Abrams on Howard Stern: Talks Strike, Shatner, Cloverfield ‘Sickness’ And More [UPDATED: Abrams on Opie & Anthony Too] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams on Howard Stern: Talks Strike, Shatner, Cloverfield ‘Sickness’ And More [UPDATED: Abrams on Opie & Anthony Too] January 24, 2008

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

Star Trek producer/director JJ Abrams called in for an interview with the Howard Stern Show and being that it was Howard Stern, questions ranged from “is your wife hot?” to “did you bang Jennifer Garner?” to “how much money do you make?” to “is Tom Cruise nuts?” But he also took some serious questions about the writers strike, people getting sick watching Cloverfield and, of course, Star Trek (and Shatner). See below for some select quotes and the full audio interview.
[UPDATE: Abrams also called in to Opie and Anthony Show...details and audio below]

JJ Abrams quotes

On writers strike

If you are a writer/director you are striking on the one hand but also, if you are lucky, working on the other hand. I am directing this Star Trek thing and so there have been days I have been striking and picketing in the morning as a writer, and then I go ‘I got a be a director’ and I walk into the studio. So it is really screwed up.

On if he will go over budget on Star Trek?

When we did MI3 I made sure we came in under schedule and under budget. It matters to me. I don’t know why I care so much….part of it comes from working in television. When you work for the WB [Felicity] you had no more than what you were given, there was no such thing as ‘over budget.’

On Zachary Quinto (new Spock)

That guy is so great, I love that guy…He is the greatest. It is freaky how great he is.

On Shatner
Stern brought up Shatner and played a clip of Shatner on his show saying that he was ‘disappointed’ about not being in the film. This resulted in the following exchange:

JJ: I love Shatner. He is classic, he is the greatest
Robin: But Leonard Nimoy is in it
JJ: The thing is that Shatner filmed a scene in one of the movies where he died.
Robin: but Leonard Nimoy is in it
JJ: Because Spock didn’t die. Spock lived on.
Howard: But a young guy is playing Spock
JJ: We go back, there is a different time frame, but the idea that Shatner is not in the movie for any other than the fact that his Kirk died is ridiculous. I would put him in the movie in a second. I love that guy. I used to love him more for the couple of Twilight Zones he did then even Star Trek.
Gary: In one of the movies didn’t Spock die and then in another movie they brought him back.
JJ: Yah, but given what the story was it made sense for that story. But given our story it would feel like — even though it is Star Trek and science fiction thing, we want this thing not to feel like fanboys who are just shoving this guy back in because we are fans of his. We want the story to be better.
Gary: so you are going to cover every time frame in Star Trek history except the time frame that Kirk was alive?
Howard: I guess Shatner is a major pain in the ass to deal with
JJ: It would be distracting if you are watching the movie and all of a sudden we come up with some way to cut to Shatner. He said to me he didn’t want to do a cameo. And I thought that is fantastic and I appreciate that, but A. it is not the story we are telling, B. your character is dead, and C. if we put you in, he is so well known for some much else as well….
Howard: [cutting him off] Of course, you don’t have to explain yourself.

On Cloverfield ‘sickness’ and sequel
Stern took a call from someone who said “My wife and I saw Cloverfield and she vomited half way through it…it was awesome.” This prompted Robin to mention that there have been reports about people getting sick during the movie. [see article at MedicineNet]. Abrams admitted that some people were getting sick and that it was due to seeing the amateur-style camera on the big screen. He recommended that pregnant women and those on some medications should not see the movie. Another caller commented that the film was disappointing and that it didn’t answer any questions. To which Stern added a question about a sequel. Abrams replied to both:

There may be. I know that the studio is probably going to want one and we just need to make sure it is the right thing. I am sorry you didn’t like the movie, it is definitely not for everyone and I especially apologize if you threw up on yourself.

On Tom Cruise
Abrams wouldn’t take any of Stern’s baiting on his friend Tom Cruise, but did deny that Cruise had tried to covert him. Abrams did confirm TrekMovie.com’s earlier report that Cruise and his daughter Suri visited the set of his Star Trek movie.

Listen
For more listen to the entire Abrams interview from the Howard Stern Stern Show:

For more on the Stern Show, goto to Sirius Radio

UPDATE: Abrams on Opie and Anthony
Abrams called into to The Opie and Anthony Show (who also had Cloverfield star TJ Miller in the studio). For the most part they talked about Cloverfield, but did talk a bit about Trek.

Abrams on if Kirk is a womanizer in his Star Trek?

He really wouldn’t be Kirk without some of that

TJ Miller talked about how he visited the set of Star Trek and that the film “was going to be amazing from what I saw.” Abrams also ribbed him for when he talked to Chris Pine he pretended to be some big time actor, but was kidding, but Pine thought he was serious and ‘was a big jerk’ which Abrams thought was hilarious.

LISTEN: Click to listen to the audio from Opie and Anthony

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2008

Well, it looks like Shatner is DEFINITELY NOT in the movie!

2. Dennis Bailey - January 24, 2008

Abrams is clearly a classy guy. Good luck to him!

3. JohnnyMoo - January 24, 2008

I’ll be sure to wear a hoody to Cloverfield in case someone in the row behind pukes up…

4. Mark T. - January 24, 2008

Agreed. Class act. IMO, we are finally hearing more fleshed-out reasons as to why Shatner wouldn’t be right for this story. Sounds legit to me.

5. xizro345 - January 24, 2008

I still don’t buy the reasons (though I personally don’t care if Shatner is or isn’t in the movie – I don’t feel it matters): for me it’s just economic stuff (i.e. too much to pay) mixed with his ego.

6. SPB - January 24, 2008

I’M TEMPTED TO LISTEN TO THE AUDIO CLIP…

… but I gave up on the Howard Stern crew years ago. You think the message boards HERE can be harsh??? They all sound like a completely miserable, nasty bunch. Just couldn’t even stand their voices anymore.

7. Rich - January 24, 2008

I’d say when a film more than doubles its budget on opening weekend, the studio will want a sequel. Nice to see success coming to a guy who by all accounts seems really nice and down to Earth.

Rich

8. Wobo - January 24, 2008

#6, if you gave up on Stern years ago, you need to listen to the Sirius version of his show. You’d find it way better than anything he’s ever done.

Damn Rick Berman for killing off Kirk, we’d have Shatner in this movie otherwise!

