Shatner Wonders Why He Is Not In ‘Star Trek’ – Abrams Explains Why | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner Wonders Why He Is Not In ‘Star Trek’ – Abrams Explains Why January 21, 2008

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

It seems that the ‘will William Shatner be in the movie’ saga may finally be coming to an end. The actor tells USA Today “No, I don’t think you’ll be seeing me, unfortunately. I don’t know the reason why” USA Today also talked to JJ Abrams and he explained…

He’s dead, Bill
Abrams on why Shatner is not in Star Trek

The only reason why Mr. Shatner is not in the movie and Mr. Nimoy is, is because his character died on screen. It was very difficult, and now impossible with the writers strike, it is very difficult to find a way to put him in that didn’t feel like we were putting him in just because we were huge fans of his.

When Shatner was told about what Abrams has said, he noted that it was sci-fi and that if you could bring back dinosaurs (presumably referring to Jurassic Park) you should be able to bring him back too. Shatner also noted that they could use the same method that he came up with for his book The Return (Spock using Kirk’s DNA to resurrect him).

But Abrams isn’t buying it, telling USA Today

You and I could come up with dozens of ways, but every way that we came up with felt like it was transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.


New Trek crew give Shat a shout out

For more, including video of Shatner, Abrams and the new Star Trek actors (at the Cloverfield premiere) giving their greetings to the original Captain Kirk check out USA Today.

VOTE: Shove him in?
At Comic-Con JJ Abrams said that they would not just ‘shove’ Shatner into the movie and only put him in if they can found a way that respected him, the fans and the character of Kirk. From the above quotes it appears they have not been able to find this way. So do think he should still be put in regardless of whether or not it works with the story or is believable? Do you care? Let your voices be heard in the latest poll (right column).

Comments

1. S. John Ross - January 21, 2008

Well, it’s sounding more final, alas.

I suppose that’s for the best. I’m enjoying looking forward to the movie with sincere hopes (if not actual expectations) and the Shatner question nags at me. If nothing else, it’s comforting to have something approaching a definitive answer.

2. S. John Ross - January 21, 2008

(And, after watching the video: my excitement about the new cast jumps another notch; they’re all looking very groovy and it’s getting easier by the day to imagine them stepping into the roles, even if I can’t indulge in that without a twinge of sadness as well).

And my apologies to all and sundry for forgetting to be obnoxious about having the first comment. I’ll do better next time.

3. Spockette - January 21, 2008

I really agree with what JJ has said on this. I think that any way they did it would feel too contrived and not feel right. He’s dead. Sure, you could come up with plenty of ways to bring him back somehow, but I don’t feel any would be believable enough. Great people do actually die and stay dead. Spock has already died and come back. And Kirk already supposedly died and was found again before dying. I don’t think bringing him back to life would feel real and I think it would require too much suspension of disbelief.

4. Spockette - January 21, 2008

#2 – I definitely agree about the video! It only has me more excited about this and the new cast.

5. Aaleck - January 21, 2008

Guess it can go both ways…

6. robin alexander - January 21, 2008

my god, using the dna of kirk and resurrect him is an awfull idea. it sounds like alien 4. now that was a bad movie.

anyway, im glad the writers arent trying to put kirk in because the fans want it. that one way to screw up a movie.

7. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 21, 2008

I am nineteen times more confident in this movie now. Very, very well done, Mr. Abrams. There is little that kills a movie faster than fan service. Respect for canon is one thing, but rewriting a script because everyone wants to see something hurts the story, hurts the suspension of disbelief, and ultimately damages the movie.

Great respect has been earned.

8. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 21, 2008

And, incidentally… maybe next movie? :P

9. Sebi - January 21, 2008

But weren’t that the borg who brought back Kirk in “The Return” using nanoprobes?? Didn’t they resurrect him and not Spock???

10. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

Every character can be magically resurrected, but every forced resurrection strips a story of credibility and pathos. If you know that a character just can’t die then you loose the whole concept of fighting for your life because death is not a menace anymore. The Spock storyline was nearly acceptable, but another resurrection will be sort of fanboyish.

11. J.D. Lee - January 21, 2008

LoL!

12. Rod of Rassilon - January 21, 2008

Do 6-12, 45min episodes with the cast, Paramount keeps them as xmas specials, the fans go nuts, one or even two of them can deal with bringing Kirk back, the fans go nuts. it costs tops $15mil. dollars (hey the sets are already built right?) this keeps the TOS franchise going, no matter what the new film does.
the fans go nuts.
these episodes can be largely ignored come film number 2/12 but all the actors get even more to grips with their roles and.. the fans go nuts.

its a win, win, win situation IMO.

Shat back, but no convolution in the movies. extra episodes, at very little comparative expense.
Paramount gets a cash boost every xmas for the next 6/12 years potentially.

is it a “GBD”? Good Business Decision? I dunno, but it could be.

13. Trekman - January 21, 2008

It’s going to be hard to watch (with all due respect) withered, old, Leonard Nimoy as Spock let alone Shatner.

14. Jacques Chirac - January 21, 2008

That’s my captain, that’s Shat, legend. It’s obviously that Shat and fans are doublecrossed. In that light, who cares for ST XI anymore.

Shat, you should make a Denny Crane movie, in theatres 25th December 2008., and whole bunch of Star Trek fans would go in theatres that day to see Denny.

15. Kevin - January 21, 2008

So, is the cast really signed on for more movies after this one?

16. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

15….yes
that is standard practice these days for franchise films…and I believe it is three films.

17. ChancellorJake - January 21, 2008

You’re Dead, Jim.
Can we all stop staring at his corpse? It rotted a long time ago.
The Shatner-verse novels aside, James T. Kirk died a horrible death on Veridian 3 and he isn’t coming back to the 24th Century.
I accepted this a very long time ago and I’m pleased to hear that JJ is sticking to this part of established canon. William Shatner agreed to let his character have a crappy ending way back in 1994. If he wasn’t happy with it then he should have demanded something better, or turned the money down (like that would have ever happened).
He’s got a great new character in Denny Crane and he (along with the Bring Back Kirk people) needs to stop whining about not being in the new Star Trek film.
If one more person mentions doing the surprise Boston Legal ending for Star Trek, I will scream.

Also, I was nice that JJ and the current cast thanked him for his contributions to the legacy that is Star Trek. Though, someone should tell Zoe that Star Trek is only 41 years old, not 50+ years.

18. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Boy JJ, you seem to be caught in the Shat’s web.

Don’t ‘buy’ into it.

DOZENS? (millions?) for ONE day in the studio?
To satisfy a FAN BOYS DREAM? At that price a dream indeed.
DON’T BUY IT!!!
IT STINKS LIKE SHAT AT THIS POINT!

Just follow my advice in the ‘Orci Answers Questions’ article (Post #576.)
Trust me, WE FANS WILL UNDERSTAND!!!! As for the general audience, they will not be the wiser. Hell, Shat doesn’t even look like the Kirk of ‘ol (or Chris Pine for that matter.) In any event, don’t sweat it!

Trust me, IT WILL BE FINE TO USE AN OLDER PINE!!!

19. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

All the nice words said about Shatner seemed a little like damage limitation to me.

I think there is a large part of the casual viewing/non fan public who won’t even remember Generations and will be wondering why older Kirk is not in the movie with older Spock.

It feels like they are having to explain and justify why he is not in the film, and manage the expectations of non Trek geeks who may well be like “Duh? Spock without Kirk, what’s that about?”.

I really wish this wasn’t so important to me so I could just get on with enjoying the movie, but it all makes me feel very sad at a lost opportunity.

I loved the trailer on Friday, all the time still hoping the Shat thing would be resolved.

Now, honestly, I have a lot of conflicting feelings about the new movie.

Here’s hoping for the best.

20. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

19. Bono Luthor

{I think there is a large part of the casual viewing/non fan public who won’t even remember Generations and will be wondering why older Kirk is not in the movie with older Spock.}

Stay away from the Shat’s Web, Bono. We are all a wee bit wise than that.
Wait until the full story is told a year and a half from now.

Shat will be the one with the egg on his face. And the ‘public’ will know the truth. AND they will all understand. It’s not always about the $. Shat knows that. But he’s buckin’ for more cash. He sees the writing on the wall. Its his last chance. Do you blame him????

21. Film3D - January 21, 2008

I’m very unhappy to read this interview. I’m a Abrams great fan but I love to see Shatner in the new film!!

22. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

And Dee too!

23. raffie - January 21, 2008

He sadly doesn’t get it isnt just all about him.

24. Paul - January 21, 2008

Well, one Kirk is dead, but unlimited numbers of Kirk are still in the Nexus. Since the one that left Nexus is already dead, then, presumably, other one could be extracted from Nexus safely.

But, honestly, I don’t really see any need to have Shatner in this movie. We’ve already got “Kirk but no Spock” movie (Generations), now we are gonna get “Spock but no Kirk” movie. It has certain symmetry to it. Symmetry is good.

25. TrekSucksHard - January 21, 2008

Well there’s always the next movie- from all indications this movie will be a box-office smash so Shatner should get another chance to be in the next one.

26. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

24. Paul – January 21, 2008
[But, honestly, I don’t really see any need to have Shatner in this movie. We’ve already got “Kirk but no Spock” movie (Generations), now we are gonna get “Spock but no Kirk” movie. It has certain symmetry to it. Symmetry is good.]

EXACTLY!

But if I might paraphrase what you wrote…

But, honestly, I don’t really see any need to have Shatner in this movie. We’ve already got “Shatner but no Nimoy” movie (Generations), now we are gonna get “Nimoy but no Shatner” movie. It has certain symmetry to it. Symmetry is good, IF less pugnacious.]

27. Anon - January 21, 2008

That video was awesome, thanks for posting that!

28. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

25. TrekSucksHard – January 21, 2008

[..so Shatner should get another chance to be in the next one.]

No.

ST XI = last chance for Shat.

29. Pete359 - January 21, 2008

That should have Shatner as the instructor of the Kobayashi Maru simulation while Pine’s Kirk is taking the test, they could even have mirrored Kirk’s intro from Wrath of Khan (silhouetted and walking out of the light) making it the perfect “fan” moment.

Not playing any relation to Kirk and having the scene with Young Kirk would have a nice “passing-the-baton” feel behind it.

30. Cheve - January 21, 2008

Spocks resurrection was planned ahead when he died. I mean He died in order to be resurrected as a forward plan.

But Kirk died. period. And he already was resurected in the same movie in which he died only to be killed again.

The only way to make a decent resurrection is to make the whole movie be about it, and this movie isnt about that, it is about when Kirk was young (and alive), and sadly Shatner no longer can play Kirk when he was 30.

31. Cheve - January 21, 2008

Oh. I forgort.

Probably, the only way to put Shatner in the movie is if old Spock dies, and goes to heaven.

32. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Shat’ tells USA Today

“No, I don’t think you’ll be seeing me, UNFORTUNE…ately.”

HAHA HA AH HAH HA HAHA HA AH AH AHA AHA HAH AHAHA HA HA!

33. Kapitaen Stephan - January 21, 2008

“Shatner also noted that they could use the same method that he came up with for his book The Return (Spock using Kirk’s DNA to resurrect him).”

– Not Spock did use Kirk`s DNA to resurrect him; the Borg took Kirk`s body and used Nanoprobes to resurrect him, just like Seven of Nine did with Neelix in a Voyager Episode from Season 4.

34. The Logical Thing to do: Include William Shatner in the new movie - January 21, 2008

I can watch the new Star Trek without William Shatner. But I will be thinking about him before, during and after seeing the movie.

Shatner isn’t the sum total of “Star Trek”–but he’s an integral part of the movie.

I agree with #19. Most people won’t recall his demise in “Generations.” However, it’s part of Trek history. I know the writing team for this movie is VERY capable of delivering believable, credible plot elements. Maybe Shatner doesn’t fit into the current scheme. But something needs to be figured out.

One hopes that the Writer’s Strike will be resolved and additional shooting will be done–with Shatner playing SOME role as the legendary James T. Kirk (albeit older). In the budget considerations, monies for this MUST have been factored in somewhere.

Don’t write him off. This isn’t a fanboy-esque plea. Just someone asking that one of Trek’s major (living) stars is given some screen time in his potentially last-ever appearance (excluding “Generations”) as Kirk.

I have to believe that a mindmeld between Quinto-Spock and Nimoy-Spock will occur… and in so doing, information about Kirk’s future demise could be learned and avoided. Illogical? Maybe. Spock is a complex half-Vulcan, half-Human. ;-)

I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE NO-WIN SCENARIO. Mr. Orci, that seems to be the underlying theme of this new movie. Please make it include the Return of William Shatner as the older James T. Kirk.

Maybe Shatner is finally humble enough to accept whatever he may have been holding out against, or wanting done to the script. Maybe that’s the reason for the delay. The production is now positioned to say “this is where we are, this is how we fit you in–no room to compromise.”

Give it another try. Please.

P.S. Congrats on having the best box office intake with “Cloverfield.” Great horror/action movie! (No hand-held shaky cams for “Star Trek” though!!)

35. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

By the way Trek fans, the REAL answer to the poll (at top right) is:

B & C.

It Will and It should not.

36. Adam Castle - January 21, 2008

I’m 23 years old and I still find the idea of someone other than William Shatner playing Kirk to be extremely awkward. I don’t doubt that Chris Pine will give a good performance for this film….but no matter what happens, he’ll never be my Captain James T. Kirk (incidentially, I find the idea of a new generation being only familiar with Pine as Kirk equally weird). As others have said, I wish there was a switch I could flip to turn off this sad feeling I have. I feel like I’m being left behind, and I’m sure Shatner feels the same right now.

I hope they either show us flashbacks of Bill Shatner’s Kirk from previous films or include him in the sequels.

37. D@D - January 21, 2008

He’s in the movie, the last scene trust me.

38. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#37

I think so.

39. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

I’m in nobody’s web. Thanks. I simply hold my opinions on the matter, and will continue to do so.

Incidently I did not enjoy seeing Mr Shatner without Mr Nimoy in Generations, and if I see this film then I do not expect to enjoy the time that Leonard Nimoy is on screen without Bill Shatner.

I thought Unification sucked also, as it happens.

For my money, the best link between generations was McCoy at the start of TNG. Moving, believable and realistic.

Oh, and of course the Trek geeks are wise as to why Shatner is not in the film but it was the larger public I was talking about.

40. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

A no brainer, indeed.

Don’t buy into it. Well spend a little on it.
Shat’s just not avery good lyer. He said he had a special meeting with JJ. Then he left JJ’s home and did not understand why he was invited. It’s simple. It’s not JJ’s call. Its the studio’s call. How much do they want to spend? I say 1 mil is a good offer for a day’s work. Heck, an hours work.
BUT NOT 12 million!!!

41. SciFiDriver - January 21, 2008

would have been a nice tribute to have Shatner in the flick, they can either do an Obi-Wan or a flashback but then its a scifi action film there may not be time for reminiscing…

I’m looking forward to a rejuvination of the trek franchise and a better crop (storywise) of movies,tv series to come.

42. Laserlover2254 - January 21, 2008

Understood, Abrams. I wouldn’t want him in in a hasty, badly done way either.

43. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 34 Nicely put.

44. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

Shatner must still have a half decent working relationship with Paramount or he wouldn’t be getting paid to help flog tickets to the Star Trek tour.

I still think, like Transformers, one way or the other there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

45. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Sorry to be so hard on Mr. Shatner. I do happen to Idolize his work in TREK. Sad I know. But JJ seems to be the magnamimous man in this instance. I see JJ as a real nice guy AS WELL AS a real fan of Trek and a GREAT filmmaker too. JJ and the stellar cast he has collected is the real future of Trek. Probably for the NEXT 41 years. What more could we ask for??!!

JJ is not deserving of this now constant irritation while trying to redevelop and reinvigorate the Trek franchise.

Can’t we all get along??? Hardball is great, but I think this discussion would be best suited to be put off the boards until… let’s all agree now … Next November?

46. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#45

I totally agree about all getting along and I think we can all hold various opinions whilst doing that. I don’t think people expressing views should be irritating.

As for agreeing to remove discussion of a topic, isn’t that a little like cencorship, and isn’t that a little bit in the face of the nobler aspects of what Trek has always been about?

IDIC?

Also, nothing sad about enjoying his work in Trek. Go easy on yourself! : )

47. Col Davies - January 21, 2008

As iconic as shatner is I really couldn’t give two hoots whether he was in the movie or not but what I dont get is why they would have to ‘resurrect’ him to do it.

Who said Nimoy’s scenes had to come after the events in Generations?

Just use a little bit of anti-aging SFX magic on the guys and set Nimoys and Shatners scenes sometime before the launch of Enterprise B, slip in a line about why Spcok can’t attend the launch to establish that and, well, job done!

48. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

39. Bono Luthor
[I’m in nobody’s web. Thanks. I simply hold my opinions on the matter, and will continue to do so.]

Read my comments carefully Bono (and always try to fill in for the typos.) That was just a friendly warning. I said…

20. TrekMadeMeWonder
[Stay away from the Shat’s Web, Bono.]

I try not to deal in absolutes.
Although with this Shatner $$ mess, I think I am on the right track.

49. odo'ital - January 21, 2008

It’s probably best they don’t include Shatner. It preserves the iconic status of Kirk, in that you’re seeing a character, and won’t be confronted by two different actors playing the same part. (I know I know, but in Spock’s case it doesn’t bother me so much)
Also if the whole ‘romulans want to erase kirk in the past’-plot is what they’re going for, I think it’s kind of poignant that Kirk is already dead in the present.
So all in all I think they made a good call on this, and Shatner should just let it go.

50. Harry - January 21, 2008

Save Shatner for the third movie ;)

But it’s definitely a good sign that Abrams is making the movie that he wants to make, and not the movie that other people want him to make.

Also, I haven’t really seen much of the cast before, but it’s looking good. I’m especially seeing Zoe Saldana as Uhura more now that I’ve seen her talk.

51. Jacques Chirac - January 21, 2008

#50.
“But it’s definitely a good sign that Abrams is making the movie that he wants to make, and not the movie that other people want him to make.”

Wrong. Berman and Braga have same toughts patterns, to ignore fans. Before we have B&B, now we have A&O&K&L.

52. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Again, that thought, (let’s all agree now) was directed towards the fans having a collective realization.

I see the latest articles abour Shat as placing US fans in the middle of some VERY unfortunate movie roll negotiations. What up with that?

C’mon, think of it. JJ gets his dream come true. He invites Shatner over for dinner. Then he let’s him in on his VERY secretive idea (the plot of Trek XI, or more accurately, just, Star Trek.) And then Shatner gets greedy.
And this is the mess JJ and US FANS get? What a nighmare!

I give Shatner credit for not spilling the beans (yet) on the movies plot, but doesn’t that put JJ AND US FANS in the middle??!! We are the ones that have to put up with the constant reminders of how the flick MIGHT be better with Shatner. Shamefull. Creatively, I feel SO BAD FOR YOU, JJ.

So it’s not about Censorship, or IDIC (in my view,) but it’s all about the Shatner and his greed.

And don’t get me wrong. I still think he is deserving of his due, but obviously, he is dragging us all down the Horta hole to get his much larger slice of the dilythium pie.

53. Gerry Alanguilan - January 21, 2008

I would DISAGREE that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to put William Shatner in as Kirk in the movie, and not have it appear that it’s simply fanboys wanting to shove him in.

But I do concede that whatever they can come up with, it will quickly become THE point of the movie. You can’t resurrect Kirk just like that in one short go. If Kirk will be revived, it’s gonna have to be the whole point of the movie. But they CAN do this, if this is the kind of movie that they wanted to do.

But I think that they have a different Star Trek movie in mind, one that focuses primarily on Spock, and given that kind of focus, it will indeed be difficult to credibly include the story of Kirk’s resurrection, and give Shatner a substantial part to play and not have it derail the story they have in mind.

But now this is what I was hoping to know. Since Shatner’s Kirk will be out on the first movie, are they going to try to put him in the NEXT Star Trek movies?

54. Battletrek - January 21, 2008

Does anyone know how much money his film will lose if Shatner isn’t in it?

55. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

53. Gerry Alanguilan
[But I think that they have a different Star Trek movie in mind]

But I think that they HAD a different Star Trek movie in mind.
The writer’s strike (and schedule) is the trump card here.
It’s very obvious (to me at least) what the Shat is up too.

56. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

A good example to mention here might be Marlon Brando and Superman II

57. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

JJ and the crew want to respect the character of Kirk…some thing that Berman, Braga and Moore simply didn’t do. All you have to do is watch ‘Generations’. Those guys just didn’t know how to write for Kirk. It was painful to watch them make Jim do those awful things….cooking eggs?????? It was worse than James Bond making a frickin’ quiche!!!!

It was like Kirk went senile…and WE had to watch a loved one losing their mind right in front of us. The whole nexus thing was an abomination.

I want Jim to come back, I really do. Trek is the one show/movie series that always makes me cry, and the friendship between the characters is mostly beautifully written. If they can’t do it this time, let it be.

I think this movie is going to be terrific.

58. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

54. Battletrek
Does anyone know how much money his film will lose if Shatner isn’t in it?

From the start, I’d say they are SAVING12 mil.

59. diabolk - January 21, 2008

One way to look at this is…

at least he is paying attention to CANON!!!!!!!!!

So there. He cares about what has been done before. Relax.

60. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#57 “All you have to do is watch ‘Generations’. Those guys just didn’t know how to write for Kirk”

You are totally right. B&B showed us a mindless, cliché, stupid action-Kirk, being only able to brawl and fight. And, oh my, what a ridiculous death. “Generations” killed Kirk. Put the blame on B&B.

61. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#60 Thank you. Also listen to Scotty’s techno-babble. You just can’t take Geordi’s lines and stick them in Jimmy Doohan’s mouth!

A few years back I interviewed Malcolm McDowell. He had nothing but wonderful things to say about Bill Shatner, how the man was a movie star, and how he lit a room when he walked into it. I think the JJ gang, as we all do, know this. If there was a way to put Jim in the movie, they’d do it.

Let’s wait.

62. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

- When Shatner was told about what Abrams has said.. –

Abrams didn’t even have the decency and integrity to meet Shatner and tell him face-to-face? What a wretched style.

63. Marthrax - January 21, 2008

It’s just that simple:

Spock was the WISE-GUY and Kirk was the ACTION-HERO.

To use a 77 year old wise-guy in the movie seems to be a logic choice.
But a 77 year old action-hero would be ridiculous!!!

Remember the fight against Soran in Generations?
That didn’t seem to be natural and that was 14 years ago.
By now, you couldn’t have Shatner in the movie and make him act like Kirk again. He’s still a great actor, but not an action-hero anymore.

You can never be too old to play Spock, but Kirk was a young, dynamic guy. I think JJ etc. think the same but they have too much respect for the Shat to tell him that he is too old.

Some Trekkies may want him in the movie, but the mainstream-audience would laugh and they wouldn’t take the movie seriously. So it’s just not possible to put him in the movie. End of story.

64. MikeG - January 21, 2008

I’m sure this is gonna be a tender subject for years to come, just as the death of Kirk has been. But the bottom line is that these kinds of decisions are out of everyone’s hands except the current producers and writers. We can bang this topic back and forth like a ping-pong ball, but in the end, whatever will be will be. It sounds like Mr. Shatner is pretty disappointed, but he’s also a long-time Hollywood vet, and he knows the game better than anyone. He’s also made his mark in the entertainment industry, and his legacy as Kirk will go on forever.

65. Tim Handrahan - January 21, 2008

What a shame! I held out hope all the way through. I still think it could have been done. We may never know.

66. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#61 “Also listen to Scotty’s techno-babble. You just can’t take Geordi’s lines and stick them in Jimmy Doohan’s mouth!”

You are right once again. The more I watch “Generations” the more I hate it. Weak storyline. Poor lines. The Enterprise crew not being able to have some fun when Data push Dr. Crusher down in the water: did they loose all their humour? All was forced. Even Checkov and Scotty were painful to watch.

67. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#62

Or maybe Shat didn’t care asking JJ directly.

He knows he isn’t in it because he hasn’t made any contract, but I’m sure everyone in the movie will very gladly talk to him if he calls otr asks to visit the set.

We don’t know that he has done none of those things, only that he complains in public.

68. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

TrekMadeMeWonder – As much as I enjoy your posts, I have been wondering from time to time what you are getting at.

Okay, now I’ve gotten around what you are saying, can I ask what you base all this on, in particular the 12 million?

Surely, if that was the case, and I’m not saying it’s not (Just a guess here, but my hunch is that Bill is a lot more Denny than he is Kirk!) then JJ anc co would come out and say so, taking the wrap for Shat not being in the movie off their shoulders and placing it back on Bill Shatner.

Presuming that we are talking about 12 million for a 30 second cameo or such like.

Then I could see a situation where all the fans/geeks started saying to Shatner “Go on Bill! Just do it!!!”

Is all that you infer just a hunch on your part?

69. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#63 “Spock was the WISE-GUY and Kirk was the ACTION-HERO.”

Umh, it’s a commonplace than can (and imho must) be denied. Look at Kirk in The Motion Picture. There is brain and insight in that JTK.

70. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

The ‘would’ in my last post should have been a ‘could’.

Lol!

Oh and #63 I have never seen Shatner as being an action hero in this movie.

I just saw him, I don’t know, maybe picking up Spock in a shuttle at the end of the film or something.

As others before me have stated: “Aren’t you dead?”

Maybe Shatner sees himself as an action hero in the movie and there lay the problem.

Like I said, more than meets the eye I reckon.

71. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#69 There was also a smug, selfish son-of-a-bitch in that JTK!

72. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#71 “There was also a smug, selfish son-of-a-bitch in that JTK!”

And that makes him human. I really liked the Enteprirse obsession of Kirk in The Motion Picture.

73. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 71 All part of the charm!

74. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#72 and #73 Amen! It was wonderful! The whole adventure reminded him of why he’s out there in the first place.

You two have got me teary thinking about it!

75. Captain Dunsel - January 21, 2008

I for one am glad to have this debate coming to an end. I would loved to have seen the Shat in the movie but I totally buy what JJ says. And as noted before he is adhering to canon.

Enough whining about what should be folks. Let’s get on with anticipating what will be. Thanks to the trailer, I am officially pumped.

76. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

62. Iowagirl
[Abrams didn’t even have the decency and integrity to meet Shatner and tell him face-to-face? What a wretched style.]

I believe you are wrong on this point Iowagirl.
You may want to view this earlier Shatner video found here on Trekmovie…

http://trekmovie.com/2007/11/21/shatner-praies-and-critiques

It was my inderstanding that JJ went out of his way to be gracious enough to offer Shat the pivotable role in the flim. But in my opinion, it was not about JJ and Shat. It was about Shat, his agent, and the studio agreeing to a multimillion dollar figure for one days work.

All my money would be riding on Shatner actually ‘resurrecting’ his role in the movie, if he is (re)appraoched at the right time and place. Just leave that last week open and have a green screen and artist ready to drop him in when the time comes. In the end, I think Shatner will see the light and make the RIGHT decision. If not, use an ‘older’ ; ) Chris Pine WE WILL UNDERSTAND.

Also if Shatner is in the movie, I WILL be expecting to see ‘Dee’ too!
YES, DeForest Kelly. And with a big loving, blue eyed, older grin.

77. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 21, 2008

Somehow I just lost all respect for JJ Abrams… They would look like fanboys for putting Shatner into the movie? What an utterly dumb statement. This is so ridiculous. On the one hand they are saying that they want this to be a movie for a new audience and on the other hand they fear that they are looked upon as geeks? This is so idiotic.
If JJ doesn’t want Shatner in the movie he should say so, but such a statement made him look like a little child desperately trying to find an excuse for a totally dumb decision.
And I cannot udnerstand that TPTB at Paramount are supporting such a decision… Star Trek is dead. Berman/Braga put the knife in its back and JJ turned it around.

What is even more disappointing is the disrespect some so-called Star Trek fans here have for Mr. Shatner. This is so disgusting.

78. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

It just occurred to me that maybe as consolation for not being in the movie Bill Shatner could direct the sequel:

‘We tried it once your way, JJ, are you game for a re-match? JJ, I’m laughing at the “superior intellect”…’

Ahem. Maybe not then.

79. GO - January 21, 2008

If y’ask me (though you don’t really hafta), this is the biggest hoax Hollywood has ever put together.

In every photo op… every public apperance… Shatner seems to appear slimmer and slimmer. There is definitely SOMETHING going on there.

Just my 2 cents’ worth.

80. Ron - January 21, 2008

“Boo-hoo. I wanna be in the new Star Trek movie.”

“Enterprise must not be constructed on Earth. If it is, it’s not Star Trek.”

“I saw a blurry cell phone picture of what might have been one of the new uniforms from a very long distance away. I instantly hate them and will complain about them non-stop.”

“I just heard an ill-informed Internet rumor that the Guardian of Forever is in the picture. I will immediately draft a nasty, unprofessional article for my web site reminding everyone involved of my uncertain legal claim to those elements of my forty-two year old script.”

“The new movie must adhere to every jot and tittle of my definition of canon, or I refuse to go see it.”

Is it just me, or is this movie generating a lot more whining than the average Trek film? Or maybe I’m just noticing it more.

81. SPB - January 21, 2008

Sadly, I get the feeling that on the night in December when Hollywood gives STAR TREK XI its big premiere, rather than talkiing about what a great night it is and how wonderful it is that TREK has returned in such a big way…

…all Abrams & Co. will be asked is, “So explain again why William Shatner isn’t in the movie?” Exasperation and short tempers may follow.

And something tells me that after all is said and done this year, either Shatner won’t be invited to the premiere, or he’ll choose to be conspicuously absent.

I have faith that TREK XI will be a good, solid movie, but this whole “Shatner controversy” is really starting to get old, and it’s not going away and will only get uglier.

82. SPB - January 21, 2008

#57-

“It was painful to watch them make Jim do those awful things….cooking eggs?????? It was worse than James Bond making a frickin’ quiche!!!!”

LOL!!! Too true.

Everyone talks about Kirk’s lousy death scene, but no one seems to bring up the fact that Picard and Kirk finally meet on screen for the first time… just so they can cook eggs together in a log cabin.

I’m sure the writers/producers thought that that scene would play cute and irreverant, but it’s flat-out stupid. STUPID.

83. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#80 I don’t think people are whining if they express opinions in polite non-aggressive ways.

If you really want to hear mad ramblings from socially mal-adjusted people, check out AICN talkbacks! ; )

I don’t think people should only be welcome to post here if they are going to act like cheerleaders.

84. NTH - January 21, 2008

The writers strike has ,it seems, has become something of a convienent excuse for the exclusion of William Shatner,after all this film has been a long time in development.The unsubstantiated comments about Shatner seeking a much larger role or seeking large amounts of money are frankly quite irritating,it anyone has any factual comments to make on these matters they would be most wellcome.

85. Vulcan Soul - January 21, 2008

I say, leave him out. If for nothing else then his pathetic “cry baby” behaviour for the last couple of months. You are 76 yo, man, show some maturity!

86. Gene - January 21, 2008

I think Abrams should tell the media something other than Kirk “died on screen” or it will be “tricky”….media and a lot of fans find that hard to swallow because…it is Sci Fi and people seem to not stay dead in Star Trek:-)

I really think Abrams should remember that unlike Bond (orginally a book series) and Batman, Superman (comic books), the public already had some idea of these characters before an actor ever filled the roles.

But in the case of Star Trek (unless I am mistaken), Kirk, Spock and company were but ideas in Gene Roddenberry’s imagination…an idea..then words on a script….before Shatner, Nimoy, and others took their alter-egos. Just like Meyer their Director of TWOK said of the actors…they all at some time ran from the alter-egos…then embraced them. They all, the actors, molded what we know of the characters. Should be respected.

So…anyone can play Bond, Superman, Batman. Not anyone can play Indiana Jones (orginally an idea of George Lucas…ie, Harrison Ford ( who I think is 65). Can you imagine someone other than Ford playing Indiana Jones and people seeing it??

