? “I can’t tell you what I don’t know?”

191. Greg2600 - January 19, 2008

178 – Let’s say the story involves a Romulan group doing something bad in the 24th century, and Spock is hot on their trails. They go back in time to change the timeline, and Spock pursues them. Or perhaps Spock has to go back in time to change the timeline himself (which I think would be quite unlike him to do so, unless it happened unexpectedly). In either case, unless the story follows through the same as First Contact did, perhaps Nimoy returns to the future, and is confronted by the bad guys. They think they have him beat this time, except wah lah, Kirk (Shatner) shows up and bails out Spock. Maybe he says something like, “Took your advice, and watched by step on Veridian III.” And off into the sunset they go.

Is that a cameo? Would Shatner do it? Obviously, I can’t answer that, but at least it would be something to offer to him.

186 – I didn’t approve of Shatner being “insulting” to J.J. However, I don’t think it is a big issue with regards to the lack of a definitive answer on his status.

192. NTH - January 19, 2008

#185 with respect Don Corleone was not an iconic action hero……….it is not likely that we are going to see James Bond being killed off soon! It is of course true that everyone dies but thankfully we still have William Shatner and therefore the opportunity to prehaps see him one last time with Nimoy on screen together in a Star Trek movie . The changing of Kirks destiny appears to be an instrumental part of this film and even though it may never happen a further changing of his destiny would appeal to a lot of trek fans.Of course the film is aimed at a much wider audience but the opportunity exists to round of the star trek saga for one generation and pass on the baton to another.This was very badly done in Generations, perhaps this is another reason to try and get it right.There is of course no obligation for J.J.Abrams to attempt this but I suspect that there would be a lot of fans out there who would be very grateful.These are my simple thoughts on this matter and like everyone else I am really looking forward to the new movie.Please Mr.Abrams Carpe Diem!!!

193. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#191–Again, you could do something like that, but it is most likely a very different story from the one JJ wants to tell. Veering off of JJ’s storyline is unacceptable. It also would not explain how Picard saw him dead, and yet he is not. For it to make any sense, you would have to resolve the issue of his death within the film. Doing so would require that to be beneficial to the flow of the story.

#190–No, we are not in that position, but it is safe to say that he should not be in the film (as Kirk) unless such an appearance benefitted the story. If JJ wanted to resolve the issue of Kirk’s death, he could simply have Spock warn Kirk of what is going to happen on board the Enterprise-B, or of what takes place in the fight with Soran (then, of course, it’s just a Back To The Future ripoff), so that is not a real issue. The real issues are making it (any prevention of Kirk’s death, resurrection, etc.) work with the story that Abrams wants to tell, and the reasoning that Spock would never be so irresponsible as to jeapordize events in the timeline which are supposed to happen subsequently (especially so long after Kirk’s death) by preventing a man’s death. If nowhere else, they learned that any seemingly insignificant death can be a catalyst to events that are crucial to the future in one of the best TOS episodes ever, “The Guardian Of Forever”. I would be forever disappointed if JJ took the character of Spock in such a direction. Stealing the Enterprise to help Capt. Pike(“The Menagerie, pt. I, II”) is one thing, but jeopardizing the fate of billions throughout the quadrant just to spend some time with Jim Kirk, is something entirely different and, without a doubt in my mind, unSpock-like.

#186–Judging from JJ’s laughter when Corolla brought it up, I don’t think so either. Frankly, probably not many people take Bill’s ravings very seriously (except in places like this). But then again, he may just be doing what Shatner should be doing—taking the high road in public. My point was, that if he really wants JJ to change his mind (if it has been made up), or put a great deal into working him in (if it has not), hurling public insults aimed at the director’s decision-making is not the smartest thing to do (it’s really a “stupid business decision” lol).

194. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#192–Action hero? No. But I would contend that Don Corleone is every bit as “iconic” as Captain Kirk (and, arguably, to an even larger group of people, since there are no “required viewings” of Star Trek movies for film students). I still do not agree that the audience knowing that Kirk dies in his 60’s(?) would have any effect on them paying money to see him as a young action hero prior to TOS. Whether he is an action/scifi hero (like Kirk) or a colorful criminal (like Vito Corleone) has no bearing. Young Vito is the protagonist (Oscar for Bobby D) in the parallel story which takes place in Coppolla’s GFII, just as Kirk is (I am assuming, of course,–otherwise, what difference does it make?) the protagonist in STXI. The resulting lack of effect on the film’s numbers will be no different. in fact, the best argument I have heard yet for a Shatner appearance as Kirk in this film is a GFII-like final scene (you still have to make it fit into JJ’s storyline, as well as get Bill to promise to play Jim Kirk and not Bill Shatner).

195. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#192–I forgot one thing. There has, to my knowledge, been nothing yet to suggest that Kirk’s destiny is to be “changed” in JJ’s story. I HAVE heard “rumors” to the effect that his destiny is to be “protected” from a villain, but that is quite different. If Spock were somehow given no choice but to risk altering the future timeline to do so, he could prevent Kirk’s death, but again, only IF it is beneficial to JJ’s story. It is never anyone’s place to decide for an artist how he should paint his picture, compose his song, or sculpt his statue, only to “judge it” once he (said artist) has made his art available to the world. I won’t tell him how to create his art, but I will stand for his right to be left to do it his way.
Time to go for today.

196. johnconner - January 19, 2008

#193:

Again, we don’t know. All your points are well taken, as I hope mine are, because we don’t know WHAT J.J. has in mind. Oh sure, we have li’l nuggets here and there – that again, may or may not be true, could be the filmmakers teasing us – but we don’t know anything, so it’s impossible to conjecture accurately. Like it or not, Kirk/noKirk is still up in the air, just as valid on either side.

Nothing’s been settled. Which seems to be just how Abrams, Orci, et. al. want it.*

*Which is awesome, because they’re bucking the spoiler trend. How novel is it to have a surprise at the movies anymore?

197. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 20, 2008

#179 “Trek is not centered on Kirk. He just happened to be the captain in the first series. I cringed when I saw Shatner and most of the rest of the crew in the last couple of movies.”

Then you’re a shallow, ageist (

198. Prospero - January 20, 2008

Never mind, given what creative fans of the future will doubtless be able to do on their home computers, I am sure there will be numerous versions of this movie featuring William Shatner :-)

199. Shaun - January 20, 2008

#21 said:
>Hopefully we will finally see all of what Star Trek could be.

We already have. It was called DS9. Too bad we will never see that cast again, whether in a film or miniseries, even though the show ended wide open for a reunion/continuation to their storyline.

Anyhow, I have no interest in this new film. ST10 should’ve been a conclusion/resolution to the Spock on Romulus (with the TNG crew) storyline instead of the travesty that was Nemesis.

Even if the new movie deals with Spock on Romulus, I’m not interested in seeing other actors play the original cast. I think the casting has been lousy to say the least.

Rumors that the new movie will have Kirk beating the Kobyashi Maru by seducing a female tech, and getting her to change the programming, strike me as shallow and insulting. It’s not what I had in mind as the “original thinking” that Kirk was commended for. But then, I don’t think Abrams gives a rip about continuity.

If people want to see this, and if they end up enjoying it, that’s great. I just won’t be supporting it. There’s a lot of other things I’d have rather seen Star Trek do than just a “re-imagining” of the past.

200. Xai - January 20, 2008

181. A. – January 19, 2008
166. Shatner_Fan_2000 – January 19, 2008

You two decide who said what, I’m not going to be double teamed here.
“#159 “He doesn’t want a cameo… he wants the star treatment again.”

I’d like to see your source for that claim, Xai? Oh, right. You don’t have one – you made it up!”

He does that constantly.

“including insulting JJ”

“Again … source, please? Making stuff up gets really annoying, fyi.”

Try visiting the other thread, he makes up all kinds of stuff.

A.
He wants in.
He’s been quoted on this site saying he doesn’t want a cameo.
He’s complained about the “bad” business decision as well as “silly and stupid”. But you already know all this and I don’t feel the need to trace this down when this is common knowledge.

A, .We’ve “discussed” this on the other thread. He complained and you said it was “feedback” among other things. Now you say he said nothing at all. Let us know when you have made up your mind.
And yes, let’s DO invite all the posters back to the other Shatner thread and see how that all went down. I think Anthony left a message to you there as well. I’m done with your troll and bait game.

201. Steve S - January 20, 2008

What’s gonna happen when Bill and Leonard die? Oh, that’s right, we should just stop making movies with the original characters all together. While we’re at it, why don’t we stop making Shakespeare, Miller, Simon and Williams plays too. Wouldn’t want to insult the memories of the actors that originated the parts in all those productions, would we?