I always hated the fact not that Kirk died, but HOW he died. Here’s a guy who has stood up to Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, evil alien world leaders, omnipotent beings, natural and artificial disasters, saves the world and the universe countless times over AND HE DIES BY FALLING OFF A BRIDGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

9. Diabolik - January 24, 2008

I enjoyed the unusual way the story was told in Cloverfield, more a “you are there” effect, but my wife felt woozy coming out of the theater and was kind of disjointed for awhile.

Probably won’t be such a disorienting experience when watched on a TV.

10. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2008

Shatner wouldn’t be happy with a cameo? As usual his ego pushed him to want to dominate the latest movie!

Not to mention, one can only imagine how much money he wanted for his limited participation in the film.

His recent behaviour has eroded a tremendous amount of goodwill old time fans felt for him…………..SAD!!!

11. scootypuffjr - January 24, 2008

too bad Bill won’t be in it. But, JJ is right. He filmed a death scene where it would be very convoluted to get him in this movie.

12. Michael Foote - January 24, 2008

Does anyone else think JJ looks like a young Kurt Russel?

13. doubleofive - January 24, 2008

My wife was also disappointed in the lack of questions answered in Cloverfield. I thought it was great, because you don’t NEED to know anything else but what the characters are feeling.

I’d LIKE to know where the monster came from, but that’s what comics/books are for.

14. theinquisitor - January 24, 2008

How about the next movie being “Star Trek 12: The Wrath of Kirk”?

15. AJ - January 24, 2008

Maybe Cloverfield 2 could be the same movie filmed in a more traditional and structured manner. With answers, and without vomiting, I mean.

16. Jack - January 24, 2008

The folks complaining about Shatner’s absense and Cloverfield’s lack of answers sort of seem to be missing the point, generally. ‘Uh, we don’t get it”

17. nscates - January 24, 2008

@16
So, what IS the point then?

18. Elise - January 24, 2008

They should do a short with him after the credits. It could be funny. :)

19. CmdrR - January 24, 2008

Shatner not in the movies??? When did this happen?

JJ’s gotta be pretty well centered to go on Howard Stern in the first place. He’s lucky they didn’t have him firing hot dogs at lesbians. Stern is the sewer’s sewer. Still, sounds like JJ did fine. Some day, we’ll get a straight answer on Tom Cruise, but then again I really really don’t care.

20. ajd - January 24, 2008

youd have to explain alot to get Shatner in the movie……Kirk comes back from the dead…. and gains 50 lbs. Shatner would look rediculous on screen as Kirk at this time. And thats all anyone would think about if he saw it.

21. Jipeman - January 24, 2008

Cloverfield 2? With more traditional and structure? Does anyone remember what happened with Blair Witch Project and when they tried to do a sequel? I hope that they just leave it alone….

22. Captain Hackett - January 24, 2008

My dear friend had to sleep thru the movie in order to suffer motion sickness that she is prone to have with me when we did not realize the cam was wildly and constantly moved around. :(

23. Doug - January 24, 2008

Anybody heard anything about what approach ILM is taking for the film’s special effects? Sadly, as much as I prefer they build a real-time model of the Enterprise, I know that they will probably do it CGI (especially knowing that ILM shut down their model shop a few years back).

I know CGI is the favored approach these days, but I still think for scale and realism, a model looks better. That said, special effects artists are getting better and better at it.

I cannot wait (I am one of those who feel the Enterprise is as much a character as the rest of the cast– yes, I know that sounds a little dumb… remembering Scotty’s comment “if you treat her like a lady she will always get you back home.”) to see how she looks on the big screen.

I have a feeling JJ and crew is making us a movie that is going to knock our socks off!

24. The Realist - January 24, 2008

“Damn Rick Berman for killing off Kirk,” 8. Wobo – January 24, 2008 – It was not just BERMAN! Shatner AGREED to the death of Kirk! I wish people would stop blaming Berman and co. for something that Shatner wanted! Shatner has an ego roughly the size of our solar system, he wont do cameo’s! Ha! He does half baked comercials! I used to respect him but over the years I have actualy grown to dislike him, why? Because he has become egotistical and arrogant and a hypocrite. If he aint the star he wants nothing to do with it.

25. NZorak - January 24, 2008

All this talk of Shatner being in the movie reminds me of all the talk in the late ’80s about how Elvis faked his own death and is living in a trailer park somewhere. It culminated one night on the tonight show when Johnny Carson tracked down the very thin and aged Elvis who was indeed living in a trailer park, just so he could “put to rest any rumors that Elvis is dead.”

You’re dead, Jim. But we’ll always love you!

26. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#24 “If he aint the star he wants nothing to do with it.”

In spite of your screen name, you sure seem comfortable going off over stuff you have no real knowledge of.

27. Juan from Zinzannati - January 24, 2008

The director is famous for inexplicable happenings.

So, you can either believe him face value- no Kirk, which I definately do, or you can think, at the end of the film, much like 2001: A Space Oddyssey, there is Shatner… for no explained reason… he’s just there, in his santa claus uniform and he says something odd like “Butterbrickle is good on the knees.” Roll credits…

28. Sean4000 - January 24, 2008

I’m sure they could have come up with something if O and K are as clever writers as they’re pumped up to be. Oh well. Shatner in Trek 12? Sad thing is, Shat will pass away and the greatest Berman F-up will go unfixed on screen.

However, I’m sure Trek 11 will be a good movie, even if it is a complete reboot.

29. Captain Hackett - January 24, 2008

#24

It was Berman’s idea of killing Kirk/Shatner off; therefore, he was to be goddamned!

30. Diabolik - January 24, 2008

Kirk is as alive now as he ever was. Every time you watch him on the screen or read his books, he is as alive as he was before Generations.

Kirk, the fictional character, is alive in our minds, the only way he ever lived.

Shatner playing Kirk now would be a joke. Let’s let Kirk live in our minds as he was…

31. m aspill - January 24, 2008

am i the only person annoyed with him repeatedly calling this project ” that star trek thing “

32. Dr. Image - January 24, 2008

No one in the theater I was in got “sick” from watching Cloverfield, not even my wife, who has epilepsy.
What a bunch of babys.
Besides if it bugs you, CLOSE YOUR EYES, stupid!

JJ has too much class for appearing on a show like Stern’s.
Stern’s an ignorant douchebag and proves it constantly by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Now where’s the construction-cam bridge shot?