So, again. We all know, for Trek to continue..must have new people. I think everyone is fine with that. But honoring the old guard..while they are alive…..would be great.

P.S. I don’t like the DNA idea…..but if this movie is about time travel, give young Kirk a little heads up…will you…on his demise.

Gene

87. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

#67
No, we don’t know about the actual events, but it was still Abram’s role to inform Shatner as Abrams and his team are the ones to eventually decide. Shatner always signalized his willingness to participate; Abrams & Co. were the ones leaving the decision pending and babbling about “trying to figure it out“.

#77
Exactly.

And Abram‘s „fan boy“ statement only suggests that the makers of this film obviously aren‘t imaginative enough to find a reasonable way to get Shatner in.

88. Scott Gammans - January 21, 2008

Our long national nightmare is over.

89. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

I wonder how we will all view this in twelve months time?

90. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 84 I agree.

91. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#87 And should he also inform Takei, Nichols and Koenig as well as ask the permission of Patrick Stewart, Roddenberry Jr, the Okudas, Bakula, Brannon & Bragga, Mrs Fontana etc etc? How is Shatner more important to Trek than DC Fontana, who reviewed and fixed all the TOS scripts the best she could?

And again. The movie isn’t about Kirk resurrecting. It is about him when he was young and alive. If I make a movie about why lollipops are sweet and change the plot to talk about why they are covered in plastic paper, then it isn’t about why they are sweet anymore, but about coloured paper.

Thay have written a movie about Spock and young Kirk and the plot doesn’t have a hole for Shatner or it would already be filled. You want them to make a movie about how he isn’t dead and that isnt a movie for newcomers, nor is it the plot of this one.

92. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

68. Bono Luthor
[TrekMadeMeWonder - As much as I enjoy your posts, I have been wondering from time to time what you are getting at....can I ask what you base all this on, in particular the 12 million? Presuming that we are talking about 12 million for a 30 second cameo or such like.]

J.J. said it himself best, in the quote at the top of this page…

[You and I could come up with dozens of ways, but every way that we came up with felt like it was transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.]

or…

[You and I could come up with dozens of $MILLIONS, but every $MILLION that we came up with felt like it was transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.]

My point is:
How much are you going to pay Shat for a 20 – 30 second cameo???!!!

$12 million seems like something a fanboy would pay an old actor for just 20 seconds on film! Granted it’s the real deal, But Wow! And we all (fans and JJ and co.) have to suffer through all this??? JJ I bet you can’t wait for your Trek II. What a learning experience! I feel for you man! I now feel far less for Shatner.

Seriously. Shat sure would be playing a poignant part in the movie, but is it really worth ALL of this?! For Shatner, I am sure it is. I am sure, to Shatner, it seems like this is his last time out in a Trek movie. AND HE’s NOT EVEN IN THE CENTER CHAIR!!!

And look at the ACE card Shat was dealt! JJ probably had him over for a nice dinner (a fanboys dream in itself), and explained the plot of the movie, and Bill said to himself, WOW!, I really got him over a barrell! And Shat then left that evening thinking that negotiations could go on for as long as it took for Shat get his $$$s.

I hope he liked the wine too! LOL!!!

But, for JJ (Our real unsung hero) it must be a sad dissapointing frustration. And he has to eat crow now in all the interviews!! Shat should be paying him!!!! I am sure it was like Peter Billingsley in the Christmas Story getting his ass kicked down the chute by the drunk Santa!

AND!!! NOW JJ’S THE BAD GUY???!!!
HOW’S THAT WORK Iowagirl???

93. Gene - January 21, 2008

Check my post again, #91 Cheve…never said the movie should be about Kirk’s resurrection. That argument is used by many to say Shatner should not be in this movie, based on the “Search for Spock” being devoted to Spock’s resurrection. A lot of people against bring Shat back think the extreme….. I am in no way trying to limit the writers.

You missed the point of my post…and probably agreed that like Harrison Ford molded what we know of Indiana Jones….Shatner (regardless of if you think him arrogant, etc) molded and shaped what we know is James T. Kirk. The public see him as Kirk…..regardless of how many want people to get over it..accept someone else.

So…anyway you bring him in…least harmful to the story…would be great. But I think many want Abrams and writers to find a way.

If the writers strike is over tomorrow…is it possible. Imagine the debate then…lol.

Gene

94. Cervantes ( not sleeping so soundly tonight... ) - January 21, 2008

…”it was very difficult to find a way to put him in that didn’t feel like we were putting him in just because we were huge fans of his.”

That’s as GOOD a reason as any to put him in surely?
Seriously, I’m sure that many potential audiences would have no objection to J.J.’s Movie featuring a ‘fanboy’ (and ‘fangirl’) – pleasing appearance of the ‘older’, somehow alive Kirk character played by the non-livelier William Shatner, at the side of the older Leonard Nimoy Spock, weaved into the storyline of these younger, rebooted actors now taking over the characters…IF the makers had decided to STRUCTURE a good storyline along those lines from the BEGINNING. Unfortunately for Bill, and fans of Bill’s Kirk, the makers don’t seem to have had his involvement in mind from the very start, and that is why anything involving him would now seem to be a problem.

It is a pity for ‘fanboys’/ ‘fangirls’ the world over, and I count myself among their number, that this is the route the makers decided to go with in the first place when choosing to utilise the characters of the TOS crew for their particular brand of ‘STAR TREK’… and it would have been better had this been absolutely made clear at the OUTSET, rather than the dripfeed of hope that was built-up in the minds of certain fans who wished for William’s involvement. I want this Movie to be a hit, but I’d have far rathered it was a hit that involved Bill’s Kirk somehow. Maybe Leonard’s quarters will feature a photo of Bill and Leonard in better times… ;)

95. JB - January 21, 2008

Rather than jump through hoops trying to resurrect Kirk from that awful movie Generations, I would have been content to see Shat in the film playing a different character altogether. That could have been very entertaining. I wonder if that was ever considered.

96. Matt D - January 21, 2008

#79. Agreed.

97. Mr. Sweets - January 21, 2008

Despite the writers strike IF they really wanted him
in the film then they could do and it would be done.
It doesn’t take writers to come up with a plausible
story. Aren’t these new producers capable enough
to do this themselves? It doesn’t take rocket science
just a little time and true caring.
Obviously they don’t care. Plain and simple!

98. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

There has never been any discussion about Takei, Nichols and Koenig being involved. The discussion was always Shatner yes or no. And as much as I like Sulu, Uhura, and Chekhov, TOS is mainly Kirk-Spock (and McCoy) centric. Today, Abram’s has made a decision on Shatner. I don’t see a reason for Abrams to inform Takei, Nichols or Koenig about this decision.

Should he intend to involve the wonderful Ms. Fontana or any of her ideas in the film (God forbid!), I hope he will have the guts to inform her accordingly.

Please enjoy your film about lollipops; I’ll stick with the real goodies.

99. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

sorry, my post 98 was answering #91

100. FREAKAZOID - January 21, 2008

re #29
“That should have Shatner as the instructor of the Kobayashi Maru simulation while Pine’s Kirk is taking the test, they could even have mirrored Kirk’s intro from Wrath of Khan (silhouetted and walking out of the light) making it the perfect “fan” moment.”

That, is probably the best idea I’ve heard yet. It could be Cadet Kirk first attempt at the test. I don’t know if The Shat would go for it though. I think he’s thinking he’s either Kirk or nobody.

101. NTH - January 21, 2008

# 94 I agree

102. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

98. Iowagirl

You must be new to this board I covered all of that 20-some posts ago. In fact I covered the whole plot. But I have been “asked” not to ‘link’ to that again.

103. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#92 Unless you have evidence to back up any of what you are saying then I really can’t take any of it seriously. Entertaining though it is!

You act like you have seen the script and know all about what has been taking place in regard to negotiations.

I’m sorry but your re-working of the JJ qoute just doesn’t add weight to what you are saying.

You’re behind JJ that… wait, that’s it! Awwww, are you really JJ? ; )

#91 I think it’s like the ‘Death Of The Author’ theory. We (the fans/geeks) all create our own version of Trek in our heads when we watch/read etc and not matter how much effort the author/writer/director puts in we’re all going to interpret in our own way.

So we all have our own version of Trek, and so for some, yes, Shatner is more important to Trek than some of the others you mention, just as for others it is Patrick Stewart or someone else.

104. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#93

Don’t misunderstand me either!
I adore William Shatner and his Kirk! He is by far my favourite ST character and actor, but I defend the right of this movie to not have him without loosing dignity or seriousness.

105. Driver - January 21, 2008

Maybe Shatner should have sought a part in George A. Romero’s upcoming “Diary of the Dead”. Which, coincidentally, has a “Cloverfield” filming style.

106. Marthrax - January 21, 2008

You all forget something:
This movie should introduce a new generation of actors playing the old charakters. Nimoy is just a “bonus” to this movie, but it’s not a classic TOS-movie and it never was meant to be one. Classic TOS ended in 1991. Couldn’t you get enough of it?

btw. Shatner had his big goodby in Generations without Nimoy.
Now Nimoy has his big goodby without Shatner.
Seems just fair to me!

107. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

Hey, I have question for everyone! I would love to read all of your responses.

QUESTION:
How much would YOU pay Shatner to be in 30 seconds of this movie?

Considering that this is the equasion:
30 seconds on-screen (a poignant moment at the end) + 1 day shoot

I say $2 million (the MOST $s I would ever consider)
But, remember, It’s Shatner!

108. Joel - January 21, 2008

Abrams, “You and I could come up with dozens of ways, but every way that we came up with felt like it was transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.”

I agree with Abrams. Not only that, but the movie would turn from being a story about the beginning of Kirk’s days to Kirk’s resurrection, which would be lame. Shatner made a decision to kill his character off. He’s going to have to work (or not work) with that now.

109. Ivory - January 21, 2008

No longer interested in Star Trek

110. Woulfe - January 21, 2008

Is the Shatner Saga ( is he or is he not in the film ) over at last ?

I certanly hope so, with only a few more weeks of principal photography left for the film I don’t see it happening at all.

I had a feeling from the start that Bill wasn’t going to be in it.

The fact is, his Kirk died falling off a bridge, a few years ago, try as we might we can’t decanonize Generations, I know a lot of us would LIKE to do so, but Hollywood and Paramount won’t buy it.

We wouldn’t have this situation if he never appeered in Generations to start with, but I guess certain folks felt like the TNG crew couldn’t carry a film all by themselves, so there you go.

I agree that anything that JJ & Co come up with will seem like a cop-out to please fans with some convoluted way of bringing Shatner’s Kirk back.

We need to let go, that bridge was crossed back when Kirk fell off it.

Leonard is passing the torch to the new people and ONLY him.

If you bring Shatner’s Kirk back, you should bring back the OTHERS as well, or it wouldn’t feel right, they are a family after all, yes ?

Unfortunatly we can’t bring back Doohan’s Scotty or De’s McCoy so there you go. Also the other old actors have accepted the fact that there are young actors replaceing them in thier old roles, so let’s move on.

Star Trek is going forward, from Enterprise, if we didn’t go backwards before Kirk and everything looking more advanced then the 1960′s series there possibly wouldn’t be a reason to do this film the way it’s being done, and we can’t decononize Enterprise at all, well, except maybe TATV ;)

- W -
* IMOHO *

111. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 107

I will answer your question if you answer mine.

Do you have (real) evidence/knowledge/proof that all of this is about money on Shatner’s part?

If so, say so and what it is.

If not, and it is just your hunch based on all the facts that are out there, say so.

With respect. ; )

112. ShatisDead - January 21, 2008

Bully to JJ anr Orci for not being browbeaten by Shatner and his cult. Shatner was a big part of Star Trek, unfortunately, he took a raither large paycheck to kill his character.

I believe William Shatner did all the damage to Kirk in Generations. He let the writers kill Kirk in a most crappy way. HE COULD have stopped it. Yet he didn’t. WHY??? Because he needed the cash. Has anyone watched Generations? All of Kirk’s scenes were written to his liking – playing around with his horses, etc etc. It was Shatner’s vanity and search for the next paycheck that took down Generations.

Are you telling me that Kirk’s nirvana was to sit around and cook horses??? No. The movies clearly establish that his home, his place was the Enterprise…yet we get fat shat riding horses in the Nexus. Then his awful death. Puh-leeze.

So yeah it would be possible to resurrect him, but that would consume the entire movie….Trek’s last shot at being relevant would be wasted by using (1) free antoher Kirk from the Nexus (which nobody beyond fans would remember (2) clone him which has been done so many times in movies and is just stupid

113. brady - January 21, 2008

I keep thinking what a hoot it would have been if Urban in that interview when asked what he would say to The Shat, would have said “Bill,Youre Dead”. lol

114. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

I’ve posted that already above. Read the quotes by JJ himself. Trek XI has been said to be a time travel story. Some of the pplot points fit very well together with what we all know. Nimoy is in it and I find it hard to believe it will not start and end with him in the furture. Although it mayNOT be neccesary for Kirk (Shatner) to appear, It sure would be a much sweeter ending to the movie. Bookends and all. You may want to WONDER (like I do) Why is Nimoy needed for this movie; that the new producers are BIG Trek fans; that is is easily recognized that Kirks death was foolish in Generations and last but not least…I was asked not to….Oh damn, I just can’t say it again.

115. jonboc - January 21, 2008

What many of you seem to forget, is that IF this movie does actually take place in a new altered timeline..due to the involvement of the Romulans, what happened in Generations is null and void IF the producers and story tellers choose it to be. If the Enterprise can change drastically, if the uniforms can change, if Leonard Nimoy can be 1966 Spock and witness these changes, Bill Shatner can most certainly play Kirk again..with NO long winded explanation required. The fact that the timeline was altered at some point, and for whatever eason, the abomination that was Generations ,never happened, is ALL the audience needs to know to connect the dots.

And JJ and the writers are WAY too smart and talented to NOT know this. Also JJ loves magic…which is totally dependent on the art of mis-direction to suceed.

Of course we won’t know for sure until Christmas day, but I wouldn’t count Shat out just yet. I think there still may be a trick or two up JJ’s sleeve.

116. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

115. jonboc

BINGO!

117. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#115 “IF this movie does actually take place in a new altered timeline..due to the involvement of the Romulans, what happened in Generations is null and void IF the producers and story tellers choose it to be”

That would be a very lame and cheesy storyline. I have faith that no time travel and no storyline messing is involved in this movie.

118. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

That’s why Shatner is spoiling it all. Too much is out there and too much is on the line with Shatner playing Kirk for one final moment. But now (because of this Shat) we are all getting privy to the idea.

Plus I would love to see the WHOLE crew there at the end too. Dee, Doohan, Nichols, Nimoy, Keoning, Takie, and of course, Shatner.

WOULD’NT that be the topper? I don”t care if its a time travel story, predictable, or costly, Its a story that must be told.

119. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 114 # 115 Your reasoning is exactly the reason I think that a Shatner appearence could work.

But #115 we shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, it’s not as though JJ is known for being as creative with his marketing stratedgy/use of hype as he is with his movies or anything…Oh.

120. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 117 There’s no way time travel of some description can not be involved if old Spock is going to communicate with his young self.

I think it has already been said that this movie will not just involve old spock looking back. I’m also pretty certain that an explanation will be given as to how the timeline being changed makes changes (even if they are only aesthetic) to Trek as we know it.

121. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

119. Bono Luthor

OK Bono Luthor. YOUR TURN.

How much would you pay Shatner?

122. CommonSense - January 21, 2008

I don’t care how they do it. William Shatner is Star Trek. You cannot relaunch the series without him. I mean what a BS reason. The people working on the film could have easily thought of a way to put him in the movie. Even with the writers strike. It doesn’t even make sense to have a time travel story with old spock. If they go back to try and kill young kirk, old kirk NEEDS to be in it. And I swear that if the film has to do with the romulans trying to kill young spock, I will boycott this film. Bottom line, Abrams and his crew are lasy asswipes who DON’T WANT William Shatner in their film. And they call themselves fans.

123. Diabolik - January 21, 2008

I respect JJ for taking an honest approach to it; and he’s respecting what has been done before, not rapping all over it. So this bodes well for the project overall.

124. Diabolik - January 21, 2008

I meant “crapping” not “rapping,” but they’re both much the same anyway.

125. trekee - January 21, 2008

Right, here’s the thing… I don’t think they could adequately explain the return of a 70 year old Kirk without it seriously eating into the film and so it was a big up front decision but in initial negotiations obviously it was conidered.

At some point it became only an option due to things we can only guess at, but which Roberto Orci is going to put in his Star Trek Memoirs book when he’s 60…

So it became at best a cameo but no one was happy with that, neither Bill Shatner nor the Supreme Court – so we either aren’t getting it at all or there is a conspiracy theory ploy thing going on.

I’d settle for a cameo in any way they feel fit to be honest but it’s not happening so fair enough – I do feel they don’t have the luxury to make this film ST XI: All About Bill because they are going to have to prove they can make a good film that justifies the $140bazillion, so it must do well.

If so, then the creative shackles are loosened somewhat, so in 14 months time, we can have this debate ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

I can’t wait…

*sigh*

126. Michael Adams - January 21, 2008

ALL OF YOU PEOPLE NEED TO STOP “SHATTING” ON GENERATIONS!

127. vanedge - January 21, 2008

eh, give him a cameo like Stan Lee in the marvel flicks. LOL

128. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

I loved… the first 15 minutes of that film! HA HA HAAH HAHA HA HA HA!!!!
I did, but just the first 15 minutes..

129. Bryan - January 21, 2008

As Nimoy’s daughter said in the now infamous Oldsmobile commercial:
“It’s not your fathers Oldsmobile!”
Alas and alak…I fear this will not be my Star Trek.

Though I will see it when it comes out, I know it will just be another diversion as next gen, voyager, etal was for me.

Shatner IS Kirk
Nimoy IS Spock
Kelly IS McCoy
Doohan IS Scotty
etc………

Saw Cloverfied this weekend…..what a piece of eyecandy that was…no depth of story, no point to it, no resolution, no explanation….augh!
I fear Star Trek XI may fall into this type of movie going experience of the video game generation. Lots of FX and little substance. Eye-candy only.

I had to watch Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country last night to re-affirm what WE will be missing when the new film comes out.
ST6 had our dear shipmates intact and performing on all thrusters with wit and wry sense of humour. Plus it had the camaraderie of old friends working together and knew each other well.

130. jonboc - January 21, 2008

#119 “But #115 we shouldn’t get our hopes up too much”

Well, I’m going into this thing with the assumption that Shat is not in the movie. That way, if he’s a no show, it’s what I expected. If he DOES show up, which I believe is totally possible, then it will just be the cherry on top of, what will hopefully be, an already delicious after-Christmas-dinner dessert.

131. Cheve - January 21, 2008

115. jonboc

Oh, please…

So, your way to solve this is to say “lets act as if this or that movie didn’t happen”

In fact, you are asking for a sollution which consists exactly in the kind of thing for which purists attacked Enterprise the most. (A thing that they didn’t do, but of which they where acused constantly)

Like the people who says “Voyager should’t be canon” or things like that.

:P There is a lot of people who liked Generations. So much that First contact was made. And Kirk died hororabily saving the galaxy, I rather have him dying like that than being resurected three times.

132. Mike P - January 21, 2008

Now it is time for Bill to “get a life.” Move on, Bill, move on…

133. j w wright - January 21, 2008

the shatner kirk in this movie could be, get this, before kirk found himself on the 1701-B

no one has an imagination on the production staff for this important movie?

bill had plenty of time to work out and get in shape for the role, now its too late…

we can have an old and young spock? but no old and young kirk?

i say its fanboyish to have nimoy in the movie, as much as it would be to have shatner…

134. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#121 Well, I’m not sure you have answered my question so much as posed further questions yourself…

However, in the spirit of goodwill ; ) I would consider that Shatner would most likely get whatever Nimoy is getting.

I’m not sure it’s about the amount of time the actor spends working, but more about the good that it will do that franchise to have the name attached. Also, I would argue that Shatner has a higher profile than Nimoy now days.

A re-launch of the franchise with the involvement/blessing of it’s two biggest Stars has got to be very lucarative indeed.

If kids get into it again they’ll be snapping up the old series DVD’s like kids have been doing with shows like Transformers and Doctor Who.

In fact, with Shatner onboard, Nimoy could most likely put his price up. I’m starting to sound like an agent. Urgh. Must stop.

My point is, the two together should outway the finnancial/box office clout of the one.

Isn’t there some rule where they both have to get the same anyway?

135. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

#102
Not answering you doesn’t make me a new joiner. I was answering Cheve’s post. Sorry if I missed something you already said before. I hope you can stand the strain. :)

#109
Same here.
Now we can concentrate on genuine TOS.

#115
Although I don’t share it, I salute your optimism.

136. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

131. Cheve

[I rather have him dying like that than being resurected three times.]

I like that spirit Cheve. I REALLY do. I hope they folow your sentiment in the new pic. Even if that is a poor comment on my own forsight.

Have I been dumbed down by too many eps. of Next Gen or Voyager?

137. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 122 I appreciate your passion, but try and keep it civil!!!!

138. jimi walker - January 21, 2008

..i think he [bill shatner.who i might add ..lol uncannilly resembles my uncle ] should bow out gracefully. im a big fan of his and the rest of the TOS crew but ive been watchin Star Trek since 1966[when i was 6 years old ] and im willing to accept new actors in the franchise and i dont think it detracts from the show at all
i know bill has a very distinct style regarding Kirk but ti wouldve had to develop so its not that great a leap of faith to imagine these young actors as the young green TOS crew
as for the timeline cock ups we ve had those before and solved them ..i mean in some stories the uss enterprise was laid down at the san francisco shipyards ,, in others in space ,, i think this is an attempt to re vitalise the franchise and im all for it
i wait in anticipation mr abrahms …one thing i beliveve hes good at is [like Will Wheaton said ] starting stuff

all ill say is Dont fuk it up mate or we ll lynch u

139. Chris Roberts - January 21, 2008

My message to J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman would be…

If Shatner wants to be in the film so bad, then consider including him as another character entirely. Done with some humour, since comedy seems to be more his forté these days. He could provide the voice of a computer or a CGI alien (Mr. Arex anyone?).

Alternatively give him the “Space, the final frontier” speech at the end of the film.

Both sides need to compromise here though. The new team to come up with something and for Shatner to swallow his pride & accept a walk-on part… difficult when your friend is getting the lion’s share of the story, I admit.

140. British Naval Dude - January 21, 2008

Arrrrr… more on Shatner not a’being in!
Arrrr….
Mr. Nimoy’s movie segment will be like thus:

on a good clearing in the woods outside of old ‘Frisco…
Old Spock: “There- look back there… see it? What looks like a large man walking along the creek… could this be the elusive Shatner… join us today for Starfleet In Search Of…”
Young Spock: “You, I mean I… I came back to the past just for a Denny Crane sighting?”
Old Spock “That… and to make sure Tuvok does not show up. It is time to move on.”

just funnin’ – me apologies to the venerable Nimoy and Mr. Russ…

141. RoyTheBoy - January 21, 2008

The only way Kirk/Shatner is going to appear is if they use scenes from the previous movies (or even more remotely, TOS). and then you’ll only see them as “historic recordings” on some monitor somewhere. Spocks death scene from TWOK for example. Much as I love the Shat and Kirk, the character is dead, dead , dead, and I agree the way of his death was crappy. His original loss into the Nexus saving the Enterprise B is way Kirk would have gone out. Its the sort of thing he would do, saving the ship and the crew.

142. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-STAR TREK GOES DOWN….TOO BAD…..SINCE INSURRECTION…CONTINUED WITH ‘ENTERPRISE’….FROM ALL THAT GREAT IDEAS FOR A ST SHOW..THE PRODUCERS CHOISES ARE ALWAYS THE MOST STUPID IDEAS…WHY???

143. Cervantes - January 21, 2008

By the way Orbitalic, it’s coming soon. I just need to find the time to put it on here. I hope you and others like the many changes I’ve made along the way, when you do see it…

144. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-THEY AREN`T ST FANS..TAT IS FOR SURE..

145. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#138 the constitution class construction involved major hull components built on the ground, the ship assembled in orbit, as mentioned in ‘the making of…’ and shown onscreen for the galaxy class in tng.

just as much reason to have shatner as there is to have nimoy. why have either? make a clean break of the past, then?

when many people think of trek, they think of kirk, spock and the enterprise… whats more fundamental than that?

146. toddk - January 21, 2008

If you look back at star trek generations, (I have the tapes from E!) Mister Shatner is quite pleased with his role & death in generations, He talks about how marvelous it is that the baton is being passed. and with that I (Toddk) personally was satisfied with it. The new star trek film will boost the sales and syndication of The original series and it will appeal to new audiences..sad note however is that I don’t believe that shatner will have anything to do with trek after this. I think he will travel the same road as patrick stewart and try to distance himself from the role. also I think everyone will agree that Star Trek was mostly about kirk, but starting in 1987 everyone seemed to agree that trek could and should be about Star Trek. If it was always supposed to be about kirk, then we would not of had Picard, Sisko, Janeway or even Archer. Star trek 2008 will celebrate the legacy of captain kirk. Mister Shatner should be proud.

147. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 131 I would not say Voyager should be taken out of canon. Possibly shot from one.

148. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#120 “There’s no way time travel of some description can not be involved if old Spock is going to communicate with his young self.”

How do you know that old Spock is going to communicate with his young self? By the way, a sci-fi writer can think of many different ways to involve old and young Spock without having a time travel storyline. ST3 had 4 different Spocks, I think ;-)
IMHO a time travel plot will not be the right choice to introduce Trek to new fans. Too many knowledge of past TV series and Trek lore.

149. jonboc - January 21, 2008

#131 “So, your way to solve this is to say “lets act as if this or that movie didn’t happen”

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting….new timeline, new ship, new uniforms, NO Generations.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

150. pcg - January 21, 2008

shatner is dead, he won’t be in this or anymore Star Trek movies and thank God for it. If he were in this movie his ego would ruin it!

151. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

No One wants to take the Shatner $$$ Challenge posted above (#107)??
C’mon. I want to know what the fan’s price is for seeing Kirk again.

QUESTION:
How much would YOU pay Shatner to be in 30 seconds of this movie?

Considering that this is the equasion:
30 seconds on-screen (a poignant moment at the end) + 1 day shoot

152. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - January 21, 2008

It is also heartening to see that 45% of the poll respondents to date side with putting Shatner in “Only if it works with the story”. Apparently, it is not just the production team behind STXI that favors quality story-telling over blithe, wanton nostalgia and sentimentalism.

153. Mazzer - January 21, 2008

“…transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.”

You said it, JJ. Absolutely.

154. jonboc - January 21, 2008

it’s also heartening to see that 68% want Shat in, if they can fit it into the story, or just give him a cameo.

While only 24% are dead set against Shat’s involvement in any capacity.

155. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. Shatner. Nimoy. That’s my ‘canon’

#148 I don’t, I’m guessing based on all that I have read.

156. desertrat - January 21, 2008

Dear Bill,
We know you are not in the movie.
Now please drop it!
Your fans

157. CW - January 21, 2008

“…transparently fan boys trying to get Shatner in the movie.”

As opposef to fanboys trying to make a new Trek movie… with Nimoy?

158. crazybeach - January 21, 2008

#76, #118, et. al.
Sorry to ruin a wonderful dream, folks, but our beloved Master Kelley and Master Doohan shrugged off these surly bonds of earth and have Gone On to touch the face of The Great Unknown….

#118, further,
To “A story that MUST be told” (Boldface mine) a simple question.
Why? ST VI was a wonderful, final send-off. Shoehorning Shatner and Koenig and Doohan into Generations was unneccessary. The Kirk part could just as easily have been an Captain Harriman or a completely Original Character and made just as much sense.

#57,
I agree. I said it before in another thread, but, does anyone ever remember in TOS and SIX movies hearing Kirk mention anything being “Fun”? The writers of ST GEN got it completely wrong. Kirk was COMPLETELY out of character.
I think JJ Abrams doesn’t want to run the risk of hurriedly cramming Elder Kirk into a two-minute, four-line cameo in the film, and having him come off sounding out of character. He should know better, and he sounds like he does. Too bad Shatner doesn’t (or chooses not to)…

159. Cheve - January 21, 2008

I’m not against him being in the movie.

I’m defending that, if the writers, producer and director (all of which are, in diferent levels, people who like TOS) are insisting in that there is no way to put him in the movie right now without damaging it ir his appereance, maybe, only maybe, they know what they are saying.

You know, knowing the plot and the script, as they do, it is possible they have some kind of idea about how the appereance of an old living Kirk could affect the movie.

160. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#150 HEY!!!! Shatner is not dead. His Trek character maybe (for now) but he is not.

Show some respect.

One thing is certain, without him and Nimoy (and many other talented people who worked on TOS) you would not have Star Trek today at all.

And, because nobody has said it on here today and I know better but just don’t care:

DENNY CRANE!

161. crazybeach - January 21, 2008

Narrow-mindedness is not logical…

162. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 151 See 134.

Do you know what $$$ are for Nimoy?

Interested on your take on my answer.

163. aqwabawks - January 21, 2008

I don’t see why they don’t just throw him in as part of some flashback material, maybe as something old Spock reflects on rather than having him as a living character?

164. tiberius - January 21, 2008

So quickly we forget our history…..

Somewhere along the line it seemed to be a good idea for the TOS crew to meet the TNG crew. But it was disastrous (ST:Generations works, right up to the moment that you get Picard and Kirk onscreen together).

The STORY is king! Resurrecting Kirk doesn’t make any sense. A cameo (unless it’s really unrecognizable) doesn’t make any sense. I am hoping that what we get here is a compelling story (it sounds as if Nimoy is integral to the plot).

If having Shatner is the key to making a good movie, then explain to me Generations. Or Final Frontier for that matter.

Did Orci/Abrahams make the right call…..I’ll reserve judgement until after I have seen their film.

165. j w wright - January 21, 2008

pre-1701B maiden voyage kirk in the new movie?

why not? no problem with nimoy appearing in the picture… why have him either?

and really, if we’re going to have the 1701 built on the ground with warp engines that rely on an environment of earth specific gravity to balance themselves out (wtf?) then why not re-invent everything?

bsg was a huge improvement of their original series, lets make spock a girl, like starbuck…

okay, too late for that i suppose…

166. John N - January 21, 2008

People can complain and repost as much as they want, but it’s clear from the poll that the people who disagree with J.J. and wanted Shatner soved in no matter what are CLEARLY in the minority.

167. Batts - January 21, 2008

Sounds like JJ is really trying to make this as believeable as possible. He is not just going to shove him in and face criticism for doing that. Imagine resurrecting Kirk in some strange way. You and I as Trek fans would critique the hell out of it and say that they should have left him dead.

Shatner is a glory hound!! Always was envious of Nimoy’s success as Spock. Get Over It!! It’s Nimoy’s time to shine!! He would be a real prick to distance himself from a role that gave him TV immortality!!

168. Biodredd - January 21, 2008

I am really sorry for all the Shatner fans out there. I really am.

But Trek is about the Enterprise and her crew, not the spaceship model and the actors.

The Bond films have proven that any one with acting skills can play James Bond. The series has continued for a long time. There is no reason that the same cannot be true for Trek.

I’ve loved the character of Captain Kirk and I’ve enjoyed Shatner’s portrayal, but I’m not living in some altered reality when I truly believe that WILLIAM SHATNER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN EVER PORTRAY KIRK PROPERLY AND THAT PARAMOUNT WILL FALL INTO ECONOMIC RUIN WITHOUT WILLIAM SHATNER’S INVOLVEMENT. I do believe, that it would have been nice to have him in the film, but we can’t have everything that we want. So I’m resolved with that. When my life is over I’ll be able to happily move on to the next level of existence.

It was nice to think that it could have happened, but now that it seems pretty certain its not going to happen, I’m just as fine with that. And for you guys thinking about the possibility in future films, don’t you dare lock these films in a series of time travelling adventures just to try and wedge Shatner back in. Trek is action, adventure, exploration and intrigue. Time travel is getting boring.

169. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#164 generations was a fine movie, with an ambitious storyline, on its own, it was a very good science fiction story, forget about the star trek association.

no one mentioned a ressurected kirk, this would be before jim kirk was ‘killed’ on the 1701b or really killed in the 24th century.

the key word here is ‘before’.

not waking him from the dead.

170. TonyC101 - January 21, 2008

Much as I would love to see Shatner’s Kirk cheating death one last time and still think that the events of Generations were criminal I’m forced to agree that the storyline for his return in the new movie would have to be something special. Perhaps this would be an opportune time for Trek to deal with Kirk’s death in it’s own special way…grieve along with Spock!

That said…maybe Shatner could return as (not a ghost!) a memory echo or some kind that causes Spock to deal with the loss and lead into a trip down memory lane…starting with their first meeting!

171. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#168 and the best bond?

connery of course, after him it was a downward spiral… i am at a loss to explain how they keep shooting new bond films, who is watching those awful installments?

i mean, besides me (and only on dvd)

i had high hopes for brosnan, but ugh, the writing is insufferable

bond is connery, the others? well… they do attempt to portray the old boy, but no one manages to pull it off well.

172. Chris Roberts - January 21, 2008

I keep picturing Shatner as Norma Desmond from Sunset Boulevard!

Scriptwriter: You’re Captain Kirk! You used to be in Star Trek. You used to be big.
Bill: I *am* big. It’s the *pictures* that got small.

Bill, the producers of Enterprise tried to move Heaven and Earth to get you that last hurrah onscreen and you quibbled over money. The boat has sailed on you playing Captain Kirk… Lower your sights and consider bartering with the writers for an uncredited role, as another character. It’s been done before. Look at Cape Fear (1991) which squeezed in the original stars from the 1962 version, Robert Mitchum & Gregory Peck.

Just a thought, if both sides are reading this.

173. Steve Hill - January 21, 2008

117# Then how will Older Spock and Younger Spock meet if there is no time travel in the movie?
34# Quinto Spock and Nimoy Spock mindmeld , we watch the meld in flashbacks of Kirk and Spock from old scenes of past Star Trek movies. So we get Shatner in the movie but old scenes that wouldn’t cost as much as new scenes. The mindmeld could go so fast that we can’t hear Shatner talk but in one or two of the scenes maybe. If the mindmeld needs scenes of Kirk in his 20′s or 30′s then use Chris Pine as Kirk in them.

174. bmar - January 21, 2008

#170 – “grieve along with Spock.”

I remember that show! It was great! Especially the bouncing ball over the lyrics on the bottom of the screen.

175. Dennis Bailey - January 21, 2008

Okay…let’s get on with the business of living. ;)

176. Jon C - January 21, 2008

I’m over the Shatner thing.

177. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#173

was it mentioned anywhere that the spocks would meet? was that a spoiler i didnt catch?

it has to be more than merely a fanboyish motive to have nimoy in the movie, after all…

i’m assuming flashbacks, or flashforwards are involved between the two spocks…

178. British Naval Dude - January 21, 2008

Arrrrr….
Thar be a bigger picture ta boot… why isn’t Ricardo in the new movie? Sure as salt, his character blew up in the second film… but that dunna mean he can’t have a cameo cursing Kirk…

Then ya can have Shatner on cursing him right back…
Kirk & Kahn, together again
Arrrrr….

179. Ryan - January 21, 2008

One day there will be a fan-made remake of Generations where Rick Berman is superimposed over Shatner at the end. Plus, it will be the original ending where he gets shot in the back.

180. j w wright - January 21, 2008

it is funny to see how everyone simply assumes that putting shatner as kirk in the film involves bringing him back from the dead

where is the imagination? its seems peculiar that no one can grasp that the shatner kirk would be the good cap’n BEFORE he was killed…

whats the deal about raising him from the dead? why assume that?

181. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#126 I’m really sorry, but Generations is rubbish. Who the hell is ‘Antonia’? ‘Butler’? Jim’s dog? What the f….? Where the frick did they come from? The stoooooopid, stooooooid nexus should never have even seen paper…however, if we must take it seriously, if the film makers want us to emote along with Jimbo, then make us connect with something that we have feelings about also….Carol, maybe and David…even Edith!

ANTONIA?????? BUTLER?????? EGGS??????

Don’t get me started on ‘Nemesis’…..I’m crying again! Crap!

For the record, I think that JJ’s movie will be brilliant.

182. CODY - January 21, 2008

Did you know that Shatner killed off Spock in one of his books?

Never mind it’s not CANNON. Who cares! The REAL Star Trek died with Roddenberry and Bergman killed Kirk and star trek not Shatner. Star Trek will be changed and no one likes change. No one lives forever and we all grow old. Have we become so shallow about an old man not in this movie. He will be as soon as the writiers strike is over. Hollywood always has reshoots after principal shooting has be completed. I have hope. I’m just greatful that i will see the characters with a familier fill I love. I just hope it’s not like a Moore and Connery..

183. Mark Anton - January 21, 2008

William Shatner was and is great. He was absolutely amazing in the role of Kirk. That being said, his character is dead. He has certainly aged since he died in “Generations,” and his death is obviously something that he allowed to happen. Because of the importance of the character Kirk, if he were ever to come back, that would have to be the major focus of the movie. Based on everything I’ve read about the new Star trek movie, which I am eagerly awaiting, Kirk’s resurection is not the focus of the film. It’s not something you could effectively deal with in a few minutes. I hope that William Shatner is an honored guest at the film’s premiere. That would be a great time to have a reunion with Leonard Nimoy and the other surviving TOS cast members. We need to remember that this movie is really focused on the crew in its younger days. It will be great to see Leonard Nimoy in the film, but I’m sure the real focus is going to be on Pine, Quinto, and the rest of the new cast. Those are the actors that are going to have to make this franchise fly. And I’m betting that they will.

184. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#181 who was carol marcus? who was ruth? this is the problem you had with the movie?

its no mystery that the good cap’n had an eye for the ladies and was quite successful in that persuit…

so you discover that there are more women who you’ve never heard of before and that spoils it? and she liked eggs? that he had a dog? are you joking?

there are more valid criticisms that could be rightfully leveled at generations, but those? oh, come now.

185. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

175. Very clever. I can seen what you’ve done there. Ripple of applause.

186. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#173 “Then how will Older Spock and Younger Spock meet if there is no time travel in the movie?”

I have to repeat myself: how do you know that older Spock meets younger Spock? We don’t know such elements of the plot.

187. j w wright - January 21, 2008

kirk would neither have to be ressurected nor the focus of the film to have shatner in it…

where do these assumptions come from?

i am curious to know.

188. Dr. Image - January 21, 2008

#176 – Me too.
Besides…
1) Shat agreed to Kirk’s stupid death scene(s) in GEN.
2) He probably wants more money than they’re willing to pay.
3) After Cloverfield, (which I loved) and Orci’s attention to fans concerns, I now have total confidence in this team giving us a great movie.

189. j w wright - January 21, 2008

kirk would neither have to be ressurected nor the focus of the film to have shatner in it…

where do these assumptions come from?

i am curious to know.

190. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

“Spock says this could be an historic occasion, and I’d like to believe him, but how on earth can history get past people like me?”

My colours are nailed up for all to see, so don’t take it the wrong way. It seems very apt no matter where you stand on the debate.

191. newman - January 21, 2008

I had the impression that because of the rumoured time-travelling romulans in this show, the original timeline might be left askew at the conclusion of the film, possibly creating a future where Kirk doesn’t die….then he could be fit into the next film. Is that too “fanboy”?

192. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#184, in able for us to understand what our valiant FRIEND (let’s not forget that) is going through, we should be given something to hook our emotions onto. The easiest way of doing this, is by making Kirk remember something that we also recognize. Without that, we just sit there embarrassed, like watching an elderly relative wet themselves. That’s ONE reason that these guys didn’t know how to write for the character.

193. dalek - January 21, 2008

Didn’t Mr Orci say a couple of days ago it was still in the air?

Saying that any way they came up with sounded too “fanboy” makes it sound like they can’t come up with ideas any better than fanfiction. They are professional writers.

Mr Orci said that they would never lie to us. So how can things still be up in the air if JJ has said you could never come up with an idea (presumably at the plotting stage).

JJ is seemingly, well not just seemingly; what he says is outright final. And what Mr Orci is saying is it could still happen.

Im confused.

All 3 of them (orci, JJ and kurtzman) have said in recent interviews about Shatner dying in Generations. That sounds like they have all agreed together what to say to the media because their responses are all absolutely identical.

The plot is about time travel and Spock travelling back to save Captain Kirk’s life. It just seems daunting that they would choose this plot yet not be able to think of a way to save older Kirk.

Mr Orci you said you would never lie to us. Is this the final word on the subject?

194. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#192

w t f ?

what did any of that mean?

195. Capt. Crash - January 21, 2008

I would say this is one of those things that JJ Abrams and Shatner has come up with to hype the film up even more…….cause a little media and fan base controversy and run-around about the film.

I think (IMO), that since this is a time-travel related scenario plot-story line, and older Spcok travels back into time to attempt to preserve the future and time-line……that somehow, someway and little altering takes place…minute as it may be – it does take place, changing the timeline by a little bit.

Then if the storyline permits it, older Spock travels back to his time – and one of the closing scenes actually shows and older Kirk in a flashback in Spock’s video data log – which suddenly appears. It mystifies Spock as an “interesting” notion. Then we learn Kirk escaped death in either the Enterprise B launching or from the NEXXUS incident.

Just a thought……and I think its a marketing plot to draw hype on both’s part – they both probably conjured up this from the very beginning. :-)

196. Xai - January 21, 2008

Didn’t we just do this a couple stories back? And a couple stories before that?

197. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#194 It means that Generations is rubbish.

198. Steve Hill - January 21, 2008

177# I’m would think the two Spocks would meet because Nimoy said he would be filming till March or Apirl that is how long the filming was to take filming of the cast, I know Nimoy started in December a month after the movie started filming . The only way they wouldn’t meet if the Older Spock can’t be seen he was invisible in the past .

199. What is it with you? - January 21, 2008

As Abrams says: “It was very difficult, and now impossible with the writers strike”.

What a copout.

As Orci and Abrams have both stated, they knew the writer’s strike was coming far in advance, and as Orci has stated on these boards several times, they wrote some redundancy into the script in anticipation of the strike. So why not write a couple of scenarios to put Kirk in far and advance?

The only answer is that they never wanted him there in the first place.

If that’s the story they want to tell, then so be it, I won’t complain. I’m happy Trek’s back, and thrilled to have a talented team going at it.

But don’t blame the writers strike for excluding Shatner.

That’s just misdirection to avoid any blame for not including him in your story.

It would be more respectful if you just said that this movie is about the start of Kirk’s journey – not his end. It’s your story – defend your creative decisions!

But don’t blame it on the strike. That excuse doesn’t hold water with anyone.

200. j w wright - January 21, 2008

so this is really going to be another time travel movie…

yaaaawwwwwwnnnnn…

at least the nexus of generations and the temporal cold war of ent were creative approaches to tt

another slingshot around the sun for the trekkies, eh?

i know, everyone loved ‘the voyage home’

everyone but me, that is…

201. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#193 “Mr Orci said that they would never lie to us. So how can things still be up in the air if JJ has said you could never come up with an idea (presumably at the plotting stage).”

They have also said several times that, if the stike ends, they may be able to find a way, but if it doesn’t, they wont.

202. CODY - January 21, 2008

If Spock travels back in time to save young Kirk. Why not travel back to the end of Generations. HAHA

203. TK - January 21, 2008

#179 Made my day! XD

I’m all for an appearance of JTK in this movie BEFORE the Enterprise B incident. That way, no explanation is necessary, ’cause he’s not dead yet!! There ought to be a final scene between Kirk and Spock before the Ent B incident.

The trouble is, we don’t really know the plot for the new movie. If Mr Orci could tell us what it really is about, then perhaps we could come up with some ideas??? ;)

What really bugs me is that for decades, JTK has survived numerous unthinkable dangers, making us believe that he is someone special. The way he went in generations was rather ordinary. If he was to die like THAT, then he might as well have died years back!!! It was a real anti climax, and I still, can’t…get…over…it! I know I should, but I…simply…CAN’T!!!! And then I think to myself, what would I have been satisfied with?? I haven’t quite come up with an answer to that question. yet.

204. Ali - January 21, 2008

Kirk should be in the final scene – the timeline restored, and more than restored, in other words. It would make a nice fini to the original cast.

205. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#197

an assertion that makes as much sense as that rambling gibberish you employed to fail at making a point…

i know you look forward to this movie, i am only hoping that it doesnt turn out to be the sort of movie you approve of

if all it took was another romantic interest that kirk had, with a woman you’ve not heard of before, and that she had a thing for eggs and kirk had a dog to throw you off it…

well, hopefully there’ll be nothing in the new movie to challenge your imagination so…

but i hope there is.

206. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#200 “so this is really going to be another time travel movie… yaaaawwwwwwnnnnn…”

You are right. Time travel has been done a lot of times. It’s boring, not fresh at all, and that’s why I think that time travel will not be involved: Orci/Abrams are too smart to repeat the same things over and over again

207. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

It would be cool to see Shat as Kirk again, but I think JJ is heading in the right direction. Good call leaving him out.

208. m aspill - January 21, 2008

i personaly believe it would be a mistake to put an older kirk in the film leave him in his grave. why ruin his persona of kirk by bringing in an old fat guy i want to remember shat the way he was in his prime sorry

209. Kenny S - January 21, 2008

I can think of a trillion ways to bring back kirk that would be VERY FUN!

I think they are snobing him for OTHER reasons… and NOT because they dont want him back…

perhaps its payback time because shatner helped with the script that killed Kirk in the first place…

I think everybody frowned when Kirk died like that…

210. CODY - January 21, 2008

Picard left Kirks body on the planet surface and the Enterpise E was removed. Didn’t Picard break protcol by doing that on a undeveloped planet.

211. m aspill - January 21, 2008

210 it was D and there was no life on the planet

212. m aspill - January 21, 2008

210 it was D and there was no life on the planet

213. lodownX - January 21, 2008

Pardon my analogy… but If you were to think of this new Star Trek movie as a meal at a fine dining establishment…. I’d prefer not to order the HAM. Sorry Mr. Shatner… you are the MAN – but your 75 and out of shape and no one needs to see the Captain of the Enterprise in that condition.

214. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#208 again, for the hundredth time

this would not involve bringing kirk back from the dead

this would be kirk before the 1701B incident

has no one read a science fiction book, ever?

before he is killed… b e f o r e not after.

someone tell my everyone assumes a ressurection must be involved.

215. Render - January 21, 2008

I Love Kirk, but his time is past!

Star Trek has become weakened by this continual process of inserting convoluted and useless storylines merely to bring back some former cast member, or to pander on some other minor detail, they are giving the fans pleanty of consideration but have stopped at a realistic part.

I think JJ and Orci are doing the right thing in focusing on a good movie, one that will be enjoyable and interesting, not some twisted fanboy’s wet-dream.

keep up the good work guys

216. Cezion - January 21, 2008

I know a way shatner can be in the film…. Just dig up is corps and put it on display.

217. CODY - January 21, 2008

What if young Kirk sees old Kirk and says “Holy shit! I’m in trouble!”

218. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#205 I’m sorry that you can’t wrap your mind around what I’m talking about.

In addition, the Nexus is NOT imaginative. It’s lazy.

219. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 197 LOL! #194 Come on! You really couldn’t understand what he was on about in # 192?

220. johnconner - January 21, 2008

Pressure’s on, Chris Pine.

Yeah, there’s still a chance that this is all some big stunt and he’s really in somehow. But you know what, I’m gonna let myself be pulled along for the ride. From all tidbits so far, I think this flick is gonna rock.

And really, I don’t see how anyone could look at the above clip and say that Shatner was anything but fun. I saw no negativity. Even the part about DNA and dinosaurs, he didn’t let himself go to a negative place.

All you Shatner haters, I’m stunned that you consider yourselves fans of the show. Why would you put yourselves through the ordeal of watching a show where the lead is someone you find distasteful?

221. CanuckLou - January 21, 2008

Huzzah! JJ! Stick to your guns. Star Trek has fallen victim to far too many conveniences of so called ‘SF’ writing crutches to resolve dramatic issues.

From TrekBabble to having non-Enterprise officers/command officers or villians written as weak or severely limited/flawed/or comically portrayed.

Don’t succumb to genre crutches to resolve a conflict. Give us situations that rely on testing the strength of a character’s resolve instead of having James Bond like gadgets get them out of problems.

Don’t weaken moments by using comedics either. Rather let the humourous moments arise out of the situation and the personalities of the characters involved.

Most of all be true in your story-telling.

222. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#219 THANK YOU!

223. Paul B. - January 21, 2008

Okay, for all of you “it’s so easy to bring back Shat, this sucks” numbskulls, here’s a gift. Here’s a way to bring back old Shat for you.

Make the second Trek movie from Abrams the ultimate Kirk film: young Kirk (Pine) discovers that his eventual death (on Veridian III) will be pointless, easily avoidable, and despite saving a bunch of strangers, empty. He bucks Starfleet protocols and uses the slingshot effect to travel into the future, becoming so obsessed with saving himself from a rotten death that his own crew thinks he’s gone crazy. (Hey, it’s a repeated classic Trek issue, so it’ll work.)

They overshoot and find themselves staring down the weapons of Enterprise-E and the Titan. Having been with Kirk at his death, Picard is torn about how to handle this temporal incursion. Not only that, but it turns out that the near-pass of the Nexus actually did kill everybody on Veridian III (it passed closed enough to shift the planet’s orbit, and everything was laid WASTE!!!). In the end, Picard decides that Kirk deserves whatever help he asks, and together with Riker they travel back in time to find the source of the Nexus so they can prevent it from ever happening.

Picard and Kirk both have a resonance with the Nexus, so they find it easily…and they find echoes of themselves, Guinan, Soran, and whoever else the fans want to whine about seeing in the movie. (Sorry…slipped…)

It turns out the Nexus is a lingering aftereffect of the wormhole in ST:TMP; instead of closing up behind Enterprise (after they blasted the asteroid), the wormhole became a steady “ribbon” of distortion. So now, these five captains (old Nexus-Kirk, young Pine-Kirk, older Picard, Nexus-Picard, and cardboard Ken…uh, I mean Riker) have to return to the arrival of V’Ger and rewrite THAT history to avoid creating the wormhole and the Nexus.

Of course, things go wrong and V’Ger wipes out Earth, so with Decker and the dreadnought Entente (briefly mentioned in TMP), they go BACK EVEN FURTHER and stop V’Ger sooner, saving all those ships (even the three Klingons).

An epic battle ensues between the five captains (well, six with Decker) and the three Klingons (who are actually part of an invasion force of 1000 ships) in which old Kirk dies saving ALL of the Enterprises, old Picard dies saving Kirk, and Decker & Riker die from blandness. We can even add in a Romulan who spouts old Earth literature (since we already had a Klingon do that), maybe quoting Lawrence of Arabia extensively. That way, he can tell Kirk “Nothing is written” and we can all go home knowing that young Kirk’s future can still be whatever he wants.
THE F-ing END!!

THERE! Are you fanboys happy? Does that cover enough points of canon, give Shatner enough to do while letting the new crew play, while giving you the Riker/Titan crap and some post-Nemesis Picard stuff, while revisiting most of the other movies in some way? (Hell, they can even go to Ceti Alpha V before it gets wasted so they can save Khan and avoid getting Spock and David Marcus killed…)

Or…we could just accept that Chris Pine is Kirk from now on and GET ON WITH OUR LIVES! I think Shatner is great as Denny Crane on Boston Legal–a great, twisted, nutcase character–but he’s no longer viable as Kirk. It’s not the age or the weight, it’s the persona: it’s like Leslie Nielson, who was a serious actor before the Airplane! and Naked Gun films. After that, nobody could see Nielson in a serious role. I don’t think we could take Shatner seriously at this point.

Would that satisfy the Shat-lovers who don’t want an actual movie, just an excuse to see Shatner speaking brokenly again?

224. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

Don’t even start with that “he’s old and fat” stuff. Anyone see the pictures on here at the weekend?

I put Undiscovered Country on last night and he really didn’t look that different back then.

If anything his hair looks *ahem* a little better now.

225. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#212 veridian iii had plenty of plant life, and thus it is assumed, animal life, too.

lookit all them trees:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/type7-shuttle/shuttle7-generations.jpg

http://uss-france.strangewc.com/tng-1701d-crash.jpg

226. Green-blooded-bastard - January 21, 2008

I say we put the old piece of “Shat” in the movie, story be damned! The fans love him, and that’s ALL THAT MATTERS, not story, not integrity, not canon, not ANYTHING so long as we get to see him some more! Matter of fact, you can make the story that the Shat comes back in time to kick his own ass and take over the Enterprise and he can fly around for another 5 year mission! YEAAAA!!!! ………(crickets)

As a matter of fact, I also love Star Wars, so lets shove R2-D2 and C-3PO in there to, they can be comedy relief on the ship (besides Shatner). Let’s give the entire Enterprise crew Lightsabers and they can have Lightsaber fights! Then let’s have the Enterprise not just go back in time to save Shatner Kirk, but go REALLY far back, a long time ago, and to a galaxy far far away, and blow up the Death Star too! YEAAAA cause were all fans and we don’t give a flying shit what happens to a movie so long as we get what we want like A BUNCH OF WHINY BITCHES! We’ll make the movie ourselves, too, cause we’re the smartest, not JJ Abrams, he’s not a real fan-boy like us!

Morons

227. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#223

no reason, again, to ressurect him or change the events that lead to his death to include shat as kirk in this movie.

unless poor imagination is a reason.

228. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#223

LOL !!!

229. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

“numbskulls”

Why do people (on either side of the fence) have to result to name calling.?

Shame.

230. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

#223 BRILLIANT!

231. Kenny S - January 21, 2008

you forget, that if Nimoy is Spock, (see the newer book of Nimoy ” I am spock”, then shatner is Kirk.

And as Kirk he always does what he can, replace death with a fighting chance to live.

Oh Shatner will be on the film alright…
:-)

Ways will be found, and this negativity of not having Shatner on this film is NOT the Star Trek Way. (Star Trek always had older actors appear in the new series even playing different parts)

232. Jupiter1701 - January 21, 2008

I’m a big fan of the original Captain Kirk. But like I wrote the other day:

“Groan, not another William Shatner thread . . . ”

(Closes laptop lid, takes both hands and slams computer repeatedly into head.)

233. CODY - January 21, 2008

Yeah! Shatner and Dinosaurs. I find alot of humor in that. He is a dinosaur. He made his bed. He agreed to kill Kirk off. He signed that contract. That’s the priceline he has to pay. All he will have is a cameo. It will be reshoot after the writers strike. He will be in the movie. What a better way to keep Star Trek XI in the news.

234. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

OK- #226 made me laugh.

But R2D2 in Trek? By the time he makes it from a galaxy far, far away and goes from a long time ago to the 23rd century, I’m pretty sure his firmware would be woefully out of date and quite buggy.

Now, Kirk fighting Maximilian from The Black Hole- that’s a movie!

235. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 226 Now here comes the aggression. Charming.

236. Ty Webb - January 21, 2008

I should say that I was always a little insutled by Shatner’s dismissive ”It’s Science fiction” as a reason as to why he could easily be brought back. If you want a good example of how ‘science fiction’ ruined a franchise, look no further than Alien 4.

237. j w wright - January 21, 2008

he could have at least played jim kirks father, or his uncle who owns that farm, or something.

lack of imagination and disregard for established canon will make this film into something that by comparison, will make nemesis appear to have been written by rodenberry himself

238. USMC - January 21, 2008

Shatner should be in the Film no matter what.

Their wouldn’t be a Star Trek XI Movie if Shatner didn’t do what he did all them years ago.

Live long and prosper Capt Kirk, and Semper Fi

239. Ralph F - January 21, 2008

Kirk on Holodeck. Of course, the holodeck isn’t really part of TOS canon, so there’s that problem.

Then again, if the Nexus (ugh, I hate bringing that up) exists across linear time, what would be the big deal? Spock can get Kirk before Picard sees him. There’s the question of a time paradox but I think it can be creatively side-stepped.

Still and all; Shat, you let them kill Kirk. A bad decision, maybe, but something that has to be lived with.

(And my personal feeling is, and has always been, that YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE should have been shelved and saved to be the basis of GENERATIONS. You could easily tie it in to the Khitomer thing. Second film should have been based on the TNG novel VENDETTA. If you haven’t read it, do so now!)

240. Joel - January 21, 2008

Everyone complains about canon, and it would be going against it if they threw Shatner into the film. It’d be great to see him on the big screen one more time as Kirk, but it just can’t happen, they’d violate the rule that the fans are so strict about.

241. jonboc - January 21, 2008

191-”had the impression that because of the rumoured time-travelling romulans in this show, the original timeline might be left askew at the conclusion of the film, possibly creating a future where Kirk doesn’t die”

Thank you, someone gets it. I’ll say it again. New ship..new uniforms..new Kirk…new phasers…new boots…new timeline. One where KIRK DIDN’T DIE.

Generations = OLD timeline

Trek 08/Kirk never died = NEW timeline.

Is it really that difficult to comprehend??

Not saying it will happen…just saying, for the 68% of the poll who want to see Shatner in the movie, creatively, given the context of a new and changed timeline, a changed future, where Kirk LIVES is very possible.

242. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#236 “look no further than Alien 4″

talking about Alien, omg, why do I keep visualizing a disturbing image of a xenomorph with dreadlocks? ;-)

243. Multitrek - January 21, 2008

This old mess would probably make a better movie than anything fictionnal.

244. Multitrek - January 21, 2008

Sorry I meant “this whole mess”.

245. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

Maybe Shat could be a DVD extra telling us all to get a life again.

246. star trackie - January 21, 2008

#226-

..after that bit of ranting, calm down then check out the poll on the side of the page.

Notice how you’re still in the minority?

247. Victor Hugo - January 21, 2008

He can appear as a holodeck recording. Já á suficiente!

Or as black and white flashback scene, like in ROCKY V when Mickey appeared to give Rocky the boxing gloves necklace. :P

248. Paul B. - January 21, 2008

227. j w wright – January 21, 2008
#223
no reason, again, to ressurect him or change the events that lead to his death to include shat as kirk in this movie.
unless poor imagination is a reason.
****************************

Uh…the entire point of my post (223) was to make fun of the idea of resurrecting him or changing the events around his death. I’m against that, as my post should clearly indicate. Thus, the “poor imagination” was to make a point.

*******************
229. Bono Luthor – January 21, 2008
“numbskulls”
Why do people (on either side of the fence) have to result to name calling.?
Shame.
****************
Sorry. No offense intended. To me (and most people I know), the term “numbskull” isn’t all that bad. It’s a semi-affectionate dig, not an insulting attack. (That’s the intent, anyway.) And considering the vitriol I’ve read on here from BOTH sides of the fence, “numbskull” is very minor.

249. section9 - January 21, 2008

I know, let’s bring Edith freaking Keeler back from the dead and have her hook up with The Shat.

Look, peeps, the Shat….he daid, and his horses too.

Now if they want to do something silly, like Old Spock saying to Young Whippersnapper Spock something like “don’t let Kirk get on the Enterprise-B” (as one other wag put it), then they can bring back the Shat.

And his Promise Margarine.

I’m actually all in favor of bringing him back as a 23rd Century version of Denny Crane trying to argue law with Spock.

250. CODY - January 21, 2008

Maybe the movie can start off be Spock digging up Kirks body and all he finds is a toupee.

251. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#240

shatner in the new film would require no canon violation whatsoever, how do you figure?

#241

why change the events that lead to kirk’s death? there is nothing necessary about it

shatner could be in the film as kirk between ST:TUC and ST:GEN

why is this so hard to grasp?

252. j w wright - January 21, 2008

shat could also play jim kirks father or uncle

too mind blowing?

gotta be kidding…

253. Chris Clow - January 21, 2008

Wasn’t sure about Urban before, but now I’m sold. This is gonna rule.

254. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

Well, I’m not going to read the 200+ responses at this time, but I would just like to say that if they had REALLY been interested in putting him in, it would have happened.

If they are going to hang on that turkey “Generations” as a sticking point, then I hope they are extremely slavish to the design elements of the series.

Not that it matters.

255. Drew - January 21, 2008

In a sense JJ & co have been given the tools to repair what was so utterly dismantled about the franchise in the 90s and 00s.

It’s a big task.

Fixing the Kirk death blunder is definitely something that needs to be addressed–if not in this film then in another (if this one succeeds). Problem is, Shat is getting up there in age…there may not be much time left.

Overall it is JJ’s task to fix the franchise, not Kirk’s death. Fixing his death would be the icing on our cake, but the franchise overall must be repaired first.

I’m excited and think most of us will be overjoyed with the new film!

256. CODY - January 21, 2008

Shatner coming back is like Connery in Never Say Never Again

257. pcg - January 21, 2008

The only way I could see shatner in anymore star trek movies is if he was so disguised that you would’nt recognize him.

258. 1701_Cag - January 21, 2008

I always wondered why in Generations, Captain Kirk was the only one that could reconfigure the navigation array to put out a tacheon beam, couldn’t the engineering crew have done that?

Obviously just a mechanism to get the Captiain “alone” (per STV) and in place for the nexus strike.

259. Son of Sarek - January 21, 2008

Tell us the real reason JJ. Is it because Shatner is, shall we say, a little too large? Hmmm?

260. doug - January 21, 2008

You know…I think it provides an opportunity to do two things..one..bring back Kirk. Most people felt like the death scene for him was anti-climactic and really served no purpose. It just didn’t ring “true” in the same fashion Spock’s death did in The Wrath of Khan.
Second…What’s wrong with bringing him back as a cameo and not explaining how he’s alive? I don’t think you always have to provide the answers immediately. Much the same way that they didn’t really focus any attention on how or why Worf was in the last Trek film…he was just “there”.

Hell…it would even have been a nice end cap…the older Spock explaining that making sure history played out as intended was critical, but that the needs of the one sometimes outweigh the needs of the many….and we see that he’s speaking to Kirk…leaving it open to interpretation what he did to keep Kirk alive. We might assume (if Kirk is Shatner’s present age) that somehow Spock has brought him forward in time from his accidental death…

My point, mainly, is that Shatner and many fans felt the Kirk death was a waste…so this is an opportunity to rectify that. I see nothing “fanboy” about correcting that. Quite the contrary, if Kirk is so integral to the plot, it seems to beg for a connection on the other end of the time scale. Why bother with his birth, and a story about saving his early life if , at the end of it all, he’s still dead for no reason on that bridge?

261. Moonscore - January 21, 2008

What if shat just recorded footage for, say, a holographic message that spock could be watching or receive sometime in the movie?

262. Aragorn189 - January 21, 2008

If we quit asking Mr. Shatner about how he feels, maybe we won’t have any more problems with hearing Shatner Laments and Fanboy diatribes over whether or not he is in the film. To me anything that has been on screen is the canon. The books give tangents and other lines of story, as well as alternate storylines, i.e. Shatnerverse. All of it has some validity in my eyes. If they do bring Kirk back fine. If not, its not going to kill the movie. For crying out loud, this is possibly going to be the origin story of one of the most iconic set of charachters in the entertainment history. Lets respect the film for what it is and try to enjoy it without having the idea of Kirk being ressurected clouding our minds.

263. Ty Webb - January 21, 2008

To the people saying he could at least have played Kirks father. Shatner turned down the chance to do any of those sort of cameo appearances.

264. BwanaBob - January 21, 2008

If they could hide the Cloverfield monster from the public, they certainly can hide the fact about whether Shatner takes part in this movie.

I’ll just wait’ll Christmas and see.

265. j w wright - January 21, 2008

#258

there was no crew, the ship had the very minimum compliment, the flight it was just a dog and pony show for the media

the real question is, why werent other ships available to respond

266. Moonscore - January 21, 2008

Or perhaps an ornamental AI lying on a mantlepiece somewhere.