When are you people gonna learn? Kirk is a part that can be played by any competent actor. I don’t know Chris Pine’s work, but if J.J. picked him (yes, directors get to pick) then it’s OK by me. If you want to see Shatner, then you have a ton of stuff to watch. Someone leak a call sheet because until I see one with his name on it, he ain’t in it.

I suspect everyone on this thread that says, “No Shatner, no deal,” will line up 5 days before the opening to watch the first midnight showing. Because, we’re all Trek’s bitches. It’s a fact. Live with it or go cold turkey.

202. jimi walker - January 21, 2008

im with u mate …..if loads of actors can play macbeth [ sorry ‘the scottish play’] then why not accept a different take on Kirk?
ive been watching the franchise for 41years since i was 6 and ive been entertained throughout [barring a few notable exceptions]

i,like the rest of you i suspect, am optimistic that this could be our future if we ever learn to trust each other enough to form a world govt.
But i believe that certian sociological changes are already progressing towards that …ie in 50-100years there will only be 4 common languages on our planet and eventually just one ! this will go miles towards bringing us together .
so its not totally improbable that in 400years we would have solved most if not all of our social problems and by doing so been able to pool our resources and brng about the liberation of the human race

which is after all what this great saga is all about ..
anyway back to the point
i like abrahms as a director and producer we need new blood ..

bring it on mate ….i wait with bated breath for your masterpiece
anyway soon with cgi technology advancing exponentionally they could rebuild the original TOS crew without EVER having them get any older

unfortunately the studios with this sort of power would ressurect every aweful franchise and screw it up for the rest of us.

tell u what tho id like to see a big budget remake of voyage to the bottom of the sea …now theres a thot

203. jimi walker - January 21, 2008

im with u mate …..if loads of actors can play macbeth [ sorry ‘the scottish play’] then why not accept a different take on Kirk?
ive been watching the franchise for 41years since i was 6 and ive been entertained throughout [barring a few notable exceptions]

i,like the rest of you i suspect, am optimistic that this could be our future if we ever learn to trust each other enough to form a world govt.
But i believe that certian sociological changes are already progressing towards that …ie in 50-100years there will only be 4 common languages on our planet and eventually just one ! this will go miles towards bringing us together .
so its not totally improbable that in 400years we would have solved most if not all of our social problems and by doing so been able to pool our resources and brng about the liberation of the human race

which is after all what this great saga is all about ..
anyway back to the point
i like abrahms as a director and producer we need new blood ..

bring it on mate ….i wait with bated breath for your masterpiece
anyway soon with cgi technology advancing exponentionally they could rebuild the original TOS crew without EVER having them get any older

unfortunately the studios with this sort of power would ressurect every aweful franchise and screw it up for the rest of us.

tell u what tho id like to see a big budget remake of voyage to the bottom of the sea …now theres a thot

204. Assortments Today » Star Trek teaser trailer and thoughts - January 21, 2008

[…] One last thought: I listened to portions of an interview Abrams gave that is posted on TrekMovie.com where he says that he’s making the film for the fans, but the truth is that it’s for people who don’t know anything about Star Trek. Fine. But I’d just like to say that when you have a franchise with over 40 years of history, and when many, many fans have poured time and energy into immersing themselves in that mythology, you better be respectful to it! No matter how much hype develops around this movie, Star Trek is and will remain far bigger than anything we see on the big screen this December. […]

205. Xai - January 21, 2008

204 Assortments

He’s being respectful to it, but keep in mind that regardless how much time, energy and $$ you and I may have in it. We don’t own it. I believe Abrams will do fine.

206. Rich - January 22, 2008

I’m very excited for the new Star Trek. I hope they get Shatner in it. It would be cool if they are able to end it with Kirk alive again…. Perhaps the whole movie is a flash back from Spock’s perspective…. looking back on his years with Kirk. Maybe he’s talking with someone… and we don’t know who. Finally at the end of the movie the camera pans and we see he’s talking with Shatner/Kirk. And Kirk says, “Thanks for coming back for me, old friend.” No explanation as to the details would be needed… just that somehow Spock pulled it off… and Kirk is back. This would be good for the franchise anyway… I’m more interested in young Kirk knowing that old Kirk doesn’t die as shown in Generations.

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