33. elmachocombo - January 24, 2008

How can you not love that apology. “I’m sorry if you threw up on yourself.” Good times. Can you imagine Spielberg or Lucas saying that about one of their films? By the way, I did throw up in my mouth a little during Episode II.

34. strangelove - January 24, 2008

have you seen this guy!!???
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=58437555

35. British Naval Dude - January 24, 2008

Arrrr…

‘Tis funny how we canna ever exhaust our conversation about Shatner…

To rememdy this, I am currently “re-mastereing” me won versions of TOS epsiosdes in which I digitally replace Shatner’s head with various other actors, including one of the Telly Tubbies… arrrrr… it be like therapy… like that device Tinky Winky… errrr… I mean Kirk was strapped to as Inspector Luger spun a lit wheel above him… arrrr…

Awwww… I still am entertained by Shatner and have me affections for the bloke… his strong Kirk interpretation helped sealed the legendary status of th’ show…

But enough. No need to keep o-Pine-ing about Billy Boy….

36. Pan Always Bored Me - January 24, 2008

-9 Actually he “died” saving the Enterprise BEFORE he “died'” falling off that bridge.
He’ll never be dead. He’ll always be THE CAPTAIN!!!

37. Driver - January 24, 2008

If a sequel to Cloverfield is made, I hope it’s filmed in the traditional way!!

38. DavidJ - January 24, 2008

Abrams is SO right about how incredibly transparent and fanboyish it would look if they tried to fit Shatner into this movie. It would look like really bad fanfic.

The fact some fans can’t recognize that makes me VERY glad they aren’t writing for Star Trek.

39. m aspill - January 24, 2008

34 what an idiot possin for a pic when hes signed the contract not to talk or take pics

40. Matt - January 24, 2008

Again, I ask the question: why did JJ simply cast Shatner as Kirk’s dad? That would have solved the entire quagmire of Kirk, while placing Shatner in the movie. I suggest you try to get this question answered, rather than focusing on the current string.

41. The Vulcanista - January 24, 2008

#19: “straight answer on Tom Cruise,”

*Straight* answer… BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Given the rumors that have been flying about his orientation for years, you a funny guy, Cmdr.R!

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

42. NZorak - January 24, 2008

#30
I just watched Star Trek VI last night and not only was Kirk alive, but so were DeForest Kelley and James Doohan. And that was the last time we would see them, true to their characters. Whether Shatner appears in Trek XI or not, that doesn’t change the fact that the trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is already gone. That dynamic can no longer exist on screen as it once did since one of the key actors is dead. Sure, you could always put Kirk and Spock together, but McCoy was always a vital part of balancing out the other two by acting as the conscience of the captain and the humanitarian.

#27
That is pure genius. I think they SHOULD include that.

43. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

Did you notice … at one point during this interview, JJ attempted to use the lamest excuse that pops up in these very threads from time to time: having Shatner in the movie would be “distracting”, because he’s so well known for other things. Man, is that insulting! It’s the equivalent of saying Paul McCartney would be too distracting at a Beatles tribute show. Shame on you, JJ. GRRRRRR.

44. Ivory - January 24, 2008

Berman – killed Kirk

Abrams – put nail in coffin

45. Trek Nerd Central - January 24, 2008

I hope to high heaven this puts an end to the Whither Shatner debate.

Everyone who’s been threatening to boycott the movie if he’s not in it can leave the building. . .

46. Trek Nerd Central - January 24, 2008

#41.

Oh, c’mon. Do we really need Tom-Is-Gay jokes? Aren’t they a) creaky and b) pointless? Can we NOT go there?

47. Nx - January 24, 2008

#40: Your answer is: “He said to me he didn’t want to do a cameo”

48. RaveOnEd - January 24, 2008

43 – Well, Paul would be distracting at a Beatles tribute show, since its a tribute show.

And also, since Ringo may not do it, and the other 2 have died, yes, Paul would be a distraction.

49. El Ghost Host - January 24, 2008

#19. Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Howard Stern or his show.

JJ was a great guest. He was honest, forthcoming, and funny. Star Trek is in good hands.

50. Ivory - January 24, 2008

I’m distracted by the stupidity of the argument that Shatner’s presence would somehow be a distraction (sounds like a line out of Moonlighting)

This is a Star Trek movie. William Shatner is the most well know member of the Star Trek cast. If you said to me they were putting Madonna in the film… I would say yeah, that could be a distraction, but Shatner?

It’s time for Kirk/Shatner fans to face the fact that they never wanted Shatner and he will not be in the film.

This is colossal mistake for no other reason than it would have been cool/fun to see Shatner + Nimoy together one last time as Kirk and Spock. Please spare the argument that it would be “too fanboyish” to have Shatner in the film. This is a new Star Trek film we are talking about, not a new work of art from William Shakespeare.

51. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#48 … Nimoy is in it. So your point is void.

52. Gallifrey1983 - January 24, 2008

#44

It is indeed ironic that this movie, a reviival of the original crew, will be the first post-Generations reference to Kirk’s death on Veridian III (whether stated or implied).

I am disappointed about the lost last chance to see Nimoy and Shatner together onscreen for a final time.

53. ObiWanCon - January 24, 2008

FORGET SHATNER ALREADY IT’S GETTING STUPID

54. I AM THX-1138 - January 24, 2008

#44-Why doesn’t anyone put any of this blame back on Shatner?  I love the guy, but sometimes people act as if he had a gun to his head.  Someone mentioned that if you had an iconic character that you portrayed, why on earth would you kill him off?
AND WHY IN GOD’S NAME AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS???????

55. AJ - January 24, 2008

Denny Crane would attract late-era-Shat-non-Trek BL fans to see him as Kirk.

I, for one, would be happy with or without the guy in the film. If he’s in, make it great. Tears will well up.

If he’s not, we can always remember his last speech before the end of ST6 (I do not) in which JTK passes the baton to a new generation.

Now we can take it literally.

56. Nx - January 24, 2008

#50: Shatner wanted to play Kirk. That means they would’ve had to invent a way to get him back from the grave, then somehow put that into the story (which is not centered around old Kirk and trying to resurrect him, so don’t use the Star Trek III argument) just so they can please the fanboys. I’m sure Abrams would’ve been more than happy to give him a cameo, and most of us would’ve been pleased, but Shatner’s huge ego stood in the way.

57. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#50 “It’s time for Kirk/Shatner fans to face the fact that they never wanted Shatner”

I didn’t used to believe that, Ivory. I was taking JJ & co. at face value when they kept saying he might still be in it. But I do now. JJ’s excuses are piling up faster than tribbles dropping from an overhead hatch:

‘He died…’

‘The writer’s strike…’

‘He’d be too distracting…’

‘It’d be too fanboyish…’

Which is it???

58. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#42–Excellent point. McCoy was absolutely essential to that unparallelled dynamic threesome.

#43–That’s not what he said. I think you misread. You are overlapping two very different points. He seems to be talking about shoehorning Shat into the film with the “distracting” comment. At least that is how I read it. In other words, it would not fit into the flow of his story. The point about him being “so well known for…” is about why he thinks using him in a very brief minor role or cameo (which Bill told him he did not want to do anyway) would not work well.

I realize that JJ did not write the movie you wanted (a “correction” of Kirk’s unworthy death), but it was never his responsibility to do so. Take it up with Berman and Shatner, and give this guy a chance to make a good film for us without saddling him with that kind of baggage, will you? This is the only new Star Trek you/we are going to get on the big screen. The great characters are still there. So will I. Will you be?

59. Myrth - January 24, 2008

#57 …all of the above

60. ObiWanCon - January 24, 2008

SHATNER SIAD HE DID NOT WANT TO DO A CAMEO SO IT WAS HIS DECISION NOT TO BE IN THE MOVIE, BECAUSE TO THEN ASK THEM TO COMPLETELY REWRITE THE SCRIPT IS SIMPLE NOT ON CASE CLOSED.

61. Bono Luthor - January 24, 2008

Given all the excuses I hope Spock dies in this movie and stays dead.

62. Dr. Image - January 24, 2008

Ironic- not too fanboyish to put James Cawley in, though.:)

#46- No, we don’t need more “Tom is gay” jokes.
South Park already mined that territory to death.
What we need are more “Tom is an Operating Thetan, Level Seven so that must officially make him an overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood” jokes.

Just make sure the punchline is always, “The Aristocrats.”

63. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#57–He did not want to be in the film as anything but a guy who is already dead. It would be “distracting” if JJ were to resurrect him despite that element having nothing to do with the story. There is a writer’s strike. And the “fanboys” will not make the studio their money back. One third of the big 3 original actors is no longer with us, and only Nimoy (whose character happens to survive the length of the Star Trek calendar from TOS to DS9/VOY), is essential to his story. I’m not sure I see the validity of your protest. Heck, I am quite sure I don’t see it. It seems to me that you are directing your frustration at a guy who had nothing to do with creating the issue in the first place. Shatner’s Kirk is alive in his novels. You are welcome to keep buying those and reading them… I’ll go see this movie.

64. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 24, 2008

He’s dead, folks! Shatner thought Generations was a great idea at the time, and now he wants to undo that error. Too late. Berman did not kill Captain Kirk: Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore wrote the script; William Shatner signed on for it.

We’d all love to see Shatner in ST08, from the public to the fans to the executive producers. But in order to put Shatner in, they would have to make the entire movie about that; it’s the only dramatically viable way to do it. Star Trek XI: The Search for Kirk. That isn’t the direction this movie has taken, and it’s time for folks to come to terms with that.

Or, as a great man once said, “Get a life!”

I think I’m genuinely annoyed by the Shatner conspiracy theorists right now. Perhaps it’s because they’re not only attacking a perfectly reasonable position by Abrams, which is what they always do, but because they’ve now also dragged Berman-bashing back into this, conveniently overlooking fan hero Ron Moore’s involvement in Kirk’s death. Rick Berman is not the Antichrist! Neither is JJ Abrams; William Shatner is responsible for his own character’s death, and, thus, his own disinvolvement in this film!

65. Iowagirl - January 24, 2008

#43
You bet I noticed that, buddy!

#45
I’ll refuse to leave the building – I might miss Abram’s ongoing lame excuses and the zest they bring about.

If you come to think of it, Abrams is becoming sort of a distraction on a regular basis.

66. Khan - January 24, 2008

#24, 54: Paramount pulled the plug on the original crew. There weren’t going to be any more movies with them. Tell me you wouldn’t have taken one last $5 million payday. He “saw no future.” And it wasn’t “selling out.” His profession is acting.

67. Steve Hill - January 24, 2008

There is a new cast playing Kirk, Spock, and McCoy now. What ever happens to Older Spock Nimoy at the end of this movie I don’t see Shatner or Nimoy in the next Star Trek movies. It will be the younger cast on the Enterprise with JJ .

68. Markus - January 24, 2008

I can’t read any more interviews from JJ. We should sell t-shirts “JJ Abrams said ‘I’m the greatest!'”

Come on, every interview with him is loaded with marketing bubble. “He is great, she is great, everyone is even greater. And you are of course the greatest.” I can’t read it anymore.

If he really can’t say anything more in detail about the movie, than he should shut up.

69. CW - January 24, 2008

Heh heh… I just find it funny that out of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty, Kirk is the only one who cannot be brought back to life.

Even tho scripts don’t write themselves, it’s unfortunate to think that nobody with any clout would be interested in correcting that mistake made a few films back.

Too bad.

Besides, would we be seeing Kirk or Denny Crane?

70. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

#57 “It would be ‘distracting’ if JJ were to resurrect him despite that element having nothing to do with the story.”

We don’t know anything about this story … other than it’s going to be a lot different from what we’ve seen so far. Looks very much like a reboot. If it’s in alternate timeline, previously dead people can live again.

“There is a writer’s strike.”

He should’ve been written in before then.

“And the ‘fanboys’ will not make the studio their money back.”

I don’t believe anyone said they would. closet, since you respond to every sentence I type with 6 paragraphs, yet don’t seem to “hear” a thing I am saying, I’m not sure we should continue with this!

71. Closettrekker - January 24, 2008

#64–Well put. Abrams is in no way obligated to make a movie about “correcting” Kirk’s death. It is shameful for some to make that his responsibility. This is a “fresh” look at TOS era Star Trek (which I have been waiting for forever, it seems) and Nimoy’s character happens to be crucial to the story. I can’t wait!!!

72. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2008

#54 THX

THX….did you read my reply to you at the end of the Pine thread? :)

73. Greg2600 - January 24, 2008

I heard J.J. on the Opie and Anthony show this morning, and he talked about a bunch of things. He said there are Lost references in Cloverfield, so now I have to go out and watch this stupid movie to see what they are, and then vomit. :)

74. Stef* - January 24, 2008

This is so funny to read and pursuit your neverending ongoing debate about “Shat in/out” from Germany. Wonderful distraction and entertainment. :)

***

As for J.J. Abrams Interview.