267. TOS Purist - January 21, 2008

This movie is all about alternate universes and changed timelines…why not do something like “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and bring back Kirk like they did Tasha Yar, and give him a good death this time??

Or maybe they could have added a bit of “City on the Edge of Forever” theme to it by Spock realizing the timeline had been changed, and part of that changed timeline meant Kirk was alive…and for Spock to correct it, it would mean having to put things back the way they were, which means his best friend would be dead again. Might make Spock’s job of “correcting” it more difficult, you know?

268. j w wright - January 21, 2008

again, kirks death was just fine, and does not have to be retracted for shat to appear in this film as kirk

he died a hero’s death as he should have, no need to ‘bring him back’ to have him in this film

why does everyone assume thats the case?

269. Green-blooded-bastard - January 21, 2008

Ugh, some of you need to get a grip.

How about this: We find a way to go back and get Kirk’s head, then put it on the Enterprise on the end of a Spear and mount it next to the captains chair. How about that.

He’s dead. Period. End of story. Shatner is more comedy relief than a serious actor anymore, he CHOSE to die in canon, and that’s that. Sorry the fan-boys cry themselves to sleep about it but this Star Trek being made is for a WHOLE NEW BASE OF FANS, and some of you… They are giving NODS to you, and filming the movie for THEM. Deal with it.

Oh, and #246 Star Trackie: I saw the stupid poll OF PEOPLE THAT COME HERE TO THIS SITE and it means JACK-SHIT! There are as of this writing 260 posts/562 votes. Are you trying to tell me that the film should be made to please the 562 people that voted? Are you on crack? Perhaps you might want to check those numbers you’re so proud of, as the MAJORITY of them only want the Shat-Kirk in the film if it makes sense/fit’s the story. ONLY. If JJ Abrams can’t make it make sense or get it to work somehow, that’s it chief! No Kirk for you!

270. JMD - January 21, 2008

I grew up loving James Kirk. I wanted to be him when I was playing star trek in the yard. I used to think that he was the backbone of the series. I was wrong…We are. The fans who watched the tos in syndication. It was Gene Roddenberry’s creation but it is the love and appreciation of the fans that carry it onward. Even as the fans bicker over the fate of our beloved entity, the ball still rolls. I never thought I would like the next gen at first. I hated the enterprise d. A bald captain with a telepathic counselor on the bridge? It is funny by the third season I had become a fan again. Deep Space Nine it was cool to know that there was going to be a story revolving around a father and son . I did not think it was good either but by the final bow I felt I was missing my own family. Even voyager as much as I did not follow it I was there to see the crew finally make it home. Enterprise I was tired of the myrad ways that they were pushing Star Trek on us. I watched only the first episode . But now I am curious maybe it is time to view it. The whole time I had forgotten that James Kirk had existed,especially after his death.
Star Trek has now got another shot. The next next gen if you will. This time
we get to see Lenard Nimoy , in all fairness the only original member from the first pilot of trek that never was, to be the one who ushers in the new SPock , Kirk , and crew. I see the symbolism. I understand the reasonings of the people who are recreating legends. I will watch. It will be different. Just like all the other incarnations born from TOS. I believe it will be entertaining. It might not have the same chemistry amongst the actors ,I might not like the story , I may not even see it a second time,however I want to give it a chance. I am the backbone of Trek. You are the backbone. The new may even bring in more supports for the Trek legacy. I feel that is all I can do. If it is not too my liking I will let it fall. But I will view it. Willaim Shatner or not this movie is the next step into the final frontier. How sad would it be if we just did not give it a chance?

271. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 260
Some very good points there.

I’m sure Shatner’s “don’t want to do a cameo” was more of a ‘don’t want to just walk on and just say “how ya doin’” thing rather than a rejection of a small, but meaningful role.

Too bad they decided to make THIS particular movie with the recast roles, etc.

272. sean - January 21, 2008

#251

If you’d buy Shatner as his post-TUC, pre-GEN self, I’d recommend an immediate trip to the optometrist.

What I find fascinating about all of this, is Shatner’s change in attitude from a year ago. He was on the Craig Ferguson show, and he’s talking about the new Trek with JJ, etc. And HE brings up the fact that HE asked JJ how he could possibly play the same character, when the character was dead. He recites what the writers & JJ have been telling us all along, almost word-for-word. And Craig even interjects, saying ‘Oh but it’s science-fiction!’ and Shatner says ‘Yeah, but it has to have SOME logic to it, how do you get there?’.

It’s just interesting, given that so many of the SHATMUSTBEINCLUDEDORTHEREWILLBEBLOOD people are so quick to cut down that reasoning, yet their illustrious leader used the same logic only a year ago? Hmmm.

This leads me to two conclusions:
A)He was bruised from the fact that Leonard was asked, and now has a JJ vendetta
or
B)He’s in it, and this is a smokescreen. I wasn’t buying that at all initially, but now it’s starting to feel like that might be the truth. How else can you explain the about-face? Honestly, watch the Youtube of the interview, and tell me his behavior now isn’t somewhat bizarre?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccs-2c4D8x4

273. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 248 No worries. It’s not something you really hear that much in the UK, but I get the intent.

I also agree that some of the comments made on both sides cheapen both arguments and fans in general!

Respect from across the great Shatner divide!

274. NTH - January 21, 2008

A reinterpetation of Generations ending could possibly be as follows,
Picard has just convinced Kirk to help him defeat Soran.Picard is of course a master tactician and not likely to go into any difficult situation blindly.He has in his mind the memory of his previous encounter of Soran and of the general landscape.Before he leaves the Nexus with Kirk he runs through possible tactical scenarios in which from his memory he is able to have played out in front of them.We see two of the Scenarios played on the screen,the in which Kirk is shot in the back,to which Kirk responds “not what I had in mind”,and the second in which the briidge falls on him and he responds”Ouch!That has to hurt”. They agree on their tactical approach to dealing with Soran,leave the Nexus and defeat him.
Kirk is alive at the end of the movie .

275. charnold - January 21, 2008

The only way Shat gets in is if his character is Kirk after Star Trek 6 but before Generations. In retirement teaching at the academy or something. That would make it a 3rd time period in the story which is just too much for non fans to handle.

What would have been neat is to include him in an extended cut doing some sort of “oral history” with the federation and having that carry the movie on a DVD format. A complete re-cut with lots of extra stuff for fans would be cool. Writers strike kills that though.

276. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 272
There is nothing in his words or attitude that gives me the impression that he is in any way losing any sleep over it. There’s not a tinge of anger in his voice, he was very gracious in the above video when asked about the new (yecccch) cast.

He has the right to be disappointed and the right to state his opinion…even to change his mind. I just don’t think he is doing any kind of ‘whining’ as some people accuse, at all.

277. star trackie - January 21, 2008

269 “He’s dead. Period. End of story. ”

Uh..no. Two words. Alternate timeline.

Savy?

278. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #196 Xai

And a couple before that. Wow. You guys have been busy. Xai, don’t think this will end until Christmas 2008.

Let me correct that statement: It will go on and on as “They should have put him in it. No they shouldn’t! Yes they should. No…”

Then there’s always the time in between this one and the sequel. This will start up again. I am almost sure of it.

I think it would be embarrassing for J. J. to do another ST:III. Can you imagine what everyone would say then? “Been there, done that.” He might even be accused of cloning. “Can’t come up with a fresh idea, eh J. J.?” I can hear the critics now. This fresh view should be nice to see. It could even be called “Beginnings” if it shows how everyone started their travel toward being in Starfleet. It has been referred to many times. One example is Spock and Sarek talking at the end of ST:IV where they are saying their goodbyes:

…”As I recall, I opposed your enlistment in Star Fleet. It was possible that judgement was incorrect. You associates are people of good character.”

“They are my friends.”

“Yes — of course.”

It has come full circle since TOS episode “Journey to Babel” where we first find out that Sarek and Spock were estranged because of his enlistment in Star Fleet.

I’m very excited at the possibilities. It could be weird without Bill, but we won’t know until we see the film. That’s my take on the situation.

Re: #199 – What is it with you?

I’ll have to agree with you that, if that is the truth; that they knew about the looming strike, it is possible that they could be blaming it on the writers rather than taking the brunt of the decision. Expecting the backlash of a controversial decision is intimidating. Then again, I wouldn’t have guessed that these guys are timid. Who knows. Only they do.

Re: #117. PaoloM

It could be that Spock is narrating the story as a memoir of sorts (if Vulcans do that kind of thing) or telling his “grandchildren” the story of his life with some of the early times and that is what we are seeing — the flashbacks. That wouldn’t be time travel. We’re seeing into the “window” of his memories. Just an idea…

Re: #182. CODY

You may have a point. But as I alluded to earlier, this won’t be over until the credits have rolled in the theater. Then the new argument will start.

It must be written somewhere (in another canon) that Star Trek fans have an obligation to banter things about.

Tasha Yar – in or out
Geordi – visor or no visor
Riker – beard or no beard?
Data – emotion chip or not?
Crusher or Pulaski?
Kirk or no Kirk?
Enterprise – no bloody A, no bloody B (to coin a phrase).

It’s our right!!

By the way, I looked up the word “CANON” and here’s what it said (among other things):

a set of artistic works established as genuine and complete, e.g. the works of a particular writer, painter, or moviemaker.”

kg

279. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

#256 Do you mean this film will have nothing to do with a succesful franchise and be met mostly with derision?

280. Buckaroohawk - January 21, 2008

Hopefully, this puts a cap on the whole “Bring Back Shatner” thing. Personally, I’m glad he won’t be in the film. I don’t want to see him forced in there just for the sake of fan sentimentality.

If you’ve decided that you’re not going to see the film because he’s not in it, then fine. That leaves more seats for the rest of us.

Now, bring on that hi-res version of the teaser!

281. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

#261 said “What if shat just recorded footage for, say, a holographic message that spock could be watching or receive sometime in the movie?”

I know we were joking about R2D2 making a cameo earlier in the thread- but isn’t holographic Kirk a little too “help me Obi-Wan Kenobi” to you?

As much as I love the Shat, I’m content to let Kirk- or at least Shat’s Kirk- go gently into the night. Bring on the new guy and let’s see what he’s got.

282. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 269 Do you need to be so rude and aggresive to make your point?

283. Sean4000 - January 21, 2008

I always viewed the death of Kirk as the crowning screw up of B&B. Shat not being in this film is a little disappointing to me but I ‘m more than sure that it will be fine without a resurrection.

284. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

OK….chill pills are in order for some of you. Let\’s cut it out with the \’all you people are xxxxx\’ kind of blanket statements. Focus on the topic not the other posters…no one is more of less of a geek here….this is a star trek site and we are all geeks.

285. Robert April - January 21, 2008

The new poll is telling. A lot of people are so fed up with the “we can’t fit Shatner in” line that they are now voting “YES…’shove him in’ no matter what.”

Compare that to earlier opinions that were inclined to be more of the “Only if it works with the story” variety.

Perhaps tension created in the fan base will energize people to see this movie and any sequels and allow for a future cameo for Shatner.

Star Trek II was so powerful because Spock died to save his captain.

The main reason to see Star Trek III was to see them bring back Spock.

The BEST part of Star Trek IV was NOT the whales, rather it was the fact that Spock was once again a new, fresh ALIEN character (like he was in early TOS) and how fun Shatner and Nimoy’s interactions were as a result.

Read into those three points as you like.

Look, if Spock is going to return to save Kirk, it needs to be the Kirk we all remember in the final moments before Spock died in Star Trek II. I do not recall Chris Pine’s face pressed up against the Plexiglas as Nimoy utters his characters famous last words.

Of course I may be mistaken. I will have to go get out my DVD and re watch it to make sure.

——————————————————
How about this…

New movie 1=Spock returns to save Kirk from the evil Romulans. No Shatner appearance but the plot line regarding fate of future Kirk is left unresolved. (Sound like JJ Abrams work at all

New movie 2= New Crew do not know the fate of their future selves as they begins their reign as box office champs. Shatner returns in cameo at the end as future Kirk (in SOME time line) with Nimoy as Spock. WHEN they return (23rd or 24th century) is not known. Effect on the events of the movie Generations are not known/addressed (and who would care.)

Movie 3=A fresh new crew head out to explore strange new worlds and the new actors are universally accepted as the “real deal.”

Chris Pine appears with a newly rehired Shatner in a Priceline commercial where Nimoy is shown being fired.

Nimoy photographs a series of nude pictures of Shatner riding the horses from the movie Generations, thus opening the door to “endless possibilities” for future projects.

286. Something smells awry in Abramsville - January 21, 2008

# 214. j w wright – You are spot on. “this would not involve bringing kirk back from the dead… this would be kirk before the 1701B incident… before he is killed… b e f o r e not after.”

Producer Orci mentioned “Creative License” as to why they are building Enterprise on EARTH and not in SPACE. LOL.

OK, well obviously there is another reason Shatner is not in this film as they could easily show future Kirk and Spock BEFORE not After Kirk Dies.

People are idiots. OMG Kirk died, yeah, but what’s the time frame of his death?

There is 40 years of Star Trek material here Abrams and Orci. How about not trying to piss off the fans and respect the series. You can easily put Kirk into this movie if you use your brains and really think about it.

HINT: Before he dies, not after. OK? OK.

287. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#265 “the real question is, why werent other ships available to respond”

Exactly. That was totally out of logic. Enterprise being the only ship in range when it was still in the solar system is a *huge* hole in the plot. My suspension of disbelief cracked a lot.

288. Magic_Al - January 21, 2008

I agree you’d need the whole movie bring back Kirk decently, just like it took a whole movie to get Spock back. The whole Nexus thing would have to be rehashed but then you could probably just get Kirk alive out of the Nexus again, since apparently Guinan was still in there even though she lived outside it too. The Nexus could be an infinite Kirk dispenser. Kirk dies again, get another one out of the Nexus.

Like I said, you’d need a whole movie to make that work and it might not be a good movie.

289. Gabriel Bell - January 21, 2008

I’m guessing others have brought this up before, but I can’t get my head around how on one hand “there is a fight to protect canon” and the other hand “there is a fight to get Kirk in the movie.”

Anyone else see how you can’t really be fighting for those two things at the same time? (Outside of the ridiculous “resurrected DNA” or “mind-meld to avoid his death” or “reset” scenarios.)

Anyway, I love and embrace all 700 hours. Devotedly.

290. Spockster - January 21, 2008

Could Shatner be in the movie? Sure. In the role of James T. Kirk? No, but since the story seems to focus on young Kirk, Spock, etc., there is no reason Shatner could not do a cameo playing a role like James Kirk’s grandfather or something similar.

Would he be willing to do a cameo of this sort? That’s his call, but opportunities are not that hard to create for an actor.

291. Kev-1 - January 21, 2008

Look, with all respect to Mr. Abrams, considering how convoluted the supposed plot for this movie is (time travel or flashbacks) it sounds like fan wankery (the plot of Gods and Men ), so finding a plausible way for Shatner doesn’t seem so difficult. The movie’s writer is posting on so many fan sites he’s everywhere. Heck, today’s lead story shows they’re inspired by fan produced images. But when it comes to Shatner it’s too fannish? I wish Shatner would not ask them for anything. He’s been with Trek simce the premier; he helped bring it back. These new guys will come and go.

292. roberto orci - January 21, 2008

291

I am not everywhere!

293. Trek Nerd Central - January 21, 2008

Well, that’s it, then. For once it sounds pretty final.

Can we all move on, now? It’s time to graduate from denial to the remaining stages of grief.

294. dalek - January 21, 2008

#284 well said. It’s awful when the fans persecute and label each other for merely having a differing opinion. Would rather see passion about the issues rather than witch hunts and insults on here.

295. Scott - January 21, 2008

Yes we are geeks.
Well it looks like we will have to wait
& see if Shat can get in the next film.

296. Voice - January 21, 2008

Berman Trek was such a failure. Generations was a way to erase Gene (kill Kirk, destroy the E-D). I say erase Generations. It never happened. The Nexus was stupid. Kirk died like an idiot. Erase it.

297. Magic_Al - January 21, 2008

Maybe if Enterprise were still on they could finally do the Mirror Universe episode where they meet Mirror Kirk (who of course never died trying to save anyone). If it aired during the run-up to the new movie, like Spock’s TNG episode to promote Star Trek VI, it would make commercial sense and be a consolation prize for there being no old Kirk alive movie’s universe. Oh well.

298. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 284 I AGREE. Share the love! It should be at worst like a light hearted/well inentioned family disagreement. Not gang war! : )

# 292 Tell me you are not finding all of us blathering on (on both sides) just the slightest bit amusing!?

I love the paradox that if we ask you if it is a marketing ploy and you say no, how do we know that’s not as much a part of the ploy as what JJ and Shatner have said.

As I said above I really look forward to looking back on this time as a fan.

I don’t think that’s a paradox.

299. BaronByng - January 21, 2008

Unless there’s a valid dramatic reason for having Older Kirk in the picture (as Shatner refuses to do a cameo appearance as someone else), he shouldn’t be in it.

The film is already in production. The script is written WITHOUT HIM. At this point, trying to find a way to involve Shatner in a meaningful way would entail MAJOR script rewrites, and if you haven’t noticed, there’s a writer’s strike on.

They also have to deliver this movie on-time and on-budget, and such a rewrite would put that in jeopardy.

I think the internet fanboy pleading for Shatner only feeds a rather mistaken belief on his part that he somehow “needs” to be in this movie for it to succeed. I think having “Denny Crane as Kirk” would be distracting and harmful to a proper big-screen reboot of the franchise (not reimagining) — and it would overshadow Chris Pine, who has to work very hard to make this iconic character his own.

Consider what Pine is doing in the light of Daniel Craig taking over the Bond role. The producers of Casino Royale chose very consciously to break with established traditions (no Q, gadgets, plots-to-take-over-the-world) and focus making a great movie with fantastic dialogue and acting. If you didn’t know it was a Bond movie you’d STILL consider it a great spy thriller.

Craig underwent a torrent of fanboy whining about how he “wasn’t Bond” and there were petitions to bring back older actors….but in the end he blew everyone away. He was even nominated for a BAFTA (the British Oscar), something no Bond actor before ever got. He’s certainly the equal of Connery in many people’s opinions, and possibly a bit better (as he has more emotional range).

To wedge Shatner in would be to deny Chris Pine his kick at doing a different, and possibly, a BETTER Kirk than Shatner’s. Maybe that’s what people are afraid of; a subtle, nuanced performance that wasn’t derived from the 1950s Stratford Festival-era of acting and directing.

In the end, it looks like Shatner’s trading his dignity for cash, vanity or both. If you hated Generations, then at least consider ST VI a dignified send-off and leave it at that.

or…

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/shatner_william_cp_3537059.jpg

300. Jordan - January 21, 2008

I couldn’t agree more with Abrams.

301. CW - January 21, 2008

Does it strike anyone else funny to first say “canon, shmanon! Khan and Chekov! Canonites are evil”…. and THEN say “Keep Kirk out! He died in Generations”.

Anyone?

Personally, I would have hoped that Orci and Co. would have been able to fix that stupid “Kirk off a cliff” thing as well as some other writing goofs- like Khan and Chekov.

Oh well…

302. Gene - January 21, 2008

I just read an article on hollywood.com, that negotiations moving forward to resolve the writer’s strike prior to the Feb. 24th telecast of the Oscars.

Article here: http://www.hollywood.com/news/Striking_Writers_Studios_Eye_Informal_Talks/5048666

I know the powers-that-be don’t what happened at the Globes to happen to the Oscars.

Maybe…with the strike over…the Trek team may be able to evaluate the Shat situation further Mr. Orci?

Gene

303. Da Big Fire-Chief! - January 21, 2008

What’s the big deal? If JJ Abrams wants Shatner in the movie then the writers will pull a “scriptus fantasticus” and devise a plausible way to do so. But the point is that such an appearance needs to be integral to the storyline and must make sense in that regard. If it is gratuitous then it makes no sense to me to include

Of cours, there is also the question of shatner’s fees. :)

304. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 299 That’s a bit cruel. We all have bad days! ; )

I prefer:

http://trekmovie.com/images/sttt/15304585anthonypascale119200833928AM.jpg

305. Captain Amazing!! - January 21, 2008

I agree. In order to bring back Kirk respectively, the entire script would need to focus on that scenario. I wholeheartedly agree with 288 on the Guinan still in the Nexus thing. If she’s there and outside the Nexus then so is Kirk. Except since the “real” Kirk is dead, the Nexus “pseudo-Kirk” would theoretically be able to exit.

Personally, it pains me thinking of how shoddy Berman and co. treated the character. He got a hero’s death in the beginning of the film even though he wasn’t dead, only to be carelessly killed by some terrible accident. Not worthy of the character. I know how many think of such things, but I would love to see the Next Gen films somehow written off as alternate timelines, altered history due to some time traveling ne’er do-well, or something to that effect. The continuity in those films is pathetically sad considering they were all written and produced by the same people who also happened to have written and produced the show they were based on. They are fairly entertaining, especially First Contact, with the exception of Nemesis which in my opinion is the worst Trek film period (Final Frontier may have it’s problems, but at least it’s an exciting adventure story…Nemesis’ excitement stems from it’s over the top action scenes- it’s sad that Nemesis most likely had a higher budget and that Final Frontier’s problems could have been solved with one), however I feel those Next Gen films really aren’t much more than stand alone high budget episodes.

I’d love to see the return of Kirk. I’d be happy seeing him in the film, stuffed into it or not, but I realize to really do it justice and be respectful of the fans, characters, actors etc. you’d need to have it work within the confines of the story.

306. Xai - January 21, 2008

286. Something smells awry in Abramsville – January 21, 2008
“# 214. j w wright – You are spot on. “this would not involve bringing kirk back from the dead… this would be kirk before the 1701B incident… before he is killed… b e f o r e not after.”

Producer Orci mentioned “Creative License” as to why they are building Enterprise on EARTH and not in SPACE. LOL.

OK, well obviously there is another reason Shatner is not in this film as they could easily show future Kirk and Spock BEFORE not After Kirk Dies.

People are idiots. OMG Kirk died, yeah, but what’s the time frame of his death?

There is 40 years of Star Trek material here Abrams and Orci. How about not trying to piss off the fans and respect the series. You can easily put Kirk into this movie if you use your brains and really think about it.

HINT: Before he dies, not after. OK? OK. ”

Before he died…hmmm. How do they account for the 14 years difference in age from Generations (1994) and XI (2008). He doesn’t look the same and didn’t look the same in the Direct TV commercial from a year ago when they inserted him.

Add him if the story warrants it, if it doesn’t..don’t. That seems to be what the poll shows currently.

Should Abrams put Shatner in Star Trek

YES…’shove him in’ no matter what (23%)
Only if it works with the story (47%)
I don’t care (6%)
NO! (24%)

307. Lancelot Narayan - January 21, 2008

I’m really enjoying this thread, but let’s face it: Jim Shatner ain’t coming back. Let’s just enjoy the new movie. Those pics of Quinto and Pine together at the Cloverfield prem were just too cool and this could really work.

308. Xai - January 21, 2008

And in my opinion… NO ONE is trying to piss off the fans. If anything it appears the production team is attempting to revitalize the Star Trek franchise with some freshened ideas AND is working to make this a film for fans and non-fans like.

309. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

Kirk is dead… ressurect Sisko…what… ???.. .this isn’t a Kirk Trek or Spock Trek show..

310. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

#310 siad “Does it strike anyone else funny to first say “canon, shmanon! Khan and Chekov! Canonites are evil”…. and THEN say “Keep Kirk out! He died in Generations”.”

Not really. Those of us who aren’t stuck on the “canon” don’t mind new actors and don’t mind leaving the other 700 hour of Trek as their own thing and this new film as something else.

As such, we don’t need to see Shat as Kirk again (as cool as that might be in the right circumstances) anymore than we need Abrams to keep canon.

I just want something I haven’t had in a very long time- well made Trek flick.

If JJ and Co. have to break the eggs of canon and a few thespian egos to get us the viewing public that tasty Trek omelet, then so be it.

311. Xai - January 21, 2008

* alike

typo

312. Snooks - January 21, 2008

As has been said here before, Shatner doesn’t need to be in the movie to give all of us the peace we demand. All Spock has to do is whisper a few choice words to a young Kirk (“avoid rickety catwalks unless used for the purposes of modeling the latest Starfleet unis” or “Dude, just shoot that guy, it’ll be the 24th century after all, and fisticuffs are sooooo 23rd” or “If you shoot that guy, I’ll line up a harem of Orion gals to wax your Jefferies Tube”) and all is well. We can imagine the rest, and maybe hope for a righteous Shat Attack in ST12.

[I am totally going to get killed for that Jefferies Tube remark, but I can't bring myself to erase it]

If the rumors are true about a planned trilogy of “alternate timeline” movies that eventually re-connect with our canonized timeline, then there are plenty of chances to fix this problem, it doesn’t have to happen now in 11. True, there’s a risk that Shat and Nimoy won’t be around that long, but we can hope it works out.

Knowing Abram’s love of trickery, I’m still not counting Shat out for ST11. If he/they are planning a surprise, the only way to keep it surprising is to lie about it. They’re all actors, after all, so all of this apparent friction is easily faked. And it doesn’t take much to get Trek fandom wound up past the point of reason :) Personally, if there is a surprise coming, I don’t want it spoiled. I’d rather not hear another word about Shatner-in/out-ST2008.

And really, I don’t much care anyway. I’d love to see it happen, but there’s no way I’d skip this film or write it off just because they fail to include Shatner and/or solve the Generations issue, build the ship on land, or paint the corridors a new, tropical color. It’s just silly to worry so much about it. I know lots of you out there are saying the opposite, but I bet I see you in the theater. It’s Star Trek, man.

We, as Trek fans, are hugely fortunate that what is arguably the most creative, not to mention most popular and sought-after (the two rarely intersect) team in TV/film right now chose to come into our little sandbox and throw up some castles. Bitching about the minutiae is kinda like getting a date with the girl or guy you’ve coveted for ten years, but then complaining in a Seinfeldian way about how s/he chews, or that you don’t like the color of the limo that’s gonna drive you to the restaurant. Slow down, think about it, and just sit back and enjoy the experience. If it’s terrible, we can complain about it then. For now, I’m just excited and hopeful.

Another thing:I don’t recall Shatner (or any of us) being pissy about not appearing in First Contact, Insurrection, or Nemesis. Sure, there’s a lure for him and us because it’s the TOS characters this time around, but in the end, if this annoyance of his IS genuine, I have to place it squarely on the shoulders of money and maybe a little jealousy that Nimoy got the call and he didn’t. After all, he WAS offered a very juicy role in (the underrated-but-excellent) S4 of ENT, to reprise his “Mirror, Mirror” Tiberius character in a two or three part sequence of episodes, which would have 1) Been off the scale of coolness, and 2) Explained and canonized much of the background of his own Mirror Universe trilogy of books (setting the groundwork for the very resurrection of Kirk he apparently craves now). It didn’t happen because they couldn’t match his salary demands. So if story and the life of his character were really his motivating factors (as he seems to suggest now), I humbly submit that he woulda said “yes” to ENT and took a pay cut, for the enrichment of story and character (not to mention the boost in sales of his suddenly canonized and relevant books). But he said “no.” So if he isn’t in ST11 I’m not gonna shed a lot of tears. Karma’s a bitch, but she’s fair.

313. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

I know! I know!

We find out that just as Picard was cloned by the Romulans, so was Kirk (cloned by someone who had perfected the process) and his clone is alive and in the movie because he never went to Veridian III — ta daaaaaaa! J. J. can fill in the blanks and the “Canon” is unviolated.

Joking, but serious. That’s a possibility. But I’m going to see the movie, and love it, regardless.

kg

P.S. In my previous posting (#278) when I referred to poster #199, the line “What is it with you?” is the poster’s name. I wasn’t yelling at him (in case it looked that way).

314. Stephmtl - January 21, 2008

Trailer up

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809752801/video/6027003/20080121/74/6027003-700-flash-s.55925328-,6027003-300-wmv-s.55925283-,6027003-700-wmv-s.55925292-,6027003-100-wmv-s.55925276-,6027003-300-flash-s.55925321-,6027003-1000-wmv-s.55925297-,6027003-100-flash-s.55925309-,6027003-1000-flash-s.55925334-,6027008-6800-qtv-s.55925401-,6027008-2700-qtv-s.55925383-,6027008-10300-qtv-s.55925407-

315. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

..this isn’t even an Enterprise Trek show…

316. Trek Nerd Central - January 21, 2008

#301

I think you touch on the heart of the issue, which is really fan dissatisfaction with Kirk’s death.

If it were better conceived — if Generations were a better film — fans wouldn’t be so hungry to see it “fixed” in Star Trek XI. There was no decent closure. It’s an open wound. That’s why it would have felt right, even just, to find a way to wedge Shatner in.

That said, I still don’t understand everyone who refuses to see the movie if Shatner isn’t in it — an attitude that misses the forest for the trees.

317. Noleuser - January 21, 2008

Cheve, I like you. You say EXACTLY what I’m thinking, I don’t have to post anything, I can just use you as my proxy.

318. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

#312 wins the argument w/ this quote:

“So if story and the life of his character were really his motivating factors (as he seems to suggest now), I humbly submit that he woulda said “yes” to ENT and took a pay cut, for the enrichment of story and character (not to mention the boost in sales of his suddenly canonized and relevant books). But he said “no.” So if he isn’t in ST11 I’m not gonna shed a lot of tears. Karma’s a bitch, but she’s fair.”

Well said, sir, well said!

319. PaoloM - January 21, 2008

#312 “If the rumors are true about a planned trilogy of “alternate timeline” movies that eventually re-connect with our canonized timeline…”

I sincerely hope not. I hate plots based on alternate timelines. Makes me feel that what I am watching is sort of… fake. IMO this new movie must be a totally fresh Trek back to its roots, straight and bold, not a messy, geeky, nerdy timewarp.

320. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

TOS remains dusted..there are still 3 ST shows without any movie..

321. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

I would like to see Sisko or Seven of nine again..

322. Captain Otter - January 21, 2008

319 said “I sincerely hope not. I hate plots based on alternate timelines. Makes me feel that what I am watching is sort of… fake. ”

What, like the rest is a documentary?

Fiction is fiction, folks. Anything goes. That’s what makes it fun. Remember?

323. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#317.

XD Thank you. XDD

324. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

..But i don’t think that i will see again the uniforms introduced with FIRST CONTACT..or the next…just uniforms from a dusty past..too bad..

325. Darren - January 21, 2008

Shatner as Kirk could appear at the end, if older Spock tells younger Spock to inform Kirk to either miss the Enterprise-B launch, or how to survive Soran on Veridian 3. Ok, it’s not a huge role, but at least he’d be back.

326. Cheve - January 21, 2008

#316
“That said, I still don’t understand everyone who refuses to see the movie if Shatner isn’t in it — an attitude that misses the forest for the trees.”

Nope. They are missing the forest because there isn’t their favourite Oak Tree

327. Trek Nerd Central - January 21, 2008

#326.

Touche. Nice one.

328. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-DUST! The place of TOS is now on junk yard…not on the screen…

329. Kirok Fan - January 21, 2008

I just don’t understand why it would be so “tricky” to get old Kirk in the movie.

We know that Old Spock goes back and meets young Spock. Therefore, the entire timeline would be altered from the moment the two Spocks meet. When the Old Spock returns to the future, then, Kirk could be alive.

No explanation would be needed other than that the timeline has been altered, and thus, Kirk somehow avoided crossing paths with a falling bridge.

It is as simple as that. So incredibly simple, in fact, that to continue claiming that “it’s tricky” is sounding more and more like a complete and utter baldface lie.

330. Joao Almeida - January 21, 2008

Did anyone read Nimoys’ contract? I wander…

331. Dave - January 21, 2008

There are a lot of gooed points on this thread supporting BOTH arguments pro and anti Shatner.

For what it’s worth…. Here’s my opinions:

First and FOREMOST. .. Whether he’s in or not, they’re still NOT going to tell us!!!! How can youy hype a movie if everybody already knows plot, story twists, surprise endings and special FX??? Remember everyone, Stat convinced a whole town he was making a movie and it was all a joke-documentary.

If they say, yeah he’s in…. there’s nothin more to hype or look forward to…. if they say he’s not in fanboys everywhere will boycott the movie and be up in arms.

Second, Shat only talks about Trek when asked a direct question about it… they keep asking, he keeps giving the same answer and how he feel about it.

Doesn’t this all remind you of that scene in generations at the begining when the press keeps asking Kirk how he “feels” about not being Captain of the Enterprise? Does life imitate art????

Despite that they were not the best movies… TMP and STV were closer to the original series mission than any other movies. Even tho the story was not great and effect suffered, characters were not right, the mission was right.

Really wanna forget the nexus, destroy it in the past… then no Soran, noe Enterprise B disruption, no generations & no dead Kirk.

If old Spock mindmelds with young Spock, wouldn’t that alter the altered timeline, even when put it’s set right? How can old Spock tell young Spock about the future without altering young Spock’s future actions??? – especially to find out you’ll be more Human than you want to.

I’m gonna die in a plexiglass chamber and be brought back to life more human?????? Screw that! Im going to the Vulcan Science Academy like Dad wanted!

At any rate let’s all reserve judgement and review the movie AFTER it opens.

332. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

- I WANT SISKO to appear in the movie …yap…!

333. Captain Hackett - January 21, 2008

#296 Voice

I absolutely agree with you. Berman is the worst canon abuser that I had ever seen.

That is why I was pissed off when he brought up an idea about the death of Kirk and Bill accepted his idea. Oh, he now has regretted the death of Kirk and then this issue has torn us apart here.

Should Shatner not accepted this kind of idea, the heated arguments here would not happened. If I were him, I would told Berman to keep Kirk alive when he came out of the Nexus.

Unfortnately, it is too late and we have to accept and respect JJ’s decision.

334. Iowagirl - January 21, 2008

#193
I was thinking the same.

#329
Spot-on.

335. Aphelion - January 21, 2008

Don’t be ridiculous, JJ! Shatner is Captain Kirk… the man who launched a thousand starships. Does it really matter if there’s a fanboy-ish vibe to the film if he appeared it in? Hell, I wish the people behind the Trek franchise would go fanboy on us for once. Why so much restraint? You want the cash cow back, make us happy. What’s wrong with my logic here. Oh and JJ, your quote is a little silly since Nimoy died onscreen too. No one says the movie has to be about resurrecting Kirk. And honestly, all you need to do is have a starstruck cadet ask him didn’t he die, and have Kirk give him a wink. Problem solved — on with the movie.

336. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME..???
I WANT SISKO TO BE RESSURECT IN THE NEXT MOVIE….I MISS DS -9..NOT THAT DUSTED TOS..YEAK…!!!

337. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-TOS IS DUSTED !!!

338. DEMODE - January 21, 2008

I would die a happy man if Shatner was in this movie. I don’t want to see him come back in a “sequel” to this movie. No… I would want to see him in this movie. Any sequel after this film should have neither Shatner or Nimoy in it.

I hope this is all to throw us off, and in fact Shatner is in the movie. I would leave the theatre a happy man if that was the case. If he isn’t in the film, I will probably only go see this movie at the theatre once, no matter how good it is. Without Shatner, it will just feel anti-climatic to me.

339. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

-MOVE ON, PEOPLE THE FUTURE IS NOT THE PAST…

340. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

I WANT SIKO..BACK..WHAT DS9 DOESN`T MEAN STAR TREK TO YOU.. SHAME..

341. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

Or maybe because is black…?

342. Ivory - January 21, 2008

It’s not realistic to include Shatner as Kirk, but it’s totally plausible that old Spock goes back in time and meets young Spock?

Or that Spock can be shot from a space ship in deep space at thousands of miles per hour and soft land on a planet where he just happens to be re-born in a body that looks exactly as Leonard Nimoy did in Star Trek II. Oh, and I forgot that his”katra” was just put back in his head after a few minutes of some spooky Vulcan mubo jumbo.

Remember the TNG epsiode where the entire cast were turned into inscets or whatever they were?

How about the nexus where you can simply think yourself out of?

How about when Spock’s brain was taken from his skull + then quickly put back.

Or when Data was possessed Linda Blair style?

You get the idea. This is Star Trek and anything can happen.

The fact of the matter is that THEY NEVER WANTED SHATNER. If they did he would be in the film. They are insulting our intelligence by saying they couldn’t figure out how to put him in.

343. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

AVERY BROOKS ISN`T GOOD FOR BUISNESS LIKE SHATNER A…?

344. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

OR THAT SILLY NIMOY..

345. Ivory - January 21, 2008

XAI#306

USA Today is running a poll and nearly 70% are upset that Shatner has been excluded.

I don’t think the numbers from a board like this are accurate. The people are too close to the film. The general public wants Shatner back as Kirk.

346. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

Marian Ciobanu
warning for spamming and trolling
comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

347. Mike Thompson UK - January 21, 2008

If they are that good at writing they could have found away!

I for one can immediately see Kirk picked out of Enterprise B before the Nexus hit, or the last Kirk out of the Nexus.

God he still looks good in the Captains chair!

Another missed opportunity from Paramount, though still believe if Leonard had said NO it would have been Bill’s film.

348. Mike Thompson UK - January 21, 2008

Anyway still enjoyed Genarations but the Film should of had the entire
TOS cast meets TNG. Now I’d pay double to have seen that.

349. TK - January 21, 2008

I’m going to repeat what some of us have been saying in this thread, in case Mr Orci might see it.

It would be really touching to see the last meeting of JTK and Spock B E F O R E the Enterprise B incident in this movie. Just thinking about it brings a tear to my eyes…. but then as I said before, I don’t know the plot line so it may not make sense to have this scene.

I am now officially against any other involvement of Bill Shatner’s Kirk in the movie! Unless it makes sense that is….I don’ twant to see him just for the sake of it. There, I’ve said it!!!

350. Alex - January 21, 2008

Shatwar again.

Well here’s a quick fix: when the WGA strike ends, AFTER the credits (since fanboys will know there’s a big secret) , put a scene where Nimoy Spock is back in the 24th century and Shatner Kirk is there waiting for him (because of changes he made to the timeline).

SPOCK: Jim? How?

KIRK: There are always possibilities.

Spock smiles, Kirk smiles. THE END. No explanation needed, everyone goes home happy, and you pass the torch to the new generation without a ridiculous Shatner-Kirk exposition moment to please the fanboys who’d whine either way.

351. Jon - January 21, 2008

We’ve had Trek without Shatner since 1994 and Trek without Nimoy since 1991. So I say it’s Nimoy’s turn since Shatner was up last.

And yes, you’re dead, Jim.

352. dalek - January 21, 2008

Spock’s going back in time to save Kirk’s life from an alternate timeline.

Kirk died on Veridian 3 in an alternate timeline, in an ACCIDENT, for goodness sake.

What makes one alternate timeline death any less wrong than the other? The fact that one of them happens when he’s younger?

Captain Kirk is the central protagonist of Star Trek again. If you’re gonna save his life, do it properly Spock!

Setting up a second death of Kirk and not caring about the first one just feels pointless.

There is no way that a plot involving time travel could not accomodate a plausible reason for the resurrection of Kirk. All he has to do is avoid jumping on that bit of bridge, or have the elder Spock beam him up seconds before he falls.

353. Green-blooded-bastard - January 21, 2008

#329

You’re assuming Spock knows that’s how Kirk died, as opposed to everyone that was there to report it thinking he died trying to save people from the Nexus in the enterprise-B. For all you know, that’s how Spock remembers Kirk dying.

354. TK - January 21, 2008

#350, I like that solution too!!!

355. TK - January 21, 2008

Reminds me of the “Pride and Prejudice” situation, the US ending was differnet from the UK ending (i didn’t like the US ending by the way, too cheesy), how about having two endings, >Mr. Orci??

356. AKO - January 21, 2008

I’d like to think there are always possibilities

357. TREK LIVES! - January 21, 2008

Everything that is wrong about modern trek started with Generations and to go back and rehash that turd is to dirty up the new Trek. Mr. Shatner deserves his share of blame – he allowed Kirk to die that way for the sake of his big fath paycheck. Live and let learn.

358. dalek - January 21, 2008

#350 Definitely works, I’ve seen the idea bandied around here and other places a lot and like it very much.

359. richpit - January 21, 2008

Maybe I’m weird, but I’m a STAR TREK fan, not just a Shatner fan. I mean, I like Shatner, but #14, I wouldn’t go see a “Denny Crane” movie instead of Star Trek just because it has the Shat in it.

Weren’t any of you Shatner fanatics fans of TNG…clearly Star Trek without Shatner. And it was successful too!

360. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 350 Very nice. I have said before it could work really well without an explanation.

What better than to leave it to our imaginations.

361. SPB - January 21, 2008

THE THING THAT WORRIES ME ABOUT STICKING SHATNER IN “TREK XI…”

…is that, if they successfully accomplish writing him into the film…

…does that mean we’re going to start hearing unending cries for Walter Koenig, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Majel Barrett, et al, to be shoehorned in to STAR TREK 12?

Do we have to keep “passing the torch” until all the original actors are on their deathbeds?

362. Mark T. - January 21, 2008

This is what I love about Trek Fandom and the fans posting on this site in particular. On one hand, many are arguing that there are countless ways to logically and realistically bring a beloved character BACK FROM THE DEAD. While on the other hand, many are arguing that to construct an aircraft carrier-sized starship on the ground and somehow launch it into space some 300 years from now, is unrealistic and illogical. What a hoot. Honestly, I haven’t done the research to find out if the people creating resurrection plots are also the folks crying foul over ground-based construction. I just find the passion in both arguments very interesting.

That said, I think it’s obvious that J.J. and gang are fairly creative types and can think of the same millions of ways to bring back Kirk. Anyone who has seen “Lost” can testify that they do know how to spin interesting, and involving, plot webs. They have also had their share of stinkers on that show as well. So, bearing all of that in mind, I have no trouble believing that they are “working to find a way to fit Shatner in”. Sure, they can come up with a million ways, but only a handful will actually serve the story without grinding it to a halt. So, if they have the right story, if Mr. Shatner is amenable, then, they will do it. If not, I still trust them. I have said it before. M.I.3 sealed the deal for me.

..and having said THAT, I am still convinced that they HAVE the plot, a deal has been struck and our captain will somehow make it into this picture.

363. SPB - January 21, 2008

#350 -

1) Shatner has stated he’s against showing up in TREK XI for “just” a cameo.

2) Those few seconds of screen time would probably cost the producers at least a cool million.

364. Kevin - January 21, 2008

“15….yes
that is standard practice these days for franchise films…and I believe it is three films.”

Thanks, Anthony :)

365. Harsh - January 21, 2008

Hasn’t Nimoy (who has read and approved of this script) said the movie would be better with Shatner in it?

Wouldn’t he be in a position to know if having Shatner in the film would work or not?

366. dalek - January 21, 2008

#363 it wouldnt be a simple cameo. It would be his most meaningful appearance as Kirk — showing him alive and well. He’s regretted killing the character, he knows the filming only has a few weeks to go (so knows he won’t have a major part), and he’s still open for a role.

367. star trackie - January 21, 2008

359 “Weren’t any of you Shatner fanatics fans of TNG…”

Not me.

368. Cdr Cody - January 21, 2008

A nice way to end it, assuming all the planned leaks about the story line are somewhat accurate, that is Spock goes back in time to foil a Romulan plot to change the future, leading to another time line, would be to have Spock a the end enter a large comfortable area. Seated around and talking is the entire old crew. Everybody, Rand, Chapel, Sulu, the works. The characters of McCoy, Scott, and Sarek can be put in using CGI technology or something like that.

If this is a new timeline then in this one maybe Kirk did not die. They discuss this and that, maybe asking how Spock’s mission went and drink a toast to the future.

I know it sounds trite, but it would be nice seeing ALL the old Trek crew together one last time.

369. Trekee - January 21, 2008

@292 – Roberto

Well, we at least now know that the film should have good comic timing….

:-)

370. Mark T. - January 21, 2008

Let me add something to my post above..

As a huge “Buffy” fan, there were many things I wanted to see happen with the characters re. relationships, living, dying, resurrecting, etc. When things didn’t go as I thought they should, I would be, shall we say, “distressed” by the seeming illogic of the writer’s decisions.

Then I read an interview with series creator Joss Whedon on the very subject of writer’s decisions. He acknowledged fan’s dissatisfaction and countered with “we are giving the viewers what they need, not what they want”. Admittedly at first, I thought that was incredibly smug. However, I came to realize that in most, if not all, of the situations, I ended up agreeing with their decisions. Had I gotten my heart’s desires, it would have been nice..but it would have made for a mediocre story. What came out in the end, was much more satisfying.

Just another thought for keeping an open mind about things..

371. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #365 Harsh

Really? Did Nimoy say that? Do you remember where? I’d love to read it.

and

Re: #359 richpit

Good point. It was successful. He’s got you there…

372. anonymous - January 21, 2008

they could quite easily work him in, simply have it take place before he died. there are probably other reasons they don’t want him in it.

373. Harsh - January 21, 2008

#371 said:

“Re: #365 Harsh

Really? Did Nimoy say that? Do you remember where? I’d love to read it.”

I don’t recall exactly when but I remember reading it on this site, months ago.

374. Scott - January 21, 2008

Hello JJ or anyone on the Star Trek Team,
Please consider putting Shat
in one of the next two films!
If you like Shat as much as you
say you do, you’ll find a way!!!
Please give us hope.
Like at your next press encounter throw hope a bone.
Help us cope with the negative
feelings some of us have regarding
the No Fan Boy Service & the return of Kirk.
Shat is a North America Icon!
You were tossed the keys for a reason.
Do the right thing!
Respect Shatner’s Kirk.
God knows Rick Berman did not.
And look what happened to that ass clown.
Not respecting the Shatner Kirk IMO is the Star Trek curse.
Plus how can you pass up the chance to capture
some that Shatner Nimoy Magic?
Thank you for your time & good luck.
Just Venting, Scott

375. Harsh - January 21, 2008

I’d like to point out that post #292 shows that Roberto Orci is not only monitoring this discussion but participating in it, while also sitting back and not confirming Abrams latest statement that Shatner isn’t in the film.

Why?

Either they want the speculation to cease, or they don’t.

This could all end right now.
Just tell us definitively:

Will Shatner be in the movie?
Was a Shatner as Kirk scene written into any draft or alternate version of the script in anticipation of the writer’s strike?

376. Marian Ciobanu - January 21, 2008

I hope that mr. ORCI is a good writer….HEY… i think that the name of the movie is just..’star trek’ not… ‘star trek 08′.Personally i like the trailer

377. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #373. Harsh

Thanks. I’ll sift through the articles and try to find it.

378. dalek - January 21, 2008

#373 i believe Nimoy said this at a convention when asked by Shatner. It went something like “I told JJ it would be better with you in it” words to that effect.

379. Bono Luthor - January 21, 2008

# 363 Worth. Every. Cent.

#362 I just want go on record as saying I am a ‘bring back Shatner’ type and I have no obsession about canon.

Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty the Enterprise, Bill as Kirk, Leonard as Spock, good and loyal friends having adventures in space. That’s pretty much my canon.

Obviously it would include Deforest and Jimmy if they were still with us.

I liked TNG and then wavered with DS9 stopped with Voyager and actually think some of what I have seen of Enterprise is pretty good.

But this prospect of seeing the original characters (old and young) has reminded me of what I’ve been missing since 1991.

380. Cheve - January 21, 2008

Going back in time to fix the timeline so it turns as it was supposed to beis something Spock would do. Even if it means having a life much more sad for him and the ones he cares about. That absolute understanding of right and wrong is one of the trades of the character.

Changing the timeline to resucitate a friend that is suposed to be dead is something Spock wouldn’t do. It is against anything Starfleet means, ilogical and the kind of things that EVIL characters do in Star Trek. One thing that Spock isn’t is an evil character that plays with the timeline in order to have things the way he would have liked them to be.

Star trek is not about the actors it is about the characters, and those suggestions are much more against the characters than Kirk with 60 years saying that it’s been fun to fight a badguy in a desert planet to save the universe, even if it suposed his heroic death, proving that he was a true hero all of his life.

381. star trackie - January 21, 2008

#375 “This could all end right now.
Just tell us definitively:

Will Shatner be in the movie?
Was a Shatner as Kirk scene written into any draft or alternate version of the script in anticipation of the writer’s strike? ”

Now that’s not asking for much. And how about a pic of the bridge and new phasers while your at it?…

Roberto isn’t about to spill the beans and ignite that powder keg anytime soon. Although I bet he wishes he could…so we would shut up about it! lol

382. The Realist - January 21, 2008

Thats right this is Trek and NO ONE IS REALY DEAD! You die in move 7 and BANG your back in movie 11! No consequences etc, we’ll just do a time travel thingy, leave a message on Kirks fridge “DO NOT GO TO LAUNCH OF ENT B, BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN” and every thing will be hunky dory, my god, leave him dead, stop bringing characters back from the dead. And get over Bill Shatner! He is not the centre of the Trek Universe, it got along just fine without him.

383. Vidar - January 21, 2008

They’ve changed the ship too much. It’s seems more like an alternate universe story now with the ship looking like a Battlestar Galactica re-make.

The most they should have done was tweek the Remastered Star Trek’s Enterprise for the Big Screen.

So much for J.J.’s promise to stay true to “Canon.”

384. Harsh - January 21, 2008

381:

It’s not asking too much if Shatner is indeed not in the movie. Why string people along only to disappoint them in the end? How is that good PR?
Either there are beans to spill or there aren’t.
If they wanted to end all of this they could. Clearly they don’t.

They don’t want to be definitive.
That’s fine.
I’m just that pointing out.

385. Sybok Amok - January 21, 2008

The solution for placing Shatner in the film is so simple & not even new to Trek.

Kirk’s echo (Shatner) leaves the Nexus & goes back in time to re-experience his earlier life. Just as Patrick Stewart played his younger self in TNG: Tapestry, Shatner could have easily played the younger Kirk. If any actor could have pulled this off, it’s Bill Shatner!

By the end of the movie Kirk is restored to the elder Spock’s timeline and Shatner & Nimoy would be set for Star Trek XII.

386. Trekee - January 21, 2008

Old Time Travel Spock ™ takes a young Kirk aside…

“Look Jimmy Boy, I know this messes up the future and everything but if a bald guy comes up to you when you are frying eggs at any point and wants you to save his so-called-Enterprise and a planet full of people no one can even remember the name of, tell him to take a hike… I’ll pop by and get you later….”

“Oh, OK… you sure no one will mind?”

“Oh, no one that matters…”

Now how hard is that? ;-)

387. Snooks - January 21, 2008

291/292:

Roberto Orci is, in fact, a manifestation of emergent AI cobbled together from abandoned Burger King viral sites and “Leave Britney Alone!” links. He is not human, and is, indeed, everywhere.

It’s a documented fact (check Bureau of Homeland Security data if you don’t believe me) that over half of all internet traffic is actually The Orci Memetic talking to itself in chat rooms and forums, executing searches on Google.com for “Salma Hayek eating soup,” and posting high-priced auctions on Ebay for “genuine pixels used in the rendering of Optimus Prime’s codpiece and lips.”

388. Classic trek - January 21, 2008

what a terrible shame that mr shatner isnt in it. a fantastic opportunity missed- if he doesnt appear. in ten years time i think that decision will be regretted unfortunately. this is fantasy said Uhura in trek 3 – not reality. im sure a way could have been found-where theres a will theres a way.

sure i know abrams is going to make a fab picture and im really excitited by the whole project but for me ill be thinking of the shat before during and after seeing this movie. to anyone who grew watching his iconic kirk character -youll know what im talking about. this guy IS captain kirk. im excitied about chris pine portraying the role -but it would have been amazing for old kirk to appear and hand over as it were.

dissapointing – if this news is true
greg
UK

389. Trekee - January 21, 2008

(If you’re REALLY upset then that Picard won’t subsequently defeat the Borg and Earth gets assimilated in First Contact then he *could* I suppose hand Picard the frying pan to thump Soran with.

But let’s face it, if the Nexus is so sodding clever, it should have fashioned them with rocket launchers and a ‘don’t stand on the bridge’ pamphlet…)

390. Captain Presley - January 21, 2008

I’m surprised at all the venom thrown and JJ Abrahms, Roberto Orci and Bill Shatner, all based on speculation. Has anyone actually read the script (Mr. Orci excluded)? Do we know for a fact that Shatner is not in the movie? Do we know that Shatner’s fee was too much?

I’ve said it before, the last laugh will be on us come Dec. 25th. I think Bill has been in the script all along. There is too much publicity surrounding an actor NOT being in a movie. Bill is a good “Actor”. JJ is a good actor too.

391. rob z - January 21, 2008

Two things to consider: what is the positive or negative that can happen with Shatner in the film?

Positive? For the millions of fans who want him in it, the closure that has been sought since the 1994 death scene would allow them to go home feeling that something cinematically wrong has been corrected.

Negative? If the new movie does appear to have Shatner “ridiculously thrown into the story” then so be it, we move on to the next movie and continue with the new cast.

The positive appears to outweight the negative considering Shat is 77 years old in 2008 and in good health. Let him end his career with Trek on an upswing.

392. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 380:
“Star trek is not about the actors it is about the characters”

It is about the characters as played by the original actors.

393. Aethernaut - January 21, 2008

Would you like me to call you a WAAAAAAMBULANCE, Mr. Shatner? Jesus, get the over it Bill, just because you’re an egomaniac doesn’t mean you get to be in every Star Trek movie ever created.

394. Snooks - January 21, 2008

393:

Yeah. I’m an egomaniac, and I haven’t been in a single Trek movie.

395. Statica - January 21, 2008

I always thought Shatner could have a cameo as his own grandfather or something instead. Perhaps a prosthetic nose to make him look a bit different.

It’s obvious there’ll be scenes with Kirk as an infant or child in the film, so if they just popped him in as his own grandfather that would be kind of cool.

396. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

To Shat or not to Shat
That is no longer a question
Whether it be nobler to suffer
The stops and starts
Of the the Shat’s
Outrageous acting style
Is academic at this point in time!

397. S. John Ross - January 21, 2008

#395: Yeah, one of the stranger (and, to my mind, fishier) things about the way we’ve seen the topic officially addressed is that they always seem to treat it as a given that “Shatner in Movie” equals “Shatner Portraying Kirk in Movie,” which is an odd thing to assume, IMO.

That said, this does sound very final, barring a “gotcha” surprise appearance that was planned from day one.

398. SirMartman - January 21, 2008

Sooooo anyway,,,,

I hear theres a rumour going around that William Shatner will be in the NEXT Star Trek movie,,, !!!

Isnt that great !!

:-D

399. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 386 Ballz

If you go back and look at the series, 95% of Shatner’s performances were not over-the-top ham acting. He did some very good stuff on that show, especially in the first season.

400. josepepper - January 21, 2008

My God it’s time for Shatner to stop whining, he sounds like a 12 year old girl. He would have been far more respected and loved if he would have been gracious and given this film his blessing. As much as I like most of his work (as Kirk) he really ought to shut the hell up about it being a bad business decision and all the other nonsense. He is starting to lose the respect of his fans and the writers/producers that made him what he is today

jeez

401. Positive Vorticity - January 21, 2008

Despite being a Trek fan, at the end of the day, my life will go on just fine if the Shat is not in XI (no flames, please). Would I like to see him in it? Of course, but not just for the sake of getting him in it. Everyone seems to have some fantastically serious and elaborate way to get him it. It really could be done very simply and even as a side plot without connection to the main plot and likely near the end of the flick. In Generations, Picard assumed that Kirk was dead as he did not have a tricorder, so he just buried him with rocks. And he also apparently did not tell anyone about Kirk. Suppose that he sent a message to Spock upon being rescued or even later in time. Spock, either in real time, or since he is already apparently doing some time traveling, travels to Veridian 3. He arrives, finds the rock grave and while staring at it, a few rocks fly off and a hand appears. Spock quickly starts removing rocks to reveal a living although badly injured Kirk. Kirk looks up at Spock and says something like “What took you so long? Who the hell put these rocks on me?” Kirk is alive, Shat is in the movie, we have a trademark Trek humorous Kirk-Spock scene and everyone is happy. Sure its little more than a cameo but we know Kirk’s alive and everyone who was not happy that Berman killed him off is happy except Berman. And besides, who cares if Berman gets ticked off the way he ruined things.

Of course, my first theory was that Orci and the boys did find a good way to do it long ago. Only they, Shat and Nimoy know it. Shat’s been instructed to piss and moan about not being in it. And they will shoot and edit it in at the last second, just in time to get the film to the theaters. And the result? Kirk is alive, Shat is in the movie, we possibly have a trademark Trek humorous Kirk-Spock scene and everyone is happy.

402. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

#399 Stanky

I agree. I LOVED the Shat’s acting in TOS!!! I am a huge fan in that regard and bought the TOS-HD First Season boxset. I love it and am fully intending to but Season 2 and 3 when they come out.

However….I watch Boston Legal every week and enjoy the Shat in it, BUT…it’s just not the same watching him anymore, know what I mean?

He seems like a bloated, buffoonish parody of his former self and even though it’s nice to see him still active in his late 70′s……the magic has been gone for a long time now………c’est la vie! :)

403. Greg2600 - January 21, 2008

Very disappointing news. This movie can never be great to move, only so so. A grand opportunity was lost.

I still don’t agree with J.J.’s (and Orci before him) comment that throwing Shatner in would be fanboy. Not for nothing, but who cares! If J.J. honestly thinks he is going to do a “Star Trek” movie, and isn’t going to hear all the insulting geek references from the mainstream scuzz-balls in the media, he’s crazy. Star Trek has not, nor will not, have the mass appeal of a Star Wars.

I don’t understand his fanboy notion at all. Apparently, that means if he wrote a script which essentially followed the plot of Shatner’s The Return, that would be fanboy? But bringing back Nimoy isn’t fanboy? If Kirk were alive, would it be fanboy to bring him into the story?

I just really friggin hate that word….fanboy. Technically, if you ask me, EVERYTHING is fanboy with something like Star Trek.

404. WannaBeatle - January 21, 2008

I dunno, I’d be upset too if I was in Bill’s shoes. Who knows, maybe his book The Return would be made into a movie or something. I read it a few years back and it reads pretty much like a script.

Plus, I’m sure he’s more hurt that Lenny is in the movie and he’s not. Nimoy was asked to be involved with Generations as an actor and director, but he turned it down.

405. jonboc - January 21, 2008

#400 “My God it’s time for Shatner to stop whining, he sounds like a 12 year old girl. He would have been far more respected and loved if he would have been gracious and given this film his blessing”

Check the “do you want Shatner in the movie” poll results as well as the poll over at USA Today. I don’t think Shat needs to worry any time soon about the lack of love coming from anti-Shats like yourself. He’s doing just fine without it.

406. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re:400
Again. Not whining. Asked questions – responds with answers. Giving your opinion is not whining. He has either been stating it matter-of-factly or with a little humor injected from time-to-time. In the USA Today thing, he certainly is not being critical of the new actors…to the contrary. In fact he compliments Pine and notes with no sense of negativity that they have been signed for more pictures.

Apparently the dislike for whining does not extend to the person who accuses it of happening :)

407. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 402 Harrison Spherical Objects for Use in Athletic Contests

I have seen very little of Boston Legal for a couple reasons.

1. The only lawyer shows I will watch are Perry Mason and Matlock.

2. I don’t like Spader.

From the little I have seen, I would say that Denny Crane is a very different character and maybe played for a little comic relief? So that element would naturally be there. I’m guessing Mr. Shatner is still capable of playing well-written dramatic scenes when required.

Would he be able to play an older Captain Kirk convincingly? I have no reason to doubt it.

Unlike many others, I don’t spend time trying to come up with scenarios which would allow Mr. Shatner in this movie as Kirk. Actually, I would prefer that he (and Nimoy) would just stay ten miles away from it. I do think, however, that if the powers-that-be had really wanted him in, they could have come up with something fitting.

Despite today’s news, there are even those who still believe Mr. Shatner will end up in the movie after-all. I guess that’s possible, too.

They accuse him of making a whine
While he compliments Christopher Pine.
Some think he’s a jerk,
but he’s Captain Kirk
And will continue to be for all-time.

408. The Vulcanista - January 21, 2008

#387

Really? I’ve been suspicious for some time now that he’s a vampire. AFAICT, he only ever posts at night. :-)

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

409. BeamupJJAbrams - January 21, 2008

It is offensive to any real Star Trek fan to have a talentless, snot-nosed director think he can bring in a bunch of young, snot-nosed, talentless, bottom feeding actors to replace the original actors portraying the original characters of a movie made before they were an itch in their daddies pants.

If they want to branch off with a new movie, then have new characters as did the Next Generation. Using original characters with new actors will destroy the legacy.

J.J. Abrams should stay with something more in line with his talents, like toilet cleaning.

410. VOODOO - January 21, 2008

What a waste to not have Shatner in this film.

This is very disappointing news. My personal interest in this film just fell harder than the Dow Jones is falling.

I am now convinced that Abrams,Orci..etc never wanted any part of William Shatner. It was all just a show.

411. NZorak - January 21, 2008

Forget Shatner, I want to know why Ricardo Montalban is not in this movie! Ricardo Montalban IS Star Trek. Without Ricardo Mantalban, Star Trek is just a shadow of its former glory.

Come on JJ Abrams, I know there’s a writer’s strike going on right now, but there has to be some way to get Ricardo into the movie! It simply must be done for the good of the fans, Star Trek, humanity, and the universe in general.

412. josepepper - January 21, 2008

Your right

most folks want him in

that’s another reason for him not to be

Let JJ make HIS movie, not a parallel universe, dna grown chubby Shatner come back film. If I was Bill I would want to preserve the great work he has done. Look at Nemesis for God’s sake, a middle aged Data killing himself after tranferring his soul into YET ANOTHER Sung type android. Do you people have any idea what a POS that movie was?
I thought Generations was a good movie, he went out as a true and noble, selfless hero. Why change that?

I though MI3 was awesome, I trust JJ to make a big impressive film. I worry about the acting but here’s a heads up. Look for Urban to steal the show as Mcoy.

413. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

#407 Stanky

Bravo, Stanky!! That is one GREAT limerick! It would be fun if more people posting here gave it a try!

And, no, they don’t have to be from the “Nantucket” series….. :)

414. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

I went back to the USA Today video above and watched the “outtakes” segment. I suggest those of you who think Shatner is humorlessly whining about not being in the movie should watch that. He even says something about Abrams being a great filmmaker (too kind).

Of course, people tend to take things the way they WANT to.

415. Lostrod - January 21, 2008

If Mr. Abram’s comments are supposed to be the definitive answer that Mr. Shatner will not be in the new movie then my interest in the film has decreased considerably.

Yes, I will likely see it opening weekend but, without Mr. Shatner’s involvement, the movie will less of the event it could be.

I’m sure that it will be a good movie based on what I’ve learned so far. However, I think excluding Mr. Shatner will make it less special and inducive to repeat viewings.

It’s a challenge to get through all of the postings here (wish I had a few more hours in the day!), but I agree with whoever made the observation about the irony of people who appear dismissive of canon (as it applies to timelines, visuals, etc) but trumpet the “Kirk died, he’s dead’, he can’t come back, etc” element of canon as the excuse why Mr. Shatner cannot be in this film.

Regards.

416. K. M. Kirby - January 21, 2008

Even if the Next Generation were to somehow “regrow” Kik, for some zany and disrespectful reason, the end result could never match the original. Spock’s return, in SEARCH, at least had a believably random element in addition to the Vulcan soul transfer they had. Cloning, however, cannot infuse the new creature with prior memories or an original personality.