Nice words, nothing relevant said but so much more meaning between the words to one starving Trekkie. I already love you all for this wonderful ideas, pictures and bravery you brought back to us.

We’ll get Trek back.

What a wonderful time to be a trekkie right now.

High regards and anticipation.

Go Abrams, go!

75. DavidJ - January 24, 2008

50
“Please spare the argument that it would be “too fanboyish” to have Shatner in the film. This is a new Star Trek film we are talking about, not a new work of art from William Shakespeare.”

LOL. By that reasoning we should all just be happy if Paramount gave us another Insurrection or Nemesis. Personally I expect a higher quality movie for my money– even if it IS just Star Trek.

76. Pr011 - January 24, 2008

Ah, another shatner thread.

Wonder where this debate will go?

77. Ivory - January 24, 2008

#75

No, what I meant by that is that this is Star Trek where anything can happen.

Did you see ST III where Spock came back from the dead after being shot from deep space + just happened to soft land and then have his “katra” placed back into his body from his friend who just happened to have it through some type of mind meld?

Star Trek has millions of examples of stuff like this. Bottom line if they truly wanted Shatner they could have found a way.

78. Ampris - January 24, 2008

34: Wow, I wonder how he got away with that picture. Dang.

I’m glad he didn’t spoil anything in his entry (it took me a second to figure out what to click on with that font on the background picture) but what he described about the set sounds so awesome, and I really do wonder who that A-lister is he mentions.

Oh, the intrigue. :O

79. Serious Trek - January 24, 2008

All this controversy over the Shat is building debate and interest. Shatner will be in it, guaranteed.

80. Serious Trek - January 24, 2008

It’s a new form of viral marketing.

81. Iowagirl - January 24, 2008

#63
-..only Nimoy (whose character happens to survive the length of the Star Trek calendar from TOS to DS9/VOY), is essential to his story. –

IMO, that precisely is the mistake. Not regarding the Kirk-Spock dynamic, the crucial element of TOS, was part of the reason for Generations‘ artistic failure. Now Abrams will only tell the story of young Kirk and Spock, in a day when their relationship is not yet elaborated. The later established unique friendship, combination and dynamic which is essential and could only be portrayed by Nimoy and Shatner, will be elided again. The biggest mistake in ST history (apart from Kirk’s death itself) will be made again.

82. tosfangirl - January 24, 2008

hey has anyone read the link at the bottom of imdb.com, star trek viral campaign begins! looks like it could be interesting…

83. AdamTrek - January 24, 2008

Maybe the really did and this is all a ploy. Imagine that. It would be the biggest secret in movie making history. Not to mention during the internet age.

84. Nx - January 24, 2008

#70
SPOILER ALERT!

Spock is going back in time to prevent the Romulans from screwing up something, presumably around the Enterprise and Kirk. (how original, yet I still have hope the story won’t suck)
It’s not an alternate timeline, but it will become one… that’s their way of making a reboot that’s not a reboot…
It doesn’t really matter though, as he’s going back to a time when Kirk is too young to be played by Shatner.
He could resurrect Kirk before he goes back. But that would be like the Enterprise-E crew trying to resurrect Tasha Yar before they go back in time in First Contact.

85. garen - January 24, 2008

my girlfriend left to the bathroom and threw up during the movie. then she tried to come back in but started feeling sick again. she just had to walk around for an hour while i finished watching the movie. she didnt mind…shes pretty cool.

we went for the trek trailer anyway

86. Alex - January 24, 2008

I really wanted to have Kirk back alive even if we saw him for 30 seconds, but if Shatner won’t take a cameo then sadly, that’s his problem.

Long live Chris Pine.

87. S. John Ross - January 24, 2008

Very groovy. Abrams seems like a decent guy and my hopes for the film become more positive with every new thing we see. That said, I still strongly suspect that when Abrams says “He said to me he didn’t want to do a cameo,” then and only then we are seeing the core truth, because it doesn’t take any story-juggling at all to (for example) let him take a role as an Admiral or an Academy instructor, etc.

So Shatner is now cast as the famous knight of the Round Table (Monty Python version): the aptly named “Sir Not Appearing in This Film.” Which is funny because he’s totally the wrong age for that part :)

88. jonboc - January 24, 2008

You can hate Shatner cause he makes you feel inferior, or hate him because his bad toupe scares you, or you can hate the man because he is successful in just about everything he tackles and that, for some inexplicable reason, gets under your skin. But having said that…IF Shatner IS in the movie, JJ’s smokescreen isn’t going to blow away just because he is on Howard Stern’s radio show.

IF Shatner IS in the movie and they really REALLY want to keep in under wraps…he’s not going to anounce it now or next month or on Thanksgiving day. Despite anyone’s love or hate for the Shat, …we really don’t know what is going on with William Shatner and Star Trek 08.

You can pretend you do, but you really don’t.

Just sayin.

89. Anthony Pascale - January 24, 2008

I have added a link to the opie and anthony audio

90. nscates - January 24, 2008

@ 79 & 80

Possible, but unlikely however much we may wish it so. Although a lot of press has been generated by the whole “Shatner no in the Movie” topic, I think it’s safe to say that it’s not the kind of publicity Abrams, Paramount or even Shatner would want. Look at how pissy so many people get at either prospect. I would think a viral publicity campaign would use a less risky strategy, this has the potential to work against them. Of course, I could be wrong. After all that guy’s myspace page (linked to in post #34) mentions a top secret A-list actor. Is it Bill? Who knows. Hope that guy doesn’t get fired!

91. toddk - January 24, 2008

I liked generations, It was well done as a way for both generations to meet and pass the baton. It seemed at the time that many fans (not everyone) wanted to see a meeting of the two captains somehow and the studio made it happen. Even though Kirk’s death was kinda lame. by the time first contact hit the screens, most of the controvery had died away and everyone was waiting for the next trek movie..when trek started to stumble, Some fans wanted to return to old trek. And to quote a famous news anchor: “and that’s the way it is..January 24th 2008..I’m walter Cronkite, Goodnight!”

92. Robofuzz - January 24, 2008

Hey – I got an idea. Maybe JJ could tackle a T.J. Hooker revival movie next and feature Shatner in that. I’m just sayin…

93. jonboc - January 24, 2008

#24 “I wish people would stop blaming Berman..”

Maybe we stop dumping on Britney for being a rotten mom while we’re at it….

nah… aint gonna happen.

94. I AM THX-1138 - January 24, 2008

Hey Harry,
Yes, my friend, I did indeed . I hope I didn’t detract from the limerick fun, but I wanted to do one of those without seeming like I was crashing your turf. But I should have known you were more generous than that.

I say we have “Collected Limericks from the Genius Minds of Trekmovie.com” compilation. Featuring of course, the venerable Harry Ballz.

I have been working at the gallery that my wife and I own, so I have to sneak in here without the boss catching me.

95. S. John Ross - January 24, 2008

Of course, if we keep with the “the baton was passed in Generations” logic, then Picard is still holding it, because he’s never passed it onward to anyone else. Maybe in the new film, there’s a brief time-travel scene where elderly Spock takes young Kirk into the future to jump Picard in a dark alley and wrest the baton from his grip. They could time the attack for one of those moments of distraction where Jean Luc has to pause to sharply adjust his tunic. :)

96. jonboc - January 24, 2008

#38 “Abrams is SO right about how incredibly transparent and fanboyish it would look if they tried to fit Shatner into this movie. It would look like really bad fanfic. ”

Truthfully, the ONLY ones that would see it as being “fanboyish” are fanboys. And this movie isn’t aimed at getting their keisters in the seats anyway…we’re after mainstream america, remember?

So, sorry JJ and DavidJ, that dog don’t hunt.

97. Krik Semaj - January 24, 2008

#32
JJ is not only a big Stern fan, but a close friend. They dine out together every now and then. Shatner is also a big fan and calls in regularly, along with many other famous political, sports, business,and entertainment personalities. There are also strippers, drunks, & degenerates, People like you that don’t listen to the WHOLE show are the always the ones that criticize it. The fact of the matter is that it is a very topical, and funny 4 hours of entertainment. Sure there are gross moments, but they do not dominate it. Life has unsavory elements to it. Stern isn’t afraid to show people that it exists. He is also a HUGE Trek fan.

98. Sybok Amok - January 24, 2008

This is SO LAME!!!!!!!!!

JJ Abrams won’t put Shatner in the movie because he’s know for other things?

Guess JJ owns Big Bad Mama & Airplane II on DVD, no way to seperate The Shat’s James T. Kirk from those classic film roles!

99. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#84 “He could resurrect Kirk before he goes back. But that would be like the Enterprise-E crew trying to resurrect Tasha Yar before they go back in time in First Contact.”

4 pm: contact Starfleet
4.30 pm: stop Borg fleet
5 pm: tea
5.30 pm: go a little back in time
6 pm: stop to save Tasha Yar
6.30 pm: keep going back to save the day

100. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#34

Some kind of viral thing I suppose. Cool.

101. joe1306 - January 24, 2008

#34 this guy seems to wear exactly the same “uniform” we saw on the chris pine-spyshot some weeks ago…

102. Michael Hall - January 24, 2008

“. . .is essential and could only be portrayed by Nimoy and Shatner.”

How so?

103. Crusty McCoy - January 24, 2008

Okay. So Shat’s not in the movie — either by design or his own doing. According to Abrams, the story would suffer. If that is factual, then as along time fan who would love to see the Shatner-Nimoy moment in Trek 08, I accept Abrams’ reasoning. I will continue to support the filmmakers with this one caveat — if after seeing the film, there was an easily done, organic way to have had Shatner appear then I know I will fell less so invclined to support the film. Yes, I know. Who gives a damn, Crusty?But the reasons for not including him do seem thin. I mean c’mon, too fanboyish? He’s too popular? What’s next? The film would be too perfect? Of course, if it was Shatner’s wish not to appear for any reason — $, larger part, etc. then I will apologize to the filmmakers.

104. toddk - January 24, 2008

#95 I read that and laughed

105. Nx - January 24, 2008

#99 5 pm: tea

LOL!

“5.30 pm: go a little back in time
6 pm: stop to save Tasha Yar”

Remember that if they go back a little, there won’t be no Tasha Yar. Population 9 billion. All Borg.

106. star trackie - January 24, 2008

64 “We’d all love to see Shatner in ST08, from the public to the fans to the executive producers. But in order to put Shatner in, they would have to make the entire movie about that”

Not really, because the only ones requiring a full blown explanation are the fanboys…and in turn, taking the time to bother fiilming a long drawn out explanation for those fanboys, would be quite “fanboyish” wouldn’t it? And we can’t have that now, can we?

Believe me, most of the audience won’t know or care that the character was buried under a pile of rocks in a rotten movie over 10 years ago.

Therefore, the only answer, if they want to include him, is just put him in. Like the cloverfield monster…we don’t need to know why he is there it order to enjoy it, just that he is.

107. John Pemble - January 24, 2008

Heard JJ on Opie and Anthony today. Anthony is a trekkie and expressed enthusiasm for this new film. O&A Show is hilarious and TJ Miller has been on their show twice hanging and talking smack. TJ Miller as it turns out is a stand up comedian, so I expect he’ll be on O&A more esp with his standup set coming to Comix soon in NYC.

108. Rich - January 24, 2008

I’m sorry…but do people still listen to Stern? Is it 1987?

109. Nx - January 24, 2008

#106: But then they’d be whining because Kirk’s presence is unexplained…

110. Bono Luthor - January 24, 2008

I’m worried.

I may not be able to watch Harrison Ford in the new Indy film because he is so well known for so much else like Han Solo, Jack Ryan and, erm, that dude in Firewall.

In fact, as an audience member I am so unsophisticated that I may no longer be able to enjoy the Shat as Denny Crane without my mind wandering and thinking I’m watching TJ Hooker or the Cap’n fellow from that once great Sci Fi show.

*Sigh*

111. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#105 “Remember that if they go back a little, there won’t be no Tasha Yar. Population 9 billion. All Borg.”

Damn! Data, I told you to stop tampering with the chrono-navigator. Now we’ll have to open another temporal-subspace-chrono-tachyonic-gravitational singularity…

112. Captain Scokirk - January 24, 2008

77.-

Bringing Spock back took the WHOLE movie !

Quit saying they can “do anything….it’s Sci-Fi…..”