There’s a small chance that the Mirror Kirk could get stuck in the “normal” universe and the be given a rehabilitating Mind Meld. Far-fetched, perhaps, but one of few plausible scenarios for a new Kirk adventure. Maybe some day, with the new cast rescuing their Kirk from the Nexus…a task which the original cast apparently had no interest in pursuing.

417. Xai - January 21, 2008

“345. Ivory – January 21, 2008
XAI#306

USA Today is running a poll and nearly 70% are upset that Shatner has been excluded.

I don’t think the numbers from a board like this are accurate. The people are too close to the film. The general public wants Shatner back as Kirk.”

Ok, first… as I just checked it’s 66% and it says “disappointed” not upset as you portray it. There’s a difference.
And I don’t think most of the general public even knows Kirk’s dead, even though it’s mentioned in the article. I see plenty of people come to a thread here, barely skim the article then post a question that was answered in the story. People don’t read well and it’s a pity sometimes. I place more credence in Trek fans coming here and expressing their opinion. They generally are more Treknowledgable. That’s my opinion.
Wishing for Shatner at this point seems to be a moot point. Signs from JJ point toward a Shatner-less movie.

418. sean - January 21, 2008

I have to assume all you guys that talk about how ‘easy’ it would be to have Shatner back and that it wouldn’t even require explanation are being deliberately obtuse. I can’t think of any other reason why you’d say it, since it would clearly lead to an incredibly unsatisfying storyline. ‘Just have him show up at the end, no explanation needed, we’ll all be happy’. Well, I wouldn’t. I’d want to know why he’s there. I’d think most people would want to know.

#276

I never said he was loosing sleep or whining. I said his attitude changed, which is OBVIOUS from watching the video from a year ago and comparing it with his recent comments & appearances. While he clearly stated the fact that it would be incredibly difficult to explain why his character was no longer dead, and that even though it’s Sci-fi the explanations need to make sense, he now appears to have reversed that position. He now uses the very same reasoning above when refuting what JJ said that Craig does in that interview I posted, an interview in which he rebuked Craig for saying it! If that’s not a change in outlook, I don’t know what is.

419. Xai - January 21, 2008

409. BeamupJJAbrams – January 21, 2008
“It is offensive to any real Star Trek fan to have a talentless, snot-nosed director think he can bring in a bunch of young, snot-nosed, talentless, bottom feeding actors to replace the original actors portraying the original characters of a movie made before they were an itch in their daddies pants.

If they want to branch off with a new movie, then have new characters as did the Next Generation. Using original characters with new actors will destroy the legacy.

J.J. Abrams should stay with something more in line with his talents, like toilet cleaning.”

Wow and I thought I was a real Trek fan like others here. Thanks for judging us unworthy to be here.

Go find a tissue for your “snot-nosed” problem and realize yours isn’t the only opinion here nor are you the only “real” Trek fan.

420. Cdr Cody - January 21, 2008

Nimoy did say that he thought Shatner should be in the movie. It was at the New Jersey Creation Con last July. The reference can be found the bringbackkirk.com web site near the bottom of the latest news page.

421. roberto orci - January 21, 2008

387 LOL — error 5478

422. Jabob Slatter - January 21, 2008

Give it up, guys. Shatner isn’t going to be in it.

423. Shahin - January 21, 2008

Wow, a lot of you guys are thick headed biased idiots- pardon the language. A large number of you have valid and honest points, which I do agree with and a few disagree with.

But for the rest of you, the ones I mentioned at the beginning, LET GO!!!! Just because you watched star trek 30 years ago with the rest of us is fantastic, yay gooo Stak Trek fans!

But this is the story of his life BEFORE the shows and movies…in which case how the hell would it make sense to have him in the movie? Especially nearing 60?!?!

Think of the new Star wars movies they made…all replaced by younger, new actors, because it would be stupid, foolish, and UNBELIEVABLE to have the old ones.

and for the parts you guys are speaking of about bring kirk back from the dead….he’s died twice!!! HOW MANY MORE TIMES CAN SOMEONE DIE?! With that sort of thinking, death with be meaning less in the series? So what is the point of the show anymore? If they can all blast into where ever and then coerce or trade the borgs into bringing them back to life whenever needed, this would turn into the sickest and most untrue star trek ever to be filmed!

JJ has taken a MAJOR step outside into the brutal world of trekkies, but I stand right by him. The fan boy’s aren’t in charge of the movie, he is. And whatever he says goes. And regardless of what he chooses, this movie will be a BOX OFFICE SMASH!!! Sure you’ll have the 100 people nationwide who will refuse to see the movie, or picket, or some dumb shit like that because there legendary “Shat” wasn’t in the movie, but to hell with them!

THIS MOVIE IS INTENDED NOT ONLY TO GIVE A LONG NEEDED DOSE OF STAR TREK TO THE TREKKIE COMMUNITY, BUT TO ALSO INTRODUCE ITS MAGIC TO NEW BLOOD! And what better way with younger actors that they can follow throughout the other however-many films, growing attached to their characters hopefully, and not them.

Then imagine the beauty of being able to sit with multiple generations all to share the same brilliant show!!! [ok a little on the deep and crazy side, but i was on a roll]

anyways, keep up the great work Mr. Adams, and dont let anyone deter you from you choices. MR SHATNER had his chance, and he gave it up. Now that he sees its going to be a blockbuster, he wants it, and he drives the bandwagon to have people jump on with him. FORGOT ABOUT IT!

cant wait to see the movie!

424. Jabob Slatter - January 21, 2008

Where’s the Shatner poll? I only see one for the teaser…

425. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 418
Here’s what I said earlier – “He has the right to be disappointed and the right to state his opinion…even to change his mind. I just don’t think he is doing any kind of ‘whining’ as some people accuse, at all.”

So the whining reference was a general one. I do realize YOU did not use that word in the post referred to. I stand by my statement that he has the right to change his mind. Time can do that. Throughout most of the USA interview (and outtakes) he is tossing in jokes off and on throughout, so I wouldn’t take anything he says too seriously.

That’s half the problem with the Shatner bashers (not saying YOU are one). They can’t understand the context in which he says things and they choose to ignore things like his compliments about the new actors and the director.

I am that way myself in regards to certain other topics, I will admit. Not easy for a leopard to change his spots.

And I find it odd sometimes that I defend Mr. Shatner when I’m really not crazy about him (or Nimoy) appearing in the movie anyway. (For reasons different from most :)

426. Brian - January 21, 2008

To paraphrase Mr. Shatner’s line from his SNL skit “GET A LIFE, BILL! MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE!

427. VOODOO - January 21, 2008

USA Today poll:

70% upset that Shatner has been excluded from the film.

428. jonboc - January 21, 2008

#418 ” Just have him show up at the end, no explanation needed, we’ll all be happy’. Well, I wouldn’t. I’d want to know why he’s there. I’d think most people would want to know.

I think most people, if they were entertained, wouldn’t care.

Remember a movie called Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home? The most successful Trek movie of all time? The probe was never explained. We never find out what it wanted or why. It was just there. The movie made 110 million dollars.

You need the movie to connect the dots…fine. But most of the film-going audience…you know, the ones this movie is targeting, they do not. That’s just the reality of the situation.

If Kirk shows up alive…then he’s alive. New timeline. Most folks in the crowd are having a bang up time..enjoying the hell out of a fun movie…they knew Shatner was Kirk at one time and fought Kahn and never really knew the character had died…they see him again with Nimoy as SPock, its all cool. End of discussion. They had a good time at the movies and tell their friends to check it out.

It may bother some die hards but this movie isn’t being made for them anyway. I say damn the (photon) torpedos, lets see some Shat and make this movie rock.

429. johnconner - January 21, 2008

#382:

“And get over Bill Shatner! He is not the centre of the Trek Universe, it got along just fine without him.”

It did?

430. jonboc - January 21, 2008

#423 “But this is the story of his life BEFORE the shows and movies…in which case how the hell would it make sense to have him in the movie? Especially nearing 60?!?!”

pssst…..I have it on good authority that .Leonard Nimoy…THE Leonard NImoy is in the film…and are you ready for this…he’s playing Spock! Yep. THE Mr. Spock. Just in case you missed it.

431. Dennis Bailey - January 21, 2008

I’m just finally getting around to reading Justman and Solow’s book about the original “Star Trek.”

Solow does confirm that the two actors Roddenberry was determined to cast from the beginning of Trek were Barrett and Nimoy.

Nimoy was there in the very first episode of “Star Trek;” now it looks like he’ll be the last member of the original cast to appear in it. Fitting.

432. Stanky McFibberich - January 21, 2008

re: 423
“But this is the story of his life BEFORE the shows and movies…in which case how the hell would it make sense to have him in the movie? Especially nearing 60?!?!”

Well, actually he is more like nearing 80 than 60.

433. Sybok Amok - January 21, 2008

William Shatner has been our friend & Captain for 42 years, we have traveled the galaxy with him & he always brought us safely home. Now Bill wishes to be James T. Kirk one last time & JJ Abrams has chosen to deny him the chance of giving us this special parting gift.

434. pcg - January 21, 2008

shatner as kirk would ruin any movie, the character “kirk” died. I’m all for another actor taking on the role, shatner needs to stay out of star trek movies. his ego will try and take over production and make everything about him.

435. Riverside - January 21, 2008

427. VOODOO – January 21, 2008
USA Today poll:

70% upset that Shatner has been excluded from the film.

Upset? As in riots? Pillaging?Looting?

I am sure those (almost) 1200 people worldwide can find a tissue to dry an eye as they head in to the movie.
What % were stomping their foot and boycotting?

429. johnconner – January 21, 2008
Yes, it did. Give that statement an open-mind view and see that B&B did provide many good and award-winning hours of TV and kept the franchise alive even through the less than stellar Movie entries. Because you didn’t like something doesn’t mean other people agree.

436. Tassieboy - January 21, 2008

I agree with JJ Abrams on this.
Sure, it would be nice to see Mr. Shatner in the film, and you could imagine a number of ways to get him into it, but it MUST serve the story.

Unless the story of this film is about the ressurection of Kirk then it should be attempted. As Ronald D Moore once said, “Bringing Kirk back to life cheapens his death”.

437. Xai - January 21, 2008

436. Tassieboy – January 21, 2008

Well said

438. CommonSense - January 21, 2008

At least give shatner his famous opening monologue. Nimoy saying it is blasphemy.

439. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

Generations was a MESS. It was just a flatout mess of a story and boring as hell.

440. MrRegular - January 21, 2008

436. Tassieboy – January 21, 2008

You nailed that one.
The hard truth is, regrettably, that at some point in the next 10-15 years, the Shat could likely “beam up” to the Next Life. He’s in his late 70s now. JJ is very wise to start a new generation of actors playing the TOS roles.

441. Jamie - January 21, 2008

I don’t see why any “explanation” for Kirk being alive is necessary.

Kirk was alive for a long time. His scene in this movie could happen any time during that lifetime. It would be odd having the scene in the future after his death.

Plus, Kirk didn’t really die in Generations anyway. It’s just as likely he’s alive as it is he’s dead. I mean, if Kirk is dead then that means he did leave the Nexus, which means Picard brought him out, which means Picard was in the Nexus, which means Soran destroyed the sun, which means Soran did not encounter Kirk. Which means Soran could not have killed Kirk.

The reason we won’t be seeing Shatner has nothing to do with “explanations” for him being alive.

The reason is, as JJ quite rightly said: we have already seen Kirk die. We’ve said goodbye to him. It’s simply jarring, and bad storytelling, to kill someone off in a final way then show them alive again after. Some things you just don’t do.

Fine if the character’s death is quick and not at all meaningful. Fine if you see them alive again very briefly, or if it’s the same actor playing a different character.

But actually showing someone alive who has already been “said goodbye to” and buried just seems wrong.

442. Jeffrey S. Nelson - January 21, 2008

Shatner appears to be losing a little weight… too bad that’s not incentive for J.J. to use him in the film.

443. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

How about if Shatner’s willing to lose a few zeroes off the cheque he’s asking for? That might help in the decision-making process as well!

444. TomBot2008 - January 21, 2008

What is this Generations people are talking about? ;-) Cheapen his death by all means… it sucked anyway. But why get so worked up over this? The Shat is unnecessary… it just would have been nice.

445. ShatisDead - January 21, 2008

Hey #441, re-read your post and see if it makes any sense. It doesn’t. Its that kind of gobbleygook that time, universe shifting causes and honestly, its boring as heck..because once you go through that whole explanation, it doesn’t make any sense and just gets people frustrated.

So yeah, maybe if you want to talk in circiles all day, you can read whatever fanfic has cloned/reincarnted/Nexusized Kirk.

No one else, morevover the movie-going public will be patient enough for some character to give the exposition neccessary for such a lame-brained idea.

TREK needs revitalization, not dealing with a really old crappy Generations movie.

446. dalek - January 21, 2008

#436

Cheapen the central protagnist (again) of Star Trek, from dying in an accident. There was no cheaper end for any Trek main character than what Moore less than mediocally wrote for Kirk. If Abrams Orci and Co are really centering the franchise back on Kirk then to accept Berman trash as final is to say that they are no better than the horrible handling Berman and Co had towards the character when they wanted to dispose of the original series to replace with their version of Star Trek.

Berman wins even tho he’s gone. Shocking!

447. Scott G. - January 21, 2008

If the altered time-line theory does work out to be the way in for Bill Shatner, then it looks like the Movie’s Gross will more than double. If not,… I’ll see it once, but one has to wonder…does J. J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and the rest of the Production Company really understand the dynamic of how the trekkers Wallet strings open for what they love and don’t open for what they don’t love? I’m willing to bet that Paramount knows very well and I’d have to take a chance bet at the table that they must have had some words around the issue of bringing Bill in one more time.

If not, well, maybe I am finally reaching the point of getting to be just an old veteran Trekker after all and should resolve myself to accept the Enterprise turning into a Transformer with bug-eyes and big arms that swat other starships as well as a crew that wear uniforms looking like the Power Rangers. That might bring in some dollars. Some laughs as well.

Where’s Gene Roddenberry?………..

448. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

Some of the posts on these forums remind me of the posts on the movie “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”. LOL.

Again, can some of you PLEASE wait for the movie to come out before calling it crap?

If Kirk and Spock break into singing Gilbert and Sullivan and Chekov comes out with Sanjaya hair, then you can complain. LOL

And, sorry Bill but Leonard told you NOT to do “Generations.”

449. Scott G. - January 21, 2008

“If Kirk and Spock break into singing Gilbert and Sullivan and Chekov comes out with Sanjaya hair, then you can complain. LOL”

Now that I’d pay to see twice.

450. John Hudgens - January 21, 2008

#438. Nimoy saying the opening monologue is blasphemy? You must have hated the end of Star Trek II, then…

451. Chain of Command - January 21, 2008

Re #449

heh heh. Yeah, that probably would be hilarious.

452. Gallifrey1983 - January 21, 2008

It is a shame that this dragged on so long. It will be one of the dominant themes throughout 2008 in articles about the new movie, that is unfortunate.

It is also a shame that in the end the possibility was apparently finally eliminated by the writers strike, not a creative decision.

I would like an explanation at some point for the comments last summer about “desparately trying” to put Shatner in. If it comes down to he died in Generations (a piece of Trek that fits jarring with the rest of TOS and movies 1-6), why didn’t they say that last summer?

453. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #441. Jamie

“…Kirk was alive for a long time. His scene in this movie could happen any time during that lifetime….”

Not sure I understand what you’re getting at. If you’re referring to “Shatner’s” potential scene in the new Trek movie, it can’t be from any time during that lifetime because this actor who portrayed Kirk is now almost 77. They would have to take a scene and try to match it like they did in the DS9 episode where Sisko gets to meet Kirk at the space station with all the tribbles. If they do that, then Bill Shatner is not really in the movie. Besides, that might make him crazy!!

Methinks the only way to have him in without any brou-ha-ha or fancy footwork is have him play the grandfather or uncle. That’s all I can see at this point. He could even be the one that his “grandson” or “nephew” James Tiberius Kirk is named after. Since the canon doesn’t have anything like that, they can add to it at this point like they have been adding all along (unless I don’t know anything about “canons” and it’s a ridiculous suggestion).

Re: #438. CommonSense

“At least give shatner his famous opening monologue…”

THAT would be awesome. But it might also be incredibly exciting to hear a young Kirk (Pine) do it for the first time. That could raise some goose bumps…

454. Battletrek - January 21, 2008

Shatner is in the film, why else would Orci be on this board? He’s enjoying himself and can’t wait to read the surprised posts after the film comes out.

455. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 21, 2008

368. Cdr Cody

APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also…

C’mon. I want to know what the fan’s price is for seeing Kirk again.

QUESTION:
How much would YOU pay Shatner to be in 30 seconds of this movie?

Considering that this is the equasion:
30 seconds on-screen (a poignant moment at the end) + 1 day shoot

456. Scott G. - January 21, 2008

#452

Well, if this all turns sour, and I really pray as others that it doesn’t. I think a large part of it will be due to the new flock of creators underestimating the degree of fan passion that really exists for TOS-Trek. If thats the case, the press won’t be very forgiving. It would remind me of what happened with the Lost In Space remake and the loss of any further films in that franchise. Just too many changes in the new vision put onto the screen. There went the dollars…

457. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #454. Battletrek

“Shatner is in the film, why else would Orci be on this board? He’s enjoying himself and can’t wait to read the surprised posts after the film comes out. ”

I don’t know about that. Would Shatner risk annoying the crap out of some of his fans (some posters have admittedly been fans and are now sick of him) just to provide a “surprise”? Guess it makes more sense to me that he is just unhappy that he is not in it and wants to talk about it. I have some acquaintances that are like that. When I try to help them remedy the situation, they say “I don’t want your advice. I just want to talk about it.” That was an eye-opener for sure because they’ve “just wanted to talk about it” for months and months, ad finitum, ad nauseam, so I began seeing them less and less.

Or, perhaps this is a different strategy. When I got grounded as a teenager, I moped around the house hoping my parents would see how miserable I was and feel sorry for me and change their minds and let me out. When they didn’t, I’d get angry, have a tantrum, then get sad and mopey and try all over again. Nearly drove them nuts. Is this the strategy? Don’t know the man — few of us do, but gotta admit, that’s what it looks like from here. Surely he must know what people are saying ab out him. Is he doing this just for attention or hoping that J. J. will relent?

He has changed his tune back and forth so we just don’t know what’s going on in that brilliant little mind of his.

458. Harry Ballz - January 21, 2008

If Shatner got 1 cent for every dollar gross the movie took in….and say it was a monster hit making $400 million worldwide….that would be what….a payday of $4 million to Shat for one day’s work?

Knowing his ego, he’d probably feel he was underpaid!! :)

459. Eyewillit - January 21, 2008

Hey JJ can’t you throw in a Doc Brown ending with the Shat? I mean what’s Star Trek without him?

…Nemisis.

Oh and my girlfriend wants her Cloverfield money back!

460. Luis Duran - January 21, 2008

I think William Shatner should be patient… His character is about to “reboot”!!! that is mega exiting…He should play it cool and be supportive…their probably going to have some sort of reminiscing scene with spock way after kirks death and then shoot back to when they were young. Next movie maybe they can do something that makes sense…but as much as I want him to be back I’d say that if it’s forced, then it’s not worth making this, very important movie loose focus.

theres no doubt that Shatner needs to be seen again, it would be like not bringing Harrison Ford to the new Indy…sacrilege..LOL Common JJ figure something out for Star Trek II ? LOL

exiting times! exiting times!

461. -A- - January 21, 2008

well, i felt sad without kirk bring back but, but, something brother me you remmy kirk went fell from small bridge? kirk was try said something to capt jean luc- picard before he dead. kirk felt something knew and said (oh no) then he dead….

i felt angry that not fair mr spock coming back alife.

462. Lostrod - January 21, 2008

#441

“But actually showing someone alive who has already been “said goodbye to” and buried just seems wrong. ”

Hmm. Isn’t that exactly what happened with Spock in STII and STIII-VI.

Seems like we had an emotional goodbye for our favorite Vulcan only to seem him alive and kicking (sorta) in the very next pic.

463. M-5 - January 21, 2008

Will someone pick up a shovel and shove Shatner in the new film?

I think it’s kind of ridiculous that Shatner isn’t in the new film in some capacity. Something about Nimoy being involved with the movie but not Shatner doesn’t seem right. They should’ve at least involved Shatner, perhaps as a consultant or other behind-the-scenes capacity.

None of this would be up for debate if JJ Abrams and his crew had come up with a fresh story from scratch instead of involving Nimoy in yet another tedious time-travel story. I can see where Shatner is upset: this is science fiction; Spock was killed off once and brought back; even Scotty in TOS was killed by a machine in the episode “The Changeling” and brought back to life by the same machine.

I can’t help but think that the decision to exclude Shatner is more political than anything else, and that stinks. It also shows a lack of respect for an actor who helped make Star Trek as popular as it is today.

Hopefully Abrams and company will figure out a way to include Shatner in this film or the next. Just don’t let him direct a film.

464. Jabob Slatter - January 21, 2008

Hey, I wonder if Kirk planted his katra in Jean-Luc before he died…

465. Vidar - January 21, 2008

Forget The Shat! Fix the damn ship, and put it back the way it’s suppose to be.

466. the king in shreds and tatters - January 21, 2008

What about Evil Kirk?

467. Junior - January 21, 2008

#142 Your caps lock is on. :-)

Shatner in…Shatner out….I’m just happy that I actually have some Star Trek to look forward to. I’ve been going through withdrawal since Enterprise went off the air.

As for shoe-horning the Shat in the movie, people act like that would be such a simple thing. Something as small or “simple” as that can change the whole dynamic of the story. Above all I want a good story. I think of Alias in the later seasons when they brought in more “eye candy”. Nothing wrong with eye candy, but I value story more than anything. If you give me a good story, call me satisfied.

That being said, I’ll take Shatner in this movie if it serves the story. The man is legend.

Denny Crane…

468. Junior - January 21, 2008

I promised myself I wouldn’t get in this argument. There goes one New Year’s Resolution. :-)

469. taliesin - January 22, 2008

Well I must agree with much of what has been said before. Shatner retunrs is difficult since Kirk was the action heroe of the series. However, I think that there could be ways to put him there without being too artificial and that, notwithstanding JJ’s denials, maybe we may receive a surprise appearance next Christmas. It would fall within JJ’s profile…

470. Battletrek - January 22, 2008

That CNN host looked like he was about to ejaculate all over Shatner.

471. NCC-73515 - January 22, 2008

Consider this…
If Kirk is not “killed” (transferred to the Nexus), he will not assist Picard against Soran. Picard will fail and the Veridian system will be destroyed, and with it, the Enterprise-D. Now with Picard dead and the Enterprise destroyed, there is no ship that follows the Borg sphere in 2373. Note that Picard with the Enterprise was the only one who was still present after the Borg’s changes in the timeline, because the temporal wake protected them from any changes.
Remember, the 1701-E with Picard was the only ship that could prevent the Borg from assimilating Earth in the past!

CONCLUSION
If you change Kirk’s disappearance into the nexus – the Borg will have the entire quadrant assimilated long before our Trek storyline even began!

Isn’t that the most heroic death Kirk could possibly have had? Shatner could be grateful… Kirk’s sacrifice saved the entire Federation timeline from the Borg! This makes his character the greatest hero of all times :D
Don’t change that :)

472. Olympus1979 - January 22, 2008

Oh yeah, sooooo hard to fit him in!!!!!!

old Spock tells young Spock how he dies. Oh, thats sooooo difficult!

Ive never seen professional writers/producers/directors admit that a concept is too difficult for them to come up with a solution for. Thats really, really sad.

Still plan to see the movie, but clearly we have been BSed by the Abrams crew since day 1.

473. Admiral_Bumblebee - January 22, 2008

But what if Kirk only survived the fall from the bridge? He was transfered into the Nexus but never fell off the bridge. Then Picard could save earth from the Borg and Kirk would still be alive.

I am still so angry about the decision to not put Shatner into the new movie as old Kirk. I cannot understand that decision…

474. Olympus1979 - January 22, 2008

Quick, someone bring back the old TOS writers!!! They were able to bring Scotty, Chekov, and McCoy back from death in a single episode!! Our new guys cant figure out a way to bring the hero of the show back even though they have had years to think about it!!!

475. Olympus1979 - January 22, 2008

473 Admiral,

Im with you on the anger. I have logged into this site for a long, long time now and the entire Abrams crew has teased us about the Shatner thing on a constant basis but now tell us, oh, its too hard to bring him back, we cant do it? ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME!?!?!?!!

Spock goes back in time and meets YOUNG Kirk, but they dont know how to bring back old Kirk?? That makes about the least amount of sense I have ever, ever, ever heard.

The more I think about it, the more it seems this MUST be the big JJ surprise for the end of the movie. If not, we are dealing with possibly the most uncreative writers in the history of hollywood.

476. ctiii - January 22, 2008

Abrams argument for not sticking Shatner in is rediculous. Since the new fans wont really know who Shatner is, having them stick him in however they can wont make a difference to them…but it will satisfy a lot of the long time fans. Considering this is “Sci-Fi”…almost any explanation can be offered as to how Kirk is alive and it would be believable.

What if back in the 80′s when hey were thinking about making ST: III they had said “Frankly we’d love to put Mr. Nimoy in the film, but he died in the last one and any explanation we can come up with would seem ‘fanboyish’”. Without a ‘fanboyish’ explanation, that moron wouldnt have Nimoy to put in this movie.

As far as the writers strike goes…Nimoy and Shatner have played their parts long enough that they could improv a scene without writers.

Face it…they are lying when they say they want him to be in the movie and were trying to find a way.

477. Daoud - January 22, 2008

Kirk’s echo and essence is in the Nexus.

Don’t work to pull Kirk out of it…

Stick old Spock INTO it.

Simple, not fanboyish, and they can ride off into the sunset… literally. on horses. Shatner & Nimoy… Kirk & Spock… and they can morph into being on a ship and rejuvenate… and just like Moriarty’s Ship in a Bottle… they can explore forever in the Nexus.

478. sean - January 22, 2008

#477

So are we finally giving in to all those slash fiction writers that have dreamed of Kirk & Spock ‘morphing’ for years now? :)

479. Gallifrey1983 - January 22, 2008

Was it “transparently fan boyish” to bring back every single member of the Enterprise D crew after they were killed halfway through Generations when the planet exploded? Or the countless other times characters including Spock were “killed” and revived in movies and all of the shows?

What about Sherlock Holmes coming back? Superman?

A significant part of both the genreral public and the fan base is going to be very disappointed by Shatner’s absence. I hope there is more to it than this explanation.

480. sean - January 22, 2008

#425

Fair enough, I understand where you’re coming from. Though I still think his prior remarks demonstrate a serious change in his attitude, and I find it strange. To me, either he’s in the movie and hiding it, or he’s somehow become bent out of shape rather quickly.

He may not be ‘whining’, but I think it’s obvious he’s displeased (whether genuinely or not), at the very least. But again, I’m no hater! Haha. I think Shat is great, and if they’d written a story showcasing him, I’d be just as happy.

#428

The origins of The Probe and Kirk suddenly being alive are wildly different things. The Probe was a macguffin. It’s a bit of a stretch to compare the two. And I think it’s quite the opposite from what you present – having him randomly reappear will satisfy the fanboys, NOT the general audience.

I don’t need the film to connect every dot, and I don’t think most do either. However, a MAJOR change like that requires some explanation. Shatner himself admitted it!

481. Krik Semaj - January 22, 2008

Every day I am more happy that Shatner is not in this movie. If only they could get rid of Nimoy, then it would be perfect.

482. Sybok Amok - January 22, 2008

#475

Spock goes back in time and meets YOUNG Kirk, but they dont know how to bring back old Kirk??

It has become clear Abrams’ only objective is to revision TOS in his own image at the expense of canon, Gene Roddenberry & especially Shatner.

Roddenberry himself had said what made TOS work was the chemistry of the original cast of actors. A new Kirk? HA! It’s not the character, it’s the man who breathed life into him, and the ONLY man who can achieve this is William Shatner!

483. dalek - January 22, 2008

#471 not true. Kirks death didnt save lives. Picard destroying the control launcher did. All Kirk has to do is not jump on that bit of bridge. The missile wouldnt fire when cloaked anyway, and as long as the remote is on the bridge, Soran cant uncloak it.

Theres also a nexus duplicate of Kirk that never left. Like Crichton in Farscape, one Kirk dies, the other lives, the same character different fatss.

484. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#14–I do, and I do not feel the slightest bit doublecrossed. In fact, I feel relieved that JJ’s is standing firm to protect the story he wanted to tell, and not bending to the will of people will, ultimately, not make or break this film’s success, or lack thereof, anyway. Old fans alone could not keep Trek going on the small screen, so how could they resurrect it on the big screen? It is the new fans, as well as us, who will ensure Trek’s survival. Bill’s appearance in the last 3 Star Trek films he did was not enough to make them good, so why would an appearance in this one?

Shoehorning in the Shat was never a good call.

485. Krik Semaj - January 22, 2008

#484
Amen

486. ctiii - January 22, 2008

As someone else mentioned, an easy way to include Shatner that fits into the plot without seeming “forced” is for old spock to travel back in time, while he’s there meld with young kirk or young spock (even re-deliver his line from TWOK, “Remember….”), implant suppressed memories about Kirks death in the future and prevent him from dying. Then at the end when old Spock returns to the future, Shatner as Kirk is there waiting for him.

487. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 22, 2008

433. Sybok Amok … “William Shatner has been our friend & Captain for 42 years, we have traveled the galaxy with him & he always brought us safely home. Now Bill wishes to be James T. Kirk one last time & JJ Abrams has chosen to deny him the chance of giving us this special parting gift.”

Well said. This is pretty WEAK, JJ.

488. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 22, 2008

#374 “Respect Shatner’s Kirk.
God knows Rick Berman did not.
And look what happened to that ass clown.”

LOL. I hear he is “very pleased”… :)

489. Krik Semaj - January 22, 2008

Keep Kirk dead, and while you’re at it get rid of Nimoy. This is a new version. Let’s move on.

490. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#486–There is only one problem. That is your movie. This one is JJ’s.

#487–Shoehorning in The Shat would be weak. His last few appearances were a flop. Why does JJ owe Bill anything? If anything, Bill owes Star Trek (which, let’s face it, made him an “icon”)more respect than to complain about not being in the new film and insult the director as he has lately. He stopped playing Kirk long before Generations, anyway. At some point, he just put on a Star Fleet uniform and played himself. He should enjoy his career rennaissance on Boston Legal and just wish the new guys well. He was a great Kirk in his day, but that day is done. And yes, he signed on to kill off Kirk. If her had not, JJ probably would have already written him in from the beginning. All of these far off ideas about “correcting” his death are fine, but they obviously do not mesh with the story that JJ wants to tell. Paramount did not give this film to Bill(thank God, STV?!!?!!). They gave it to JJ. And he will bring it to us and millions more who have never before given Mr. Roddenberry’s vision a chance. Now that their generation is here, on Star Trek, they may have a reason to.

491. Matt - January 22, 2008

Why didn’t JJ simply cast Shatner as Kirk’s dad??? That would have solved the “I can’t cast Kirk because he’s dead” excuse, and provided Shatner with a strong way to re-enter this series.

In the end, I think that JJ’s glowing support of The Shat is not as strong as we may think. Why else would JJ have made the greatest casting blunder of all time??

492. 7 of 5 - January 22, 2008

Back in 93-94, Shatner knew the only way he would get into a Berman helmed Trek was to play Kirk’s death scene. He should have figured that Berman’s reign wouldn’t last forever, though it appeared it might at the time. He should have ‘just said no’ in the jargon of those times. The Generations script was rushed and shoddy and fans would have forgiven him if he had taken a pass on it. It might have even forced Berman to make a better movie, one that Nimoy might have been interested in doing too.

Shat’s ego got the best of him.

He had Picard dig his grave for him; now he can moulder in it.

493. norm - January 22, 2008

Darn i wish they would erase that horrible Kirk death. Just do a prolog claiming Kirk was rescued from the Nexus & its many years later. I just get the sense that Shatner is being punished for maybe kind of selling out to Berman to get in Generations. Remember Nimoy refused to be in Generations because it was a crap cameo.

494. Ron - January 22, 2008

#429: Yes, it did. Perhaps you missed three post-Kirk films, four post-Kirk TV shows, some pretty amazing fan productions, and endless novels, comic books, and whatnot?

#433: “JJ Abrams has chosen to deny him the chance of giving us this special parting gift.”

Tell me this absurd comment is a joke…number one, the suggestion that Abrams is “denying him” because of maliciousness on his part is offensive to say the least. Abrams owes Shatner nothing…and number two, Shatner said “farewell” to the fans in ST6 and then again in Generations. Will yet another “special parting gift” really make it any easier to let him go?

495. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#491–Early reports, albeit rumors, suggested that Bill would not accept a cameo or a role other than the one that made him famous. Otherwise, I have suggested that before. At the very least it could give the audience a good chuckle to see him in a random role outside of Kirk (much like Robert Mitchum in Scorsese’s version of “Cape Fear”). If he did want something like that, however, his current approach would be a very “stupid business decision”.

496. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#494–Not for some, that’s for sure. It appears that there are seperate camps: those who feel that Star Trek was Bill Shatner, and those who feel that Star Trek was Gene Roddenberry. If you can do it without Gene, you can do it without Bill.

497. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 22, 2008

#494 “Shatner said ‘farewell’ to the fans in ST6 and then again in Generations. Will yet another ‘special parting gift’ really make it any easier to let him go?”

Bill and his fans are not asking for something absurdly unreasonable and out of the blue. It isn’t like he’s trying to get into a new Next Gen film. Lest you forget, it was Paramount and J.J. who decided to revisit TOS, followed up by numerous quotes suggesting Shatner would be included!

“…the involvement of William Shatner and Leonard
Nimoy means a great deal to us on many levels, not the
least of which is just the respect of who they are and
what they do. They are the carriers of this torch and,
without being too reverential; we want to show them
the kind of appreciation and admiration they deserve.”
-JJ Abrams, January 2007

Ahem!

498. TREK LIVES! - January 22, 2008

Puh-leeze Shatner is not anybody’s friend. Anytime the Shat does anything, he gets paid. Money. Money. Money. He got a LOT of money to kill Kirk in Generations, I’m sure the guy was so angry that they killed Kirk that way, he didn’t cash his check. Umm no.

Nothing wrong with wanting to make a buck, but to somehow assume that William Shatner is your friend just because you have seen him on TV for 40 years is crazy. Crazy like Rocket Man Shat.

499. 7 of 5 - January 22, 2008

I just watched Chris Pine’s interview with Variety. I really don’t think he’s going to be able to pull the role of Kirk off.
Way too much Valley Guy at first glance. Gravitas is required to play the role & I don’t think poor sap has any.

I can just hear Shat after this kid gets blown apart by reviewers & fandom….”I told you so” sort of comments.

Maybe under JJ’s strong direction Pine will surprise me. If he does, all credit to JJ’s direction.

500. TREK LIVES! - January 22, 2008

I HAVE the solution!
Why not hire this guy to stand in as Kirk!! J.J. has to do is spend only 20 minutes showing clips from Generations to get the viewers up to speed!!! Warp speed!

http://www.jtrusk.com/

501. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#497–None of thatsuggests that they did not give it due consideration, only that it did not fit into the story they want to tell. Would you sacrifice the quality of the story and the flow of the film for a gratuitous Shatner appearance? I would not, and hopefully JJ will not either.

502. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#499- According to those who were close top the project, only the strongest of directors were able to keep Bill reigned in, from straying from the character, and from overacting on Star Trek films in general, so don’t be so discouraged over Pine’s potential. Who wants a Shatner impersonation? Not me.

503. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#476–That’s huge “what if”. They obviously left the door open for Spock’s return in the last minutes of TWOK, and they did not wait until nearly a century later to bring him back (remember, his incident on board Enterprise-B is not long after STVI). Also, they never risked altering the timeline to retrieve Spock’s body and reunite it with his Katra. Sure, it is Sci-fi, and you COULD do anything. But “could” and “should” are two very different things. The only way you “should”, is if it benefits the story JJ wants to tell. Apparently, he does not think so, and I believe him.

504. T2 - January 22, 2008

Just watched Extra on NBC 2 minutes ago and saw Shatner with a phaser and communicator talking about The Tour. They also showed a part of the trailer. National TV coverage, nice…it finally seems real.

505. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#498–You said it best. William Shatner is not Captain of the Enterprise–James T. Kirk is.

506. Bobanort - January 22, 2008

I drove 600 miles to see Shatner at a convention and for over an hour all he did was complain about being typecast as Kirk and now he wants back in?!?! He . . . .wasn’t . . . . that . . good . . to begin with. I wouldn’t want any of the original cast in the new movie. If you’re going to “re-imagine” the series and start over . . then throw out the old and start with all new people. The only one of the originals that I ever saw appreciate the fans was Jimmy Doohan.

I can’t believe Shatner wants back in. (shakes head in disbelief)

507. Sybok Amok - January 22, 2008

How many times did they kill Janeway along with half the Voyager crew only to bring them back by the episode’s end???

JJ Abrams knows Shatner being in the film will steal his thunder. Abrams wants to prove he can make a hit Trek film without the key to it’s success, WILLIAM SHATNER! If a Shatner starring XI is a hit then everyone will rightfully credit it to Bill.

In the end Shatner will be proven correct. Revive the original & only James T. Kirk, and with Spock he can continue exploring all the undiscovered countries still awaiting them in Star Trek XII. Just imagine Bill in the captain’s chair commanding the newly launched Enterprise-F, then TOS will truly go full circle!

508. Ron - January 22, 2008

#497: “Bill and his fans are not asking for something absurdly unreasonable and out of the blue. It isn’t like he’s trying to get into a new Next Gen film. Lest you forget, it was Paramount and J.J. who decided to revisit TOS, followed up by numerous quotes suggesting Shatner would be included!”

Things change. Yes, Abrams did say early on that he valued the Shat’s “involvement” (which does not automatically mean he was intended to be on-screen as Kirk), but clearly something was reconsidered somewhere along the line. As others have suggested, maybe Shatner’s compensation demands were a little too much, given Paramount’s notoriously stingy budgeting on Trek films. Or maybe Abrams thought about Shatner’s well-known reputation for being a “difficult” actor. The bottom line, though, is that he’s had his “goodbye.” A couple of them actually.

509. I AM THX-1138 - January 22, 2008

This just in:
Shatner won’t be in the new movie.

In other news:
You still have your old DVD’s.

510. Teddy Was the Better Roosevelt: He Was a Republican! - January 22, 2008

I think Shatner should play himself as an actor trying to get a role in the cinematic portrayal of the exploits of the gallant crew of the USS Enterprise. It would be just like all those old war films.

As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

511. Closettrekker - January 22, 2008

#507–I don’t know what your standards are, but by mine, the last three ST films that had Shatner in it were not good, so what makes you think having him in this one would determine its success? As for your “full circle” suggestion, I hope that’s a joke. It was bad enough to see him fist fighting in the snow in STVI, and forgetting that he was playing Jim Kirk, and instead, putting on a Star Fleet uniform and playing himself.

#508–Some of that may have been a factor, but I think that, more than likely, JJ was simply unable to justify resurrecting the Generations-era Kirk while maintaining the integrity of his story. I, for one, am relieved that Mr. Abrams and co. did not bend to Bill’s complaints and those on forums like these. “Shoehorning” Shatner into this film would have been a mistake that could have cost them credibility for the sake of unnecessary nostalgia.

#509–So do I, and I enjoy them very much, especially my 20 or so favorite episodes. I watched “Friday’s Child” and “Amok Time” just this past weekend. My greatest concern is that we will have to wait to find out if the new “big three” can capture the same magic that Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley did as the originals. Bill’s appearance/non-appearance in the film is insignificant compared with the answer to that question. Herein lies the future…

512. Sybok Amok - January 22, 2008

#511–I am very serious about ‘full circle’. Kirk is Shatner, as Shatner is Kirk. The only way to play the role is as Shatner would or it’s no longer the same character. How can you shoehorn the authentic James T. Kirk into a TOS story?

ST6: TUC was an excellent film, ST5:TFF is what it is for many reasons that were not of Shatner’s doing & Generations was a TNG film with only the Enterprise B & later Kirk scenes making it watchable. When reviewing the film, the NY Times said though they saw Stewart as the better actor, Shatner had the greater screen presence!

Just as Stewart portrayed the younger Picard in TNG: Tapestry, Shatner can easily play younger Kirk seen through the eyes of Nexus Kirk. Put that red cadet uniform on Bill & let the cameras roll!

513. dalek - January 22, 2008

#511 Shatner was playing himself in Star Trek 6? What poppycock. It was one of the better Star Trek movies; so if you had a problem with his acting, millions of other people didn’t, critics alike. In fact Barry Norman (Who was the UK’s leading film critic at the time) said it was the best Trek movie he’d seen. No one I know ever said “The lead isn’t even acting he’s just being Shatner”.

The joke on the set was bill would often over-emote, put too much passion into it, that they usually used the last take when he wasn’t so full of energy.

And I don’t get this “shoe-horning” nonsense. The film is about time travel. There couldn’t be a better way for his return to fit in a plot. It’s not like this is a flashback. It’s about Spock travelling through time. So all this speil about “wouldn’t fit in the story they are telling” is nonsense. It would fit perfectly. And thats whats so frustrating.

514. Xai - January 22, 2008

Story above all… and if a revived, refurbished Kirk clone direct from the nexus/alternate timeline was part of the actual story, I’d say yes..even if Shatner did KILL Kirk for pay.

But he’s not, JJ has said it and if you think this is a travesty, a huge waste…that’s your choice. He brought it on himself and sometimes, even in Star Trek, you don’t get a do-over. Death and revival have been done too much. Death hath no sting and no drama if you know the character is coming back

I can’t fathom agreeing to kill off your signature character.

515. VOODOO - January 22, 2008

Xai# 514

“even in Star Trek you don’t get a do over”

Please see Star Trek III: The Search for Spock directed + starring Leonard Nimoy.

516. jonboc - January 22, 2008

Interesting. Those who want Shatner in the movie respect his history and creation of the character of James Kirk. They recognize his popularity with the majority of fans as well as the mainstream audience. They recognize that death in sci-fi is anything but final. His co-star for over 40 years, Leonard Nimoy, the co-star of Star Trek is in the movie, the onscreen magic between the two is magic and many (check any given poll on the subject) think it would be nice to have the STAR of Star Trek in there along with him. They are open to thinking outside the box and realize, in the hands of gifted writers, bringing Shatner’s Kirk into this movie isn’t really a problem…a challenge perhaps, but not impossible. They share company with Nimoy, JJ, Orci and everyone else who have publicly stated they would love to make it happen, if possible.

Those that don’t want him in clearly have some issues with the man. They hate his ego. He’s too fat and bloated now. He’s way too OLD to play Kirk anymore. He’s a whiner. He took BIG MONEY to kill off the character, how dare he want back in. He’s hogged the screen for 40 years, let Nimoy have the spotlight. They don’t want it to happen, even if it IS possible. They share company…with each other.

I’m really glad I fall into the first camp.

517. jonboc - January 22, 2008

#511 “My greatest concern is that we will have to wait to find out if the new “big three” can capture the same magic that Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley did as the originals. Bill’s appearance/non-appearance in the film is insignificant compared with the answer to that question. Herein lies the future… ”

Absolutely true. It’s not just the characters, but how they play the characters off one another that makes them likeable or not. Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley had that rare chemistry. You can find it elsewhere, like Doc and Festus on Gunsmoke. Andy Griffith and Don Knotts had it. Herman and Grandpa on the Munsters. Redford and Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The robot and Dr. Smith. Pete Duel and Ben Murphy, in Alias Smith and JOnes. They all had that magical mysterious element of sucess called on-screen chemistry.

Pete Duel’s replacement, Roger Davis and Ben Murphy did not. Herman and Marylin did not. Andy Griffith and Ken Berry did not. Penny and Judy Robinson did not.

It’s a concern that’s very real. I hope they did enough screen tests with PIne and Quinto together to make sure that something was there, because if it isn’t, all the eye candy in the world can’t save it..

518. Xai - January 22, 2008

515. VOODOO – January 22, 2008
Xai# 514

“even in Star Trek you don’t get a do over”

Please see Star Trek III: The Search for Spock directed + starring Leonard Nimoy.

Please see Xai #514… “Death and revival have been done too much. Death hath no sting and no drama if you know the character is coming back

I can’t fathom agreeing to kill off your signature character.”

Additionally, that movie, the whole thing… was about searching and finding Spock.. alive or dead. This movie, for what I have read, is not about rescuing Shatner from his own poor business decision.

519. MAT - January 22, 2008

This is rediculous, no S*** he is dead in the year 229_ but um if Spock can come back from the 24th century… maybe Kirk could be brought back from say a time before he died. Wow, what a concept, now get to work writing a back story…. Or maybe alter his death in the first movie so that he does not end up dead and can make an appearance in the 2nd film. The excuse that he can’t be in the new film is just that… obviously someone does not want him in it or trying really hard to hide something that they don’t want us to know until the film is released.

520. Mike Thompson (UK) - January 22, 2008

512 & 513 spot on.

Lot of rubbish on here about Bill which is Sad.

Its still a missed opportunity again by Paramount.

521. Mike Thompson (UK) - January 22, 2008

519 Bill seems far to busy on things like this Star Trek Tour
to have any part in this movie ….sadly

522. Xai - January 22, 2008

519. MAT – January 22, 2008

yes, it’s a big conspiracy

523. Mike Thompson (UK) - January 22, 2008

Orca, you could have wrote a way to get him back, maybe you had a great idea that you wrote only for someone else to turn it down!

524. Mike Thompson (UK) - January 22, 2008

Sorry Mr Orci

525. MAT - January 22, 2008

Mistake, In 229_ Kirk was taken from E-B and died sometime in the 24th Century.

526. Greg2600 - January 22, 2008

As for all the canon issues, here is how they could have gotten around them…..Spock is in the past, and gets into a spot where he has no way out of. He decides to mind meld with young Kirk a message about the future. Can’t use young Spock, since he later dies and loses some of his marbles in McCoy (The whole katra concept if you ask me was a lame as the Nexus). Perhaps that can explain Kirk’s statement in STV about “I’ve always known, I’ll die alone.” The message enables Kirk to survive Soran on Veridian III. The Generations events are intact, except Kirk survived. That enables him to save Spock’s bacon in either the 24th century, or maybe he hops on the time machine too (This is starting to sound like Terminator) and helps Spock in the 23rd century?

Personally, like I said many months ago, they should have just ignored Generations, and had Spock and Kirk together anyway. I’m going to be really shocked if this movie respects every little inch of canon.

I am not mad at J.J. Abrams of course, he’s much too nice a guy to be. And he and Damon created Lost. Although if they kill off Desmond the Scotsman I won’t be as nice. Once they settled on the story, it was going to be hard to bring Shatner in. What I can’t believe is that they didn’t think of including Shatner with Nimoy from the beginning. I mean, if you’re going to do a Star Trek movie, and you are supposedly fans, isn’t that the point???? Fanboyism be damned. This is Shatner and Nimoy! That’s the one part where I say they blew it.

The handling of the situation was not done well. I’m sure we’ll all get over it, but man, I would have found any way possible to get Shatner in the movie alongside Nimoy. I just don’t know how you can call yourself a Trek fan and not done it? That’s like being a Yankees fan and snatching a foul pop up out of Derek Jeter’s glove.

527. Junior - January 22, 2008

509. Great. Serious lol moment for me.

You have to be able to look a this from both sides. The camp that falls on the side of “I won’t watch this movie without Shatner” doesn’t even seem to look at the big picture. I love Shat. I would love him in the movie. The only reason I watch Boston Legal is for Shat. That doesn’t mean he HAS to be in the movie. This movie could be the best Star Trek movie ever (fingers crossed) and many won’t give it a chance because of no Shat. That’s foolish.

Bill himself would tell you that Star Trek is not Bill Shatner. He was a part and a very big part. Star Trek is an ideal…a vision. It’s not just flying spaceships and cool technology. It’s about the betterment of humanity.

I’m a little nervous already about another Time travel plot anyway. Most time travel stories are so porous they look like swiss cheese. As I’ve said before, I’d love to see Shat in the movie if it’s workable. If they can work it in, GREAT! If not, I’ll still see the movie.

528. Katie G. - January 22, 2008

Re: #519. MAT

“…maybe Kirk could be brought back from say a time before he died…”

Sorry to repeat myself but the character, Kirk, died at 63. The actor, Bill Shatner is now 76. Kirk is “still” um, (sorry!) 63. Shatner CANNOT get younger and portray Kirk from before he died. They look too different. The critics and “observant” fans would boo at the screen and it would be embarrassing.

Miss the original group TERRIBLY. But life moves on and we all age. I am very grateful for the years of entertainment from the other series and yes, some episodes were turkeys but overall they did a great job. Guess I don’t look too deeply.

Am delighted that they are doing this movie and hope these people will not disappoint us. Hopefully they will not just imitate the chemistry but really have it (you cannot mimic chemistry — either you have it or you don’t). If not, I’ll probably end up buying the DVD anyway after it’s out. I have high hopes for this endeavour.

But to have Bill in it in any role other than his age or older would be awful, not to mention humiliating, for the franchise. In my opinion.

529. Battletrek - January 22, 2008

You guys sure like Kirk.

530. Walter - January 22, 2008

Kirk can’t die any more than Spock can.

531. Battletrek - January 22, 2008

Did you guys not have daddy’s growing up or what?

532. star trackie - January 23, 2008

526 “Shatner CANNOT get younger and portray Kirk from before he died. They look too different. The critics and “observant” fans would boo at the screen and it would be embarrassing.”

SHatner can’t actuall grow younger, but he sure can look it. We all know he is 76, but you damn sure wouldn’t guess it if you didn’t know it. And as far as the critics and fans booing the screen because of some “supposed” lapse in Trek canon, reality check time. The majority of the people watching it, including critics, won’t care! If the movie is good, and Shat is good in it, they will love it. Some die hards, will scoff and the impossibility that Kirk was brought back…while embracing a complete overhail of the look and feel of the franchise.

These fans that expect “canon” to be followed to the letter, even in an altered time line, are a complicated buch, I’ll give ya that..

533. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2008

#531 – :lol: :lol:

534. Olympus1979 - January 23, 2008

I just want to say one more thing about this topic and then im done. I am not a hardcore trekkie by any means, I havnt even seen every episode of TOS but have seen all the movies. Of all Trek, I only care for TOS and would not label myself a fanatic. I have commented on a few boards but I am far from a regular here.

That being said, I have wanted Shatner to return as Kirk for quite some time now, and think the movie would be much better and feel complete with him in it.

So, I take offense to JJ saying those who want Shatner as Kirk once more are “fanboys”. I am far, far, far from a “fanboy” JJ. I follow the movies and think it would be wise to show old Kirk for many reasons. Simple as that. That makes me a FANBOY?

Whoever came up with the idea that only “fanboys” want Shatner in doesnt know what they are talking about. Not ONE of my friends watches Trek, not ONE. And do you know what they have said to me about the new movie? “I hear Shatners not in it, whats up with that?”. All they know is the pub from the shatner controversy and thats it. Are they fanboys too, JJ?!?!

Forgive me for letting off some steam here. I have no illusion that my post makes a difference and I have watched as the trekkies here have debated the Shatner issue more then any other issue on these boards, by far. I am going to see Trek opening night regardless. I dont view this as Shatner Vs. Trek. Its TOS, and the character of Kirk, Spock, etc. are in it so I wouldnt miss it for the world.

But JJ, you sure insulted a chunk of Trek fans with your little fanboy comment, and not just the fanboys, but those of us who dont appreciate being lumped into a group just because, oh, i dont know, we think a movie would be better if it brought back the hero for a proper sendoff. Oh, thats so fanboyish!!!

535. NTH - January 23, 2008

Another simple way for Kirk to be alive in the older spocks time——When the older Spock meets the younger Kirk he tells him to obtain a phaser on board the Enterprise B so that when he exits the Nexus with Picard he can simply shoot Soran.At the end of the film we see Kirk and Spock together in a closing scene.There is no need for convulated stories,reshot scenes or to interfere with canon.A few words of dialog and therefore the end of a controversy. Mr.Orci at least consider this type of approach.

536. Iowagirl - January 23, 2008

#516

You said it all. Perfectly put.

537. Olympus1979 - January 23, 2008

535,

Why does Spock need to actually say ANYTHING on screen to young Kirk? Just that fact we see them meet, it would be logical to assume Spock told Kirk about his death.

Then, when Kirk is alive and well in the future, it will just be assumed by Trek fans and those that know of Kirks death in Generations that Spock told him about it, and those that didnt know he died in the first place, wont even think twice about it!

But I forgot, JJ, Orci, and company just cant find a proper way to fit him in without forcing it. Just too tough a concept for these guys.

Hey give them credit, they may be the first producers/directors/writers in HISTORY to admit that something is just too difficult for them. They openly admit, they cant get it done.

538. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 23, 2008

#514 “even if Shatner did KILL Kirk for pay.”

Always a weak argument. I love the way some always mention this as if referring to a felony. So what? Actors get paid. And do you really need to be reminded that the TOS films had been cancelled by that point, and Bill had very good reason to believe that might be his last chance to play the role? And yes, as VOODOO pointed out, Nimoy agreed to kill Spock in 1982, initially without any intent to bring him back at all.

#528 “The critics and ‘observant’ fans would boo at the screen and it would be embarrassing.”

Shatner booed in a Trek movie? Not in a million years. That’s ridiculous.

#526 “What I can’t believe is that they didn’t think of including Shatner with Nimoy from the beginning. I mean, if you’re going to do a Star Trek movie, and you are supposedly fans, isn’t that the point???? Fanboyism be damned. This is Shatner and Nimoy! That’s the one part where I say they blew it.”

I couldn’t agree more. And we are in the bigtime majority!

539. NTH - January 23, 2008

#537 considering the controversy the words would add cl;

arity and resolution

#537 considering the controversy this matter has created the words would add clarity and resolution for the people who are aware of Kirks death,for those who don’t of course you are right they won’t think about it twice.

540. NTH - January 23, 2008

sorry about the typo error in #537

541. Ryan - January 23, 2008

It seems there are people who cannot distinguish between fanboy fiction and making a movie.

Remember the objective of this movie is to bring in a new audience. If you stick something like Spock warning Kirk about the future it would
1) confuse the new audience since they have seen little or no ST and
2) would violate continuity since Spock would never, ever violate the temporal prime directive for personal gain. Please don’t use ST 4 as a counter argument because those whales would have been killed anyways and the future would not be any different.

It’s called STAR TREK not SHATNER TREK!

With all due respect, if this movie was made after Shatner died then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

#538 – Correction. You are in a the big time minority. It only seems like you’re in the majority since the people who care voice their opinions more than those who don’t care.

542. NTH - January 23, 2008

sorry again I meant #539

543. Ryan - January 23, 2008

Here’s a little saying some people should read (it’s been de-religiousized for those who are agnostics or atheists). It might apply to the topic at hand.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

544. Xai - January 23, 2008

Fine. whatever you want.
But the ship has sailed.

545. NTH - January 23, 2008

#541 Shatner is however alive and please remember it was JJ Abrams himself who brought up the matter of Shatners involvemnt.If the object of this movie is simply to bring in a new audience then surely this would limit the potential audience out there.

546. AJ - January 23, 2008

Someone should ask Chris Pine to yell “Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!”

547. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#516–Excuse me, but WHOSE creation of the character? Surely you meant Mr. Roddenberry’s creation of the character, did you not? Bill Shatner was given the first opprotunity to play Captain Kirk, but by no means did he create that character, nor does it belong to him. He played it well for about 20 years, but that’s it.
Your polarization of Star Trek fans is unappreciated. Camps? How is supporting the integrity of JJ’s story so hard to understand. Paramount did not give this budget to Bill Shatner, but to Mr. Abrams. It is his story to tell. How will bringing Bill into the film be beneficial to the story? The truth is, you cannot answer that question any better than I can because neither of us knows what JJ’s story is. It seems that all your “camp” can do is tell JJ which story to tell and how he should be the one to “correct” someone else’s error.

#513–I disagree on Shatner’s performance, and the concept of him (at that age) fistfighting in the snow with a shapeshifter. That was comical at best. But again, that is an opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
As for your suggestion about making his return fit into the plot of the story, you are assuming that his return would be BENEFICIAL to the story.

#519–Again, that is someone else’s movie.

#526–see my response to post #519, and consider the potential consequences to Spock intentionally reversing an event (like a seemingly insignificant death) which is supposed to happen. If anything was learned in TOS “The City On The Edge Of Forever”, it is that can have grave and far-reaching consequences for many more than those directly involved. It is much more likely that Spock would prevent such an altering of the timline, rather than instigate it. But again, not JJ’s story (it seems).

#535–You mean that Spock should prevent a death that is supposed to happen?

#537–No, that would not be logical, rather it would be monumentally irresponsible of Spock to risk the fates of billions by purposely altering the timeline for apparently personal reasons.

#538–That is quite the assumption. This is a great site, but hardly represenative of enough people to determine what the majority thinks.

#541–The voice of reason!!!

#545–Shatner did not save the last few ST films he was in, so how would he save this one?

548. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#546–I love that. In fact, that was Bill’s last really good performance as James Kirk (the next two were okay), and by far my favorite Trek movie.

549. Sybok Amok - January 23, 2008

William Shatner was James T. Kirk while Abrams was still in diapers, now JJ owes The Shat his rightful center seat!

550. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 23, 2008

#541 “Correction. You are in a the big time minority. It only seems like you’re in the majority since the people who care voice their opinions more than those who don’t care.”

Wrong. When polls on both this, a Trek site, and USA Today, representing the views of general audiences, say that people want to see Shatner back by a margin of more than 2 to 1 (USA Today had support for Shatner at 70%), I don’t see how you can argue. Go back and read jonboc’s eloquent post #516. It says it all.

But this has all been said 1,000 times. People who wouldn’t enjoy seeing Shatner back just don’t get it, and never will: to non-Trekkies, Shatner is the face of Star Trek.

551. Katie G. - January 23, 2008

549. Sybok Amok

“William Shatner was James T. Kirk while Abrams was still in diapers, now JJ owes The Shat his rightful center seat!”

Sorry but I have to disagree with that. It seems to me that if J. J. had given Shatner the “seat” in the first place, I might agree. However, he did not so he does not have that obligation. If Shatner had done J. J. a HUGE favour, I might agree. Again, he has not, so J. J. doesn’t owe him anything. Offering a cameo would be a nice gesture but apparently it isn’t enough.

When William Shatner started in 1966, he was a nobody. It’s not like he was a huge star who decided to give little ol’ Gene Roddenberry a favour. As a matter of fact, the series was cancelled after only 3 seasons. (Even “Enterprise” with Scott Bakula lasted 4 seasons.) As far as I’m concerned, Shatner owes the Star Trek people a HUGE debt because it gave him that opportunity and that’s why he’s where he is now. Not the other way around. He’s forgotten this.

Anyone who wants to attempt a Star Trek movie owes Shatner?

No way. Sorry.

552. Katie G. - January 23, 2008

Re: #549 Sybok Amok

Another thought.

Shatner didn’t originate the role. He didn’t come up with the character(s) or the story. Gene did. Shatner had to audition and it turns out they thought he delivered what they had in mind so he happened to get the job.

553. NTH - January 23, 2008

Regarding #547 response to my post in #535 who says that this death has to occur ?Did we not see Spock risk everything to assist captain Pike in “The Cage” and likewise do everything possible to save Kirk and McCoy in “Star Trek 6″.He is possibly trying to do something similar in this film by changing something in the past,why not change his present as well.Spocks character is an expert in his understanding of cause and effect,a priincipal which appears to be underpinning Star Trek x1.
Regarding Your response to #545 I am not saying that Shatner would save this new film or that there is any necessity to do so I am simply saying that the filmmakers need to appeal to the widest possible audience out there and that Shatners involvement in any capacity would be beneficial to them.

I note with interest James Cawley’s inclusion in the film at short notice,particularly in the context of the current writers strike,it only goes to show where there isa wii there is a way.

554. Ryan - January 23, 2008

#550 – You’re still wrong. Usually, if people don’t care about something they won’t voice their opinion and, therefore, not vote. Polls can be skewed, especially the non-sceintific ones. Take a statistics class, and you’ll find out why.

“People who wouldn’t enjoy seeing Shatner back just don’t get it, and never will: to non-Trekkies, Shatner is the face of Star Trek. ”

I’m sorry, I thought that Star Trek was the story about the HUMAN ADVENTURE not about one man’s adventure. Now who doesn’t get it? The answer, of course, is you and everyone else who thinks Shatner’s presence is vital to the movie’s success.

Also, take a business class and you’ll discover something called a cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of something outweighs the benefit then you don’t do it. Shatner would ask for more money than the incremental ticket sales he would generate. Thus, don’t do it.

555. Sybok Amok - January 23, 2008

#550 & 551:

Hi Katie, I have to respectfully take issue with your posts. Yes, Gene Roddenberry created the concept of Kirk, but dialog on paper is not what breathed life into our beloved captain, it was Shatner. Just as Nimoy, Kelley & Doohan defined their characters, so does The Shat.

Can anyone give an example of a well established TV or movie character where the replacement actor was successful in succeeding the original? No, unless we have some Dick Sargent fans here. James Bond, Batman & Superman were characters created in other mediums & do not count. Once Shatner was cast as Kirk, it became his creation, as any good actor would do.

Does JJ owe Shatner? Yes, because Kirk is the glue that held Star Trek together. As an earlier post said, Kirk is the face of Trek, and Kirk’s face is that of William Shatner. So yes, JJ owes Bill big time. Rick Berman attempted to make Star Trek films without Shatner, the last two especially were complete failures.

Only thing Shatner ever owed the fans was a good performance & he has never let us down.

Lets bring The Shat home to the bridge of the Enterprise & lets go explore the future rather than recreate the past.

556. Olympus1979 - January 23, 2008

547,

How do you know Kirks death was meant to happen? Its a story, it could just as easily be made out to be a mistake, Picard should have never pulled him from the nexus – there is no ultimate authority of how a death should happen and what can or cant be changed. We are dealing with time travel, and your telling me rules exist for it? Dont think so.

If I go back in time and have a CONVERSATION with anyone, THAT alone could change history. A simple conversation between old Spock and young Kirk could unintentionally lead to a different future and a different ending for Kirk.

Bottom line is that It would be so easy to fit Shatner into the movie its not even funny. We now can say one of THREE things has happened:

1. What has been said all along is the truth. JJ and company tried to get Shatner in but couldnt figure out a way to do it without harming the story. This has to be the least believable by far of the 3 choices.

2. A part was made for Shatner but he either a. rejected a cameo or b. wanted too much money. This seems quite possible.

3. Surprise!! JJ Abrams, a guy known for, ummm, SURPRISES, is throwing one of the greatest curve balls in hollywood history. If he can keep everything about Cloverfield top secret until its released, do you really doubt he couldnt keep one scene between old spock and old kirk under wraps? I didnt think so.

557. Olympus1979 - January 23, 2008

Just something to think about:

Mr. Orci stated that normal deadlines dont apply (refering directly to the writers strike) to the Shatner issue.

Now JJ says they do apply because its “impossible” now with the writers strike.

So, two very different statements from the director and writer.

All I know for sure when it comes to this Shatner issue is, nothing is for sure.

558. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 23, 2008

#554 “you and everyone else who thinks Shatner’s presence is vital to the movie’s success.”

Now you’re making stuff up. My official position is that I do NOT think Shatner is “vital to the movie’s success”. I never have. I’ve said all along that it will succeed or fail on its own merits. But I’d PREFER to see him, I know it would add to the experience exactly as Nimoy’s involvement has excited fans, and as hard as it might be for you to acknowledge the fact, many, many others share that view. Are you actually one of those way off-base people who try to argue that Shatner isn’t the actor most associated with Trek?