The story they want to tell is not about one character- for all we really know Nimoy plays older Quinto, not neccesarily Quinto = young Nimoy

For all us Trekkies/ers we go “ah cool… Nimoy’s back…” this film story wise “fits” with what we already know (Kirk dead on Veridian III)

Everyone else in the audience just says “Isnt that that old guy who takes pictures of Fat chicks?”

And they keep seeing the movie Abrams/etc. wants to show us which is STAR TREK, no blooddy 2,3,4,5,6,7, 7-A, 8,9, or 10 !

MI: III doesnt bring Phelps back from the dead and make him a good guy again…

113. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2008

“temporal-subspace-chrono-tachyonic-gravitational singularity…”

Funny, that’s exactly how I describe a 4 day junket in Las Vegas I survived a few years ago! :)

114. Bono Luthor - January 24, 2008

Nimoy playing older Quinto?

115. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#112 “The story they want to tell is not about one character- for all we really know Nimoy plays older Quinto, not neccesarily Quinto = young Nimoy”

You are totally right. Guys, Trek is about to start again. New people, new actors, new plots. Nimoy and Shatner are icons but they live in the past. We love them but the clock is moving forward so we have to accept a Trek world without Nimoy and Shatner.

116. Dave - January 24, 2008

“He would have found a way…If there was that much at stake, Spock WOULD have found a way.” – James Kirk to Sark STIII

Why does everyone rail against Shatner for not taking a cameo? Nimoy refused Geneerationd for the same reason! Every tie he says “there was no Spock Character in that movie.” What he really means is “It was a cameo and not worth my time.

and you know what? there’s nothing wrong with that. it’s a legitimate reason not to do someting. I’m a stage actor and at a point in my career where if it’s not a worthwhile role (cameo, walk-on) I say no.

What was just as bad about Kirk’s death in Generations, was they hyped it as “The 2 greatest Captains of all time meet.” -Yeah, for like five minutes.!

Picard: “Hey Jim, nice cottage! Great Dog! Whaddaya say we cook some eggs and then you help me go beat up the latest galactic bully cuz I’m not a good enough fighter.”

It was pointless and unfulfilling.

117. Dr. Image - January 24, 2008

Okay. Dinner time poll:
On a scale of 1 to10, how fanboyish (or girlish) are you?
I’m about an FB 5.

118. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#116 “then you help me go beat up the latest galactic bully cuz I’m not a good enough fighter.”

Kirk humiliated to death. And Shatner signed and played that script.

119. Nx - January 24, 2008

#111
normal people: I will now exit the theater because this is starting to suck…
Trekkies: Oh yes! Tasha is back! Yes!

Okay, let’s imagine the Trek08 plot goes like this:
1. Romulans find time device
2. Romulans go back in time and assimilate…err, I mean conquer Earth
3. There is no Federation any more, Vulcan is a slave planet of the glorious Romulan Empire, etc.
4. Spock feels something is not right because he’s special
5. Spock decides to resurrect his old friend captain James T Kirk, who died while helping captain Picard in 2370… wait. I mean that young cadet who got killed during the assimilation…err, I mean conquering of Earth
6. Spock goes back in time before the Romulans, kicks some Romulan butt with Kirk and his younger self.
7. Great moment between Kirk, young Spock and old Spock, old Spock’s hand superimposed over young Spock’s etc. Spock goes back into the restored future.
8. He then somehow stops in 2370 and prevents Kirk’s death in Generations. Audience goes: WTF does that have to do with the movie? I though it was over. And why are these two guys fighting over a remote?
9. The End

120. Iowagirl - January 24, 2008

#88
-..we really don’t know what is going on with William Shatner and Star Trek 08. –

True.

#102
I was referring to the later established friendship which is not yet existent in the timeframe STXI will probably cover, the Academy years. This beginning friendship will be portrayed by Pine and Quinto. The one-of-a-kind friendship we know and appreciate from the later episodes and the films, which led to the events in STII and III, and which was missing in Generations and obviously will be missing in STXI, but which I for one consider crucial for the statement TOS makes, could only be portrayed by Nimoy and Shatner. Pine and Quinto demonstrating the deep friendship Kirk and Spock were able to elaborate during their joint adventures would be implausible and just an empty shell.

121. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#119 “And why are these two guys fighting over a remote?”

OMG, that thing *really* happened! I was trying to forget it…

122. Bono Luthor - January 24, 2008

#115 We don’t have to accept anything if we do not choose to.

We all have a choice. Just because I have been a big fan of certain Trek incarnations in the past doesn’t guarantee me there for this.

Choice.

123. S. John Ross - January 24, 2008

#117: As far as Star Trek goes, maybe about a 4.

On the one hand, I consider the basic measure of “fannishness” to be “a tendency to enthusiastically take the bad with the good,” and I lack that tendency. I didn’t sit still for Voyager, for example, never saw an episode of Enterprise until after it was cancelled, and I still haven’t seen the last two Trek films, even on video. There are only about half of the original-crew films I bother re-watching, and while I love the TNG cast I only like about half of their seasons. So, on the basic metric of taking-bad-with-good, I score rock-bottom. I don’t buy, watch, or even pay attention to something just because someone slaps a Trek logo on it.

On the other hand, I do consider myself a Star Trek fan. I have a Trek gaming page on my website, and I’ve written licensed Star Trek material professionally (including one book that was referenced on a TV show I wasn’t even watching at the time). So I figure that bumps it up a notch.

I’ve been watching the newer fan-films. I figure that’s worth a point right there.

I also own a stuffed Tribble toy, and I figure that bumps it up another one all by itself, because … Tribble.

So, around a 4. I’m below-average, but I invite any excuse to see that number increased. Here’s hoping JJ and company can do it.

124. Pete Tong - January 24, 2008

SPOILER … uniform spotted on myspace. This may be a fake, but not neccesarily. I don’t like it.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=58437555&albumID=644348&imageID=19212816

125. Nx - January 24, 2008

#116: “Why does everyone rail against Shatner for not taking a cameo? Nimoy refused Geneerationd for the same reason! Every tie he says “there was no Spock Character in that movie.” What he really means is “It was a cameo and not worth my time.”

But let’s not not blame the makers of Star Trek XI for not bending over backwards and making the entire movie The Search for Kirk just because he wouldn’t accept a cameo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Reeve#Sequels

“On February 25, 2003, Reeve appeared in the television series Smallville as Dr. Swann in the episode “Rosetta”. In that episode, Dr. Swann brings to Clark Kent (Tom Welling) information about where he comes from and how to use his powers for the good of mankind. The scenes of Reeve and Welling feature music cues from the 1978 Superman movie, composed by John Williams and arranged by Mark Snow. At the end of this episode, Reeve and Welling did a short spot inviting people to support the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation.”