“Shatner would ask for more money than the incremental ticket sales he would generate. Thus, don’t do it.”

Discussed his fee with him, have you? You have no way of knowing details of the budget. Paramount and JJ should’ve budgeted for both Shatner and Nimoy from the beginning!

559. star trackie - January 23, 2008

#551 “When William Shatner started in 1966, he was a nobody.”

X-Sorry..Wrong answer. Check his list of credits inIMDB prior to 1966…his “somebody-ness”, in the entertainment industry was quite secure by 1966.

You’re not offered the star lead in a major network television series because you’re a “nobody.

560. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

Canonize Shatner’s Trek novels and the heavy lifting is done. Just make a reference and move on with the story.

I can’t believe that they’ll crank out all sorts of lame excuses for foisting a bloated, misshapen version of the Enterprise, built on the ground, in brash defiance of science and common sense, yet can’t figure out a way to work in Shatner as Kirk.

Can you say “Abrams is overrated”?

561. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#556–Shatner’s death preceeds many important events in the timeline. Too much time would have passed to risk jeopardizing that timeline by altering an event that happened earlier. There would be no way of knowing how a live Kirk could have, however, inadvertently, indirectly disturbed that timeline by interacting with others in any way. Spock would be aware of such a potential issue, and it would no doubt affect his decision-making. If he wished to prevent Kirk’s death by travelling back in time, why would he wait so long to do it? What we have heard about the story is that it begins with Spock, in the 24th Century, where the TNG spinoffs ended. Why not do it immediately afterwards as Kirk did for him? Nothing will convince me that Spock is capable of such an irresponsible act that would jeopardize so much, for the sake of a personal friendship. Risking his own career is one thing, but risking the lives of everyone in the quadrant is another…

#558–Here we agree. We have no idea what Bill’s financial demands would be. I don’t think that has anything to do with it.

562. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#553–We have been over this again and again. Risking his own career and life is one thing, risking the fate of an existing timeline (and billions of lives) for personal reasons is something entirely different. Sometimes, I wish people had to read every post before commenting. Anyway, there it is once again–”The Menagerie Pt. I, II” (I think it has been done in every thread) reference, and the answer.

563. ThePhaige - January 23, 2008

I would be very careful to read anything into this. I too sense an elaborate smokescreen. Things just don’t add up. JJ and company are all about conspiracy, buzz and spin, they understand the power of speculation. This is an ingenious plot people. My gut tells me Shatners in.

The thing that will be the most amazing is how long can they keep it going. In the end the buzz will be all over the place and build all the way to its end.

To be honest I don’t care if Shats in or out. I want to see a kick @ss trek film. The last films with TNG were really weak, with the exception of First Contact and in FC there was a real tension between the characters we had never seen before especially in Picard and the whole Moby Dick vengeance angle.

I just dont want them to hold back on this reimagining, and with its ample budget they should be able to deliver everything we feel we have been missing over the years.

In all actuality the original series episodes still today are most fulfilling in ways the movies never accomplished for me personally.

564. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#563–Amen to that last statement, although I did like the first few movies with the original characters. Granted, they do not hold the same social significance as the TOS episodes, but at least the entertainment value was/is there. As for any subterfuge on the collective part of Mr. Abrams and Bill, I don’t share that feeling.

565. Katie G. - January 23, 2008

Re: #555. Sybok Amok

I respect your personal view. It’s true that Shatner did bring the lines to life, and beautifully. On the other stuff, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

“James Bond, Batman & Superman were characters created in other mediums & do not count.”

I don’t see how just because it began in a different medium it doesn’t count. They all began in someone’s imagination (be it Ian Fleming, Jerry Siegel or Gene Roddenberry) and made the transition to paper, then to film (TV or the “Silver Screen”). I believe that Superman was on TV before it was a movie. James Bond, I’m not so familiar with but I think it bypassed TV and was just a movie.

Re: #558. Shatner_Fan_2000

Totally agree with your last statement and would like to expand upon it. None of us are privy to ANY of the details as we weren’t there (even if “J. J. said…” whatever or “Shatner said…” whatever). WE WEREN’T THERE AT THE ACTUAL MEETING. It’s all conjecture — a conclusion, judgment, or statement based on incomplete or inconclusive information — and silly to argue over. I wish more people would learn to insert “in my opinion”. I think it could help calm some nerves. In my opinion. ;)

And now I REALLY have to get back to my other life and get some work done.

566. Closettrekker - January 23, 2008

#560–I won’t say that at all, unless he makes a bad movie. As it stands now, I haven’t seen it. I’ll reserve my judgement until then.
The real question, despite what anyone says to the contrary ( IMO) is not whether they can, rather it is whether they should. I do not think it “should” be done unless it benefits his (JJ’s) story. All of this other stuff is just a bunch of people trying to tell a brush artist what to paint, and judging his art before it is even complete and made public.
I am glad he is standing his ground, and I think people are giving him a hard time for not wanting to come out and say he has no desire to make a film that erases the death of Kirk. He is, instead, taking the high road, as some of us wish Bill would do when asked about this. Maybe that is wrong. Perhaps he should pull no punches and have some of you bash him for not being a Shatner fan. Then again, maybe that’s not it at all. I know this. JJ has a Star Trek movie to do. It doesn’t look like Bill does.

567. Vidar - January 23, 2008

#563

Let’s just hope the correct ship comes with “The Shat”. That monstrocity in the trailer has got to go.

568. MAT - January 23, 2008

#547- “Again, that is someone else’s movie.”

Not sure what your getting at, maybe you could elaborate.

569. dalek - January 23, 2008

Shatner actually had a lot to do with Kirk’s personality and development and fleshing out the character. If you read the making of Star Trek by Stephen E Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry you’ll discover Shatner spent hours in Roddenberry’s office working on the character before they filmed Star Trek. He was very much behind the scenes and in on the evolution of Kirk right at the very beginning.

He even came up with, along with Nimoy, a few of Kirk and Spock’s lines in TMP which they improvised and acted out in front of Gene and Robert Wise some of which made it in the movie.

So to say he’s just an actor playing the role — he was much more than that he truly cared about the character — altho Generations was a massive mistake, but at that time there was gonna be no more TOS ever. JJ changed that — Star Trek is about Kirk and Spock again.

And the timeline argument we’ve been over. Kirk living would not affect the Borg, the Sona, the Remans, Voyagers return to alpha quadrant or Sisko’s part in the Dominion war.

All the writer has to say is “it didnt affect any of those events”. They are the keepers of Trek canon now, so their word is canon.

Anyway Kirk living in Shatner’s novels tied in nicely with canon. There’s nothing to say that Kirk’s resurrection wasn’t already going to be part of that timeline anyway since his death was never ever mentioned post Gen.

The idea tho that it would stop The Ent D from being destroyed and no Ent E to fight the Borg is ridiculous. The Enterprise was destroyed way before Kirk was involved and always destined to happen.

570. MAT - January 23, 2008

Just an observation… does everyone realize why Gene Roddenberry did the Next Generation, because he would not have to deal with going back to the past and all the baggage that came with it.

If Shatner is not in the new movie and Nimoy is then they (Orci et all) deserve what is coming in terms of heartache from the fans of trek. After all they chose to go back to the origins while some of the previous cast still lives on and the past is still fresh in mind.

Ok so Shatner was in Generations (bad choice, i agree) … didn’t Nimoy also get offered a part?

571. Riverside - January 23, 2008

567. Vidar – January 23, 2008
#563

Let’s just hope the correct ship comes with “The Shat”. That monstrocity in the trailer has got to go.

You’ve not seen enough to make that determination…good grief.

572. Dave - January 23, 2008

I’ve said it before

1) If old Spock mindmelds with young Spock, wouldn’t that alter the timeline, even when put it’s set right? How can old Spock tell young Spock about the future without altering young Spock’s future actions??? – especially to find out you’ll be more Human than you want to.

Young Spock: “I’m gonna die in a plexiglass chamber and be brought back to life more human?????? Screw that! Im going to the Vulcan Science Academy like Dad wanted!”

2) When Picard took Kirk from the nexus, why didn’t he go back to the space station where Soran was relatively harmless instead of 15 secondes before Veridian 3 blew up? Apparently the lives of the people in the Amargosa Star system were’nt that important to the timeline. LOL

I sill say blow up the nexus in the past. No Nexus=no Soran= no generations= Kirk alive & well in the 23rd Century

573. Greg2600 - January 23, 2008

Closettrekker, Spock would not be altering the timeline simply to bring back Kirk. He would be doing so as a Last resort, in order to defeat the bad guys and right the timeline.

MAT, Spock was given basically no more than a cameo. Nimoy declined and his role was basically taken up by Scotty and Checkov. One oddity is both Nimoy and Shatner’s recollection of that movie. Shatner keeps thinking it was the sixth movie, and Nimoy I have heard saying he was asked to direct the film?

It’s no secret he has often gone to Paramount pitching an idea for Star Trek, most likely ones which would feature his return. I imagine he dealt with Berman each time, which of couse went nowhere. Although I think J.J. let some of us down, you have to give him credit for talking to Shatner and at least attempting to get him into the movie. That’s more than anyone else at Paramount (aside from Manny Coto) has done in 14 years.

574. MAT - January 23, 2008

#573 – “you have to give him credit for talking to Shatner”

From all accounts I think J.J. is a humble person, so what you present on all accounts should be a fair shake for Shatner. My question is why did it end with just talking to him?

575. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

If this IS just an elaborate smokescreen, they’d better realize that a fanbase that has been lied to and otherwise disrespected over the past decade is really not in the mood for a glorified April Fool’s gag. That trailer certainly indicates that they whole “we’re going to respect canon” is a load of crap.

So they’d better start making with the happy talk fast.

576. VOODOO - January 23, 2008

#574 Mat

I’m sure J.J. and everyone else associated with the film are nice people (at least they come across that way) I also wonder why they never got back to Shatner in regards to the film?

If you listen to Shatner it sounds like he was left hanging + the only way he was told about not being in the film was when Leonard Nimoy told him after reading the script.

#573 Greg2600

The only way I feel “let down” by the creative team is that they are not going to give Kirk a better ending. I’m pretty sure if they wanted to put Shatner in he would be there.

Besides that one major flaw I like just about everything else I have heard about the project and I can’t wait to see the final result.

577. Xai - January 23, 2008

575. Captain Robert April – January 23, 2008
“That trailer certainly indicates that they whole “we’re going to respect canon” is a load of crap.”

How?

578. 7 of 5 - January 23, 2008

[#502]
I absolutely do not want an imitation of Shatner in the role, but I also don’t want a 180 or even a 90 degree turn on the role of Kirk either, which might happen unless Pine finds some swagger, some ‘oomph’ and the aforementioned gravitas.
That’s what I believe the character of James T. Kirk is all about. I just don’t know if Pine has the chops for it.
Since the deed is done, we’ll all have to wait and hope for the best.

579. Dennis Bailey - January 23, 2008

#575: “they’d better realize that a fanbase that has been lied to and otherwise disrespected over the past decade is really not in the mood for a glorified April Fool’s gag…So they’d better start making with the happy talk fast.”

Despite your being a real tough talker, you represent a constituency of one.

580. Litenbug - January 23, 2008

560. Captain Robert April – January 23, 2008
“Canonize Shatner’s Trek novels and the heavy lifting is done. Just make a reference and move on with the story.”

What’s the point… how does that help the story?

“I can’t believe that they’ll crank out all sorts of lame excuses for foisting a bloated, misshapen version of the Enterprise, built on the ground, in brash defiance of science and common sense, yet can’t figure out a way to work in Shatner as Kirk.”

Can you say “Abrams is overrated”?”

What lame excuses?… there’s one solid one that was cited by JJ. A foolish actor killed his character

Bloated and misshapen? You haven’t seen the whole thing and how do you know what 23rd century science has in store?

Give substance to your complaints, wait until we actually have facts.

Can you say truckload of assumptions?

581. NTH - January 23, 2008

#561,#562 By providing Kirk with a way of being saved when he exits from the Nexus the only thing that changes at this point is that Kirk is alive. Following this it is not hard to imagine that he is retired perhaps living on some ranch with horses.How do you imagine that this is going to effect the lives of billions of lives.In Star Trek 3 Kirk had no such reservations about bringing back Spock to life.DS9 also touched on the idea of going back in time to change an event in the past on the original Enterprise.Perhaps you are suggesting that a pre-warned Kirk would simply not take the trip on board the Enterprise B or leave the captain of the B go to try and solve the problem.The resulting possible scenario of Picard failing to kill Soran and possibly being killed himself would indeed have far reaching effects.The difficulty with this is that Kirks philosopy of wanting to personally make a difference would predicate against him sending Harriman to his death or for that matter wasting the opportunity to be the hero.Spock knows Kirks character very well and I suspect might come to the same conclusion.

582. Jack - January 23, 2008

Shatner’s Kirk was eventually eaten by Shatner himself — by The Voyage Home, Shat had started just playing himself. The whole indulge-the-cast mentality is what beached the movie franchise in the first place. Just my opinion, but his best performances were in the first two seasons of the original show and the first three flicks — when he actually stays in character. The Great Dane lovin’, freeclimbing, Antonina dating (all Shatner ideas)… “as they say in your century, I don’t even have your telephone number” Kirk of IV,V and VII are just Shatner doing Shatner. Actors, generally, often are (or at least eventually become) flaky egomaniacs… not blaming the guy… but does he really know/get what’s best for Kirk/ Star Trek? Does the guy who brought the house down in a dinner theatre Death of a Salesman really get the character/play? This is the guy who wrote that he tried to pitch a scene in Star Trek II where Khan and Kirk fight hand to hand with this crazy glove that changed into an eagle, than a snake etc. (very Beastmasteresque). I like the guy, and loved his best Kirks…. but, come on, Star Trek will live long and p… you know… without him. Wow, I’m a nerd.

583. Vidar - January 23, 2008

571: You’ve not seen enough to make that determination…good grief.

Yes, I’ve seen enough to make that determination. I know the Constitution class like the back of my hand, and THAT ain’t it. I am a professional modeler, and I know the subject very well. From what I can tell, it looks like a bashing of NX-01 with the refit from ST:TMP.

This ship is going to look nothing like the ship used in the original series. But hey, at least the saucer, secondary hull, and warp nacels are present.

Typicle Hollywood. Couldn’t keep from dipping ther fingers in the Puding too much.

584. Jack - January 23, 2008

Maybe Shat could do an Alfred Hitchcock-esque cameo — waiting on a bench for the space bus in the background. And really, he’s looking a lot more like Hitch (with Mario Batalli’s blood pressure) these days than he is like ol’ James T., especially if he took off the goshdarned toupee.

585. Ron - January 24, 2008

You know, there is a solution that would make everyone happy. Shatner could simply ask James Cawley for a role as Kirk in a New Voyages episode. I can’t imagine him ever saying “no” to such a request.

Think about this for a minute. Everyone comes out a winner: The Shatner fans get to see him as Kirk for yet another “one last time.” Shatner gets to satisfy his jones to play Kirk again. Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci don’t have to come up with some contrived, convoluted way to bring the character back from the dead. It will proven once and for all that Shatner didn’t ask for too much money (since he probably wouldn’t be paid at all for the STNV appearance). STNV fans will get to enjoy what would undoubtedly be an amazing episode. And finally, STNV itself — a project I think the large majority of us, including myself, support in one way or another — would get a HUGE boost.

Any thoughts?

586. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#573–The problem is, that is not part of JJ’s story. I understand that you are suggesting that it should be, but if I were JJ and Paramount had given me this enormous budget to resurrect the Star Trek franchise, I do not believe I would count on anyone’s vision but mine. If it fails, it was his story. If it succeeds, it was still his story. It is never up to us to tell an artist what picture he should paint, what colors to use, etc., otherwise it is no longer his art–it becomes polluted by too many brushes! In order for a Shatner return to be justified, it has to be beneficial to HIS story. If it were, Shatner would be in the film. Obviously (although some still refuse to believe it), JJ does not wish to make a film about (or depicting) the return of the once dead Capt. Kirk, and I don’t blame him. Instead, he wishes to tell a story about the once great Capt. Kirk, and use the “still alive” Spock (in some way or another) to do it. I am sorry that your story is not the one being told (not really, just being polite). Perhaps you should have pitched it to Paramount yourself. Maybe they would have given YOU the money! As it stands now, it’s JJ’s vision of Star Trek or none at all.

587. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#576–Why is it their responsibility to give him a better ending? It was not theirs to begin with. Shouldn’t you feel “let down” by those behind Generations? It is not JJ’s responsibility to “correct” what Berman did to the franchise, to Kirk, or anything else. His responsibility is to make a good Star Trek movie. If you think that cannot be done without Shatner, then I suggest that, first, you go back and watch Shatner’s last 3 performances as Kirk, and second, that you stay home when this movie debuts. Personally, I am looking for Star Trek–not Bill Shatner in a Star Fleet uniform (or any geriatric fistfights in the snow with a shapeshifter!) simply playing the guy in the Priceline commercials.

588. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#587 … Nearly every post you write mentions how Shatner was too old and, according to you, not acting properly in his last 3 performances as Kirk. We get it already, you didn’t dig it. But the thing you have to realize is that the majority of fans enjoyed his performances right up through Generations, even if the movies themselves weren’t perfect.

And I agree with you, JJ’s primary responsibility is to make a good Star Trek movie. I just think his first objective on that front should’ve been putting Shatner AND Nimoy at the top of his $135 million dollar wish list. Don’t tell me that professional writers couldn’t have made this work, when we fans have suggested dozens of ways. This movie is going to center on different faces in familiar roles and a revamped Enterprise, right? By it’s very nature, this story is going to require us all to swallow a lot of changes and seems to be taking place in an alternate universe. Why then can’t it be one where old Kirk isn’t dead?

I’m not asking that Bill star, I don’t believe anyone is. A supporting role like Nimoy’s would’ve been awesome. The 2 Star Trek legends could’ve launched this new voyage in classic style. I guarantee you, fans would’ve cheered when they appeared onscreen together. Hell, look how excited everyone gets when they simply appear together onstage at a convention or in a Priceline commercial. You still could’ve had your new young Kirk and we ALL would be happy.

589. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#588–I don’t disagree with you about whether it could or could not have been done. I do disagree with you on the premise that it is JJ’s responsibility to make it happen, and that Shatner being in the film would make it better. It would actually create a bigger mess for JJ to clean up. JJ has a story which he wants to tell, and Paramount has given him a huge budget with which to tell it (notice that they never made a Shatner appearance some kind of prerequisite–I suppose you believe that is some sort of oversight on the part of the “suits” who care only about the financial success of the movie). For Shatner’s return to be justified, it first has to make sense, and even more importantly, has to be beneficial to JJ’s story. You can make up all of the scenarios you want to in which it is “possible” to “erase” Kirk’s death, but let me ask you this. If you had been given such an enormous task (rejuvenating a barely-breathing franchise) and such an enormous financial responsibility to go with it, would you bend the integrity of your own vision to the will of fans who do not number enough to have made even close to that amount of money in any Star Trek film (yes, I know that in today’s dollars STIV would have done it)? I would not. I would live or die with my own vision, succeed or fail with no one to credit/blame but myself. You do not take that kind of risk (not sticking to your guns) in business. If Shatner’s return makes the story work better, then fine. If it does nothing beneficial to the story he has already created, then it is not fine. It pollutes the flow of the film. JJ is an artist. If he were a brush artist commisiioned to create art in a certain genre or motif, would you sit here and tell him what image to paint and which colors to use? If you did, and he submitted to your will, it would no longer be his art. It would be yours and his, and if it failed, he would indeed have himself to blame for allowing your demands to pollute his vision. Let him paint his picture with the colors of his choice, and when he has made it available to the world, we can salute him or we can laugh at him. But make no mistake, it is his art to create, and if it does not work well, it is his failure to remember—you’ll simply move on to something else and forget about it.

590. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

I have something else which I would like to add. As a kid, I never watched the Superman TV show. I knew (as everyone did) that George Reeves WAS Superman/Clark Kent, but I just never watched it or cared. That is how some people (targeted new fans) feel about Star Trek and William Shatner as Kirk. My father asked me to go and see Salkind/Puzo’s Superman: The Movie (in which Christopher Reeves. I did, and instantly became a Superman fan. I loved it. I also very much enjoyed Superman II.
The idea that people (non trekkers) will not give this film a chance because Bill is not in it is ridiculous. If anything, giving these characters a fresh new look will open the door for countless new fans of Roddenberry’s Star Trek.

591. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#589 You and I disagree on a fundamental level, and just won’t see eye to eye on this. Your stance is that JJ is telling a different story, and shouldn’t have to compromise his vision. My stance is that his vision should’ve included Shatner to begin with. I think that’s the root of most arguments here.

592. Jack - January 24, 2008

Shatner_Fan_2000, so you’re William Shatner, right? Or one of his daughters boyfriends?

Come on, who says the majority of Star Trek fans love Shatner? Was it a census question? Wow, I’m an ass. Sorry.

593. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#591–It’s not the only root. I also believe that any attempt by Spock to go back decades in time to prevent Kirk’s death would be immoral and in violation of Spock’s established character. That scenario seems to be the preferred resolution by those who clamour for a dose of Shat in this film. For the best explanation of why I believe that is outside of Spock’s character, please refer to post #274 in the more recent thread “Pine on Shatner and Kirk…”

I will admit that I have heard a very good scenario or two for an explanation of Shatner’s return. However, one of them is a ripoff of TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise”(a story unfortunately wasted on Tosha Yar). The other is a GFII-like flashback scene at the end of the film. Neither, it seems though, would fit into the category of being beneficial to JJ’s story. As you said, you and I fundamentally disagree on the importance of that.

594. Furm - January 24, 2008

Here’s the deal, from what I understand the cast has signed for 3 more star trek movies…Right I feel J.J. is BS’ing the fan I think William Shatner will be in the final seen of the movie “Yeah” he died on Verdin and the plot of the new movie is Spock goes back in time to save Kirk…Right so the events of the past change the future mean all of Kirks mission, including the Wrath of Khan thru the ending to Generation. Also J.J. has the chance to explore what actually happen to the crew after the historic five year mission (the missing years) which leads to Captain Picard and his beginnings – There are so many stories. My fellow Treker this is the beginning of a bigger story….There is more to Star Trek than Kirk, Picard, Janway and Sisko…….:O)

595. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#594–I certainly hope not.

596. NTH - January 24, 2008

#593 If it is the case that Spock is going back in time to prevent the young Kirks death would you consider this immoral and not in Spocks character. Kirks death at this point would of course result in a different timeline,one which Spock is aware of,and potentially disasterous results. Spocks interaction with a young Kirk could in itself have unforseen effects. You expanded upon a lot of potential sequele in your posting#274 in” the Pine on Shatner and Kirk” thread all of which I agree with however if it was the case that Spock provided Kirk with a way of being saved when he exits from the Nexus,as Imentioned in my earlier posting#581,then from Spocks perspective he could literally meet Kirk when he is rescued and any events after this would represent the future,that is a timeline that has yet to take place.

597. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#596–I think I understand what you are trying to say, and that would, IMO, definitely make a difference. If Kirk’s death was prevented by Spock going back in time WITHOUT letting decades go by first—then of course, none of my concerns in post #274 in the other thread would be warranted. However, given Nimoy’s current age and the age of Spock when we last saw him (TNG, “Unification), it is a “reasonable” assumption (again, IMO) that the story would require him to do so after the last of the TNG-era spinoff series had ended. In that case, we are back to those ethical concerns being justified. The timing (of any rescue of his friend, Jim Kirk) is crucial to maintaining the ethical integrity of Spock’s character, IMO. None of this theoretical generating of possible solutions to Kirk’s death matters, however, if it is not beneficial to the story which already exists–whatever that may be…

598. Mauricio - January 24, 2008

“Star Trek- Generations” is a movie that, quite simply, does not exist to me. As a director (of STXI) l´d pretend that “Generations” never happened, simply because it is a bad, bad movie ( “useless” to Star Trek mitology), and Shatner is now paying the price to be involved in that production.

599. Mauricio - January 24, 2008

If Bryan Synger did not consider “Superman III” and “IV” to direct and write “Superman Returns”, why can´t JJ do tha same ?

600. Riverside - January 24, 2008

583. Vidar – January 23, 2008
571: You’ve not seen enough to make that determination…good grief.

Yes, I’ve seen enough to make that determination. I know the Constitution class like the back of my hand, and THAT ain’t it. I am a professional modeler, and I know the subject very well. From what I can tell, it looks like a bashing of NX-01 with the refit from ST:TMP.

This ship is going to look nothing like the ship used in the original series. But hey, at least the saucer, secondary hull, and warp nacels are present.

Sorry, I too know the old 1701 and we are both looking at a dark, incomplete model. I am an amateur photographer and professional artist. You aren’t the only one with an “eye”. For what I can see beyond the darkness is minor changes.. primarily in the nacelles. I won’t say it hasn’t changed, I am saying it’s minor changes and too dark to tell much more.

601. Greg2600 - January 24, 2008

Closet, I agree it is not J.J.’s responsibility to bring back Shatner. I’m just saying it is something I would have done. Heck, I would have just ignored Generations entirely. It’s not about bringing back Kirk per se, it’s about seeing Shatner and Nimoy together again, in Star Trek. Momentous occasion lost. Although J.J. needs to explain better that the problem was a story/script problem and not simply because of canon. Because canon is not a reason good enough to not reunite Shatner and Nimoy.

I said at the beginning of all of this that I was not very confident they could get it done. Who knows, maybe for the sequel?

Frankly, the responsibility rested on Paramount and Rick Berman, but Paramount pulled the plug on Enterprise and as a result wouldn’t pay Shatner to come on the show. The opportunity was perfect. You had a TV show which has spent a lot of time time travelling, and the Reeves-Stevens could have definitely written the proper script.

602. MAT - January 24, 2008

#599- “If Bryan Synger did not consider “Superman III” and “IV” to direct and write “Superman Returns”, why can´t JJ do tha same ?”

It dosn’t matter, Christopher Reeve was not alive. However the case can be made that he in fact used characters from previous Superman incarnations.

603. John - January 24, 2008

Abrahams said: “The only reason why Mr. Shatner is not in the movie and Mr. Nimoy is, is because his character died on screen. It was very difficult, and now impossible with the writers strike, it is very difficult to find a way to put him in that didn’t feel like we were putting him in just because we were huge fans of his.” I have one problem with that excuse. Yes, Captain Kirk died on the screen in Star Trek 7. But Star Trek 11, is allegedly a prequeal. That is, in story, it’s way before Kirk even became a Captain. And being that there is a younger version of James T. Kirk in it, Shatner should be allowed to be in it! That’s my take on it.

604. Xai - January 24, 2008

603. John – January 24, 2008
Abrahams said:

Abrams

605. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#603–You certainly have every right to your take, but that suggestion requires that it be necessary to the story for JJ to depict Kirk at a time when he was old enough to be portrayed by Bill. If it were unnecessary, then you would have the whole “shoving him in just because we like him…” issue.

606. Mike Thompson UK - January 25, 2008

The thing that hurts me about Generations is Spock would have found away to rescue his friend, not off Enterprise B but Vidian III in the future, he would have worked it out that he was in the Nexus.

But then the story was all wrong for Generations. However it was good to see Scotty and Chekov for the last time.

Remember Berman would still be in charge now if he had not messed up the last two TNG movies.

607. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#606–Possibly, but the failure of ENT to last beyond its 4th season would have had something to do with it as well. I actually liked it (once I was able to watch it on dvd). It was one of the few things he did that I ever truely appreciated (along with the final season of DS9). But you are correct about Generations. It was rather poorly done. Perhaps, in the end, we will have a better writer/director (or at least one with a fresh take) to carry on the franchise as a result.

608. Whill - January 26, 2008

We don’t even need Nemoy in this movie, let alone Shatner!

The movie-makers are letting their conservative fears enter their decision-making, again. Even though TNG was a huge hit on TV, they were actually worried that a Star Trek movie without Kirk would bomb, which is why they created Generations as it is. Whether it’s with the original characters or TNG, it is possible for a Trek movie to be good or bad, which we have seen. The presence of Shatner or Nemoy doesn’t guarantee success, and their absence doesn’t spell certain doom. This movie can still be good without the original Kirk or Spock.

Yes, it is bad enough we have to see the old fat half-Vulcan with his severely cigarette-damaged voice again, but you talk of putting Shatner in this too? Until now, Shatner was Kirk (for better or worse). But let’s be real: Shatner never was and still isn’t a good actor. And now our original hero is old fat and bald. Time to move on.

It’s time to wipe the slate clean and start over fresh. The 24th Century was so spent. The original 23rd Century actors are old and fat, or dead. Let them rest in peace for God’s sake! Starting over with the original characters is the best possible thing that could happen to this franchise.

I already can’t wait for the Star Trek movie without old time-traveling characters.

Of course they could always have grandparents day at Starfleet and Nichelle Nichol’s could play Urura’s ol grammy. :-)

609. Battletrek - January 26, 2008

Whill I absolutely 100% agree, best post ever (on this site)!

610. Mike Thompson (uk) - January 26, 2008

Whill, Look forward to you making 76 when you will more than likely to be old fat and bald………… oh that’s if you make it.

Just watch Star Trek II again and tell me Shatner is no good.

By the way it’s Nimoy and I think its wonderful that he is in this movie!

606 thanks for the feed back.

611. Ben - January 26, 2008

There is a very simple way to put Kirk in the film – Set it between the dates of Star Trek 6 & The enterprise B Christening Ceremony in Star Trek Generation. Sure Kirk is Older, but there could be reference to the coming ceremony and, especially, why Spock wont be able to attend.

It ties in perfectly!

612. Catman - January 26, 2008

I’ll be happy when William Shatner is DEAD and can quit bitching and writing those god-awful books.

613. Catman - January 26, 2008

Captain “Kirk” can BLOW ME!

614. Outer Kirkdom - January 27, 2008

If Kirk were resurrected, would he be thin?

615. Jack - January 27, 2008

Why am I reading all this?

616. Pearl - January 28, 2008

Kirk is dead; William Shatner should NOT be on any more Star Trek movies – in real life he’s been acting like an arrogant jerk, and THAT should not be allowed on Star Trek; especially after the filth he plays on Boston Legal

617. Perfectsdr - February 4, 2008

JJ Abrams is rumored to be a genius perfectionist and needs things done to his liking; Shatner is a force of nature and has his own ideas as to how Kirk could be featured. However it is more likely Shatner would prefer a complete revival of his character rather than a cameo performance in line with the story. JJ’s comments about the difficulty of including Kirk because of his on screen death is completely false – because if anyone knows JJ’s work, reviving dead characters has dominated his recent shows; Alias, Lost – even Dominic Monaghan got to make an appearance is the new season despite having an onscreen death. If anything the type of creative writing his team frequently delivers should the extenuating reason why Shatner could be featured. After all the creator of the new Battlestar Ronald D. Moore wrote the Kirk death scene in ‘Generations’ – he’s a genius but let’s face it – it was a clumsy bit of writing and the fact that Captain Kirk died in the time travelling nexus, the audience – I was one at the time – thought that Kirk would be brought back but was disappointed when it dawned that this was the passing of the torch of the star trek ‘generations’.
JJ should surprise all of us who can already guess that this new film will feature s story narrative structure akin to Lost, after all Mi:3 was a rip off of many Alias episodes, not to mention Michael Vartan’s character of Alias was revived for fans, despite being pummeled with bullets. So really it should be plausible to include Shatner unless JJ is not being truthful about his fan boy status of the original series. Live Long & Prosper….

618. FUk me - April 19, 2008

d bom just go home u homo homo hompnomh homo homo homomomomomommomomomomomomomomomommomomomomomomomomomo

619. FUk me - April 19, 2008

y so sad

not many ppl talking aye well good luk every1 go on http://www.runescape.com and get addicted lik me!!!

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