Don’t you think something like that would’ve been awesome in Trek XI? Would you have accepted a cameo role in this case?

126. CanuckLou - January 24, 2008

JJ rocks!

127. VOODOO - January 24, 2008

#88 Jonboc

No offense, but everyone involved is saying he is not in the movie.

You post sounds like it was written by Fox Mulder with it’s conspiracy like overtones.

# 50 Ivory

That post does sound like it comes from a Moonlighting episode. Everything you said is also very true.
.

128. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 24, 2008

112. Captain Scokirk…

“Quit saying they can ‘do anything….it’s Sci-Fi…..'”

Then you quit saying, “Bringing Spock back took the WHOLE movie!” You have to realize there is more than one school of thought on this. Some of us feel Generations need barely be acknowledged. That the greater good would be in simply seeing Shatner onscreen with Nimoy again. If a tie-in novel explained in great detail how and why Kirk was alive, and Paramount declared it “canon”, no one would be able to argue it.

“for all we really know Nimoy plays older Quinto, not neccesarily Quinto = young Nimoy”

That’ll be the day. I like Quinto, but … no.

“Everyone else in the audience just says ‘Isnt that that old guy who takes pictures of Fat chicks?’”

Please. As if Nimoy is more known for that book than for Mr. Spock? Dude. (shakes head with pity)

“MI: III doesnt bring Phelps back from the dead and make him a good guy again…”

I fail to see how that is relevant. MI: III wasn’t jumping around in time and featuring original series stars.

I think Stern’s sidekick Artie Lange put it best to Mr. Abrams (paraphrasing):

‘So you’re gonna show every era of Star Trek history EXCEPT any where Shatner was alive?’

129. M-BETA - January 24, 2008

#124 – I could live with it if that was a costume featured. Better that ones in TMP, imo.

130. Nx - January 24, 2008

#124
Why did they move the starfleet insignia to the collar?

131. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#122 “We all have a choice. Just because I have been a big fan of certain Trek incarnations in the past doesn’t guarantee me there for this.”

Of course you have the choice, no doubt about it. But think about how things are going: Nimoy-Shatner are not going to live forever and Trek for them is (or is going to be) over. The TNG crew has lost every interest in doing Trek again and left the fans with a tired, horrible movie. The other branches of the franchise look quite sterile. Berman’s Trek is dead, and for a reason.
I don’t want to lock myself in a time capsule. Time to open the window for some fresh air.

132. Mark Lynch - January 24, 2008

Lets face it, Shatner is as much to blame for Kirk being dead as any one of the usual suspects on Generations.

Ultimately Shatner did not have to take that role on. I believe he saw it (at the time) as;
1) The last time he would be able to play Kirk (a character which he enjoyed playing) as there were not going to be any more original cast movies made
2) A big fat pay cheque for relatively little work
3) A death scene, what actor doesn’t enjoy those?

Who would have thought that 14 years later, they (Paramount) would be going back to the original characters and involving (some of) the original cast?

And although Shatner and Nimoy are the closest of friends, I think that Mr. S. is more than a little pissed off that a Star Trek film is going to be centred on Spocks character. But why not Spock as he is the only character to have been in all the original series incarnations?

It sounds to me as if Abrams wanted to have a small spot for Shatner as Kirk at either the beginning and/or end of this movie. But as we all know, Shatner does not do cameos.

So lets face the facts as they are likely to end up being.
The only person really stopping Shatner from having any part in this film is Shatner himself, along with his (on this point, over inflated) ego.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Shatner is quite a good actor and not a stupid man. Although in recent years, to my mind, he has descended into somewhat of a parody to himself. Whether that is deliberate or not I don’t know. Just look at those commercials he did in the UK. Horrible.

But. I. Don’t. See. Him. As. Kirk. Anymore. (As much as I would love to be able to do so)

Now all the Shatner fanboys can feel free to insult me all they like. I’m not even going to duck and run for cover, because healthy debate should never be shied away from…

133. Nx - January 24, 2008

Wait a second…
“B. YOUR character is dead, and C. if we put YOU in, HE is so well known for some much else as well….”

is he referring to Kirk, and not Shatner?

134. star trackie - January 24, 2008

..I think that’s an academy uniform, it looks just like Pine’s. Maybe even a dress uniform, with the shiny emblem and all. Pretty sharp.

135. nscates - January 24, 2008

@ 128
“If a tie-in novel explained in great detail how and why Kirk was alive, and Paramount declared it “canon”, no one would be able to argue it.”

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think ANYBODY has ever declared anything canon except for Gene Roddenberry. Since his death, the only canon is what you see onscreen. I’m not sure how Paramount *could* declare anything canon. They’re not the Vatican and Star Trek is fiction. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Shatner fan, too, and I’d love to see him in the movie as long as it makes SOME sense.

Where I part company with Abrams, the nay-sayers and Shatner-bashers is with the assumption that it’s *either* a whole movie devoted to Kirk’s resurrection or a really lame plot. I’m pretty sure that there are other possiblities. I haven’t written any myself but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

136. Casparitis - January 24, 2008

I think Shatner would be in STXI if he was open to doing a cameo. I mean, even just a nice exchange with Spock, summing up his feelings on life and the universe, before stepping onto the Enterprise where his initial accident occurs. He might even, unknowingly, explain more about his final words… All we can hope is that Shatner will eventually open himself up to a small, but meaingful part…

Meanwhile, Cloverfield’s camera is NOT that shaky. Any frustration with it may just be mental. Or due to hype. A lot of the movement is actually almost too deliberate!!

137. jonboc - January 24, 2008

#127 “No offense, but everyone involved is saying he is not in the movie.”

None taken. I’m just saying just because everyone is saying it doesn’t automatically make it so. And no one will know, for sure, until 12-25-08…of that much I’m certain.

138. miguel - January 24, 2008

I have an idea.

Have “Sammy” Crane, Denny Cranes great great great great grandson show up at the launch of the 1701 and take over the ship!

Tada. The Shat returns. And he can call himself Kirk.

139. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#135 “I’m not sure how Paramount *could* declare anything canon”

Well, Star Trek is an intellectual property of Paramount so I think that they have full control over what is canon and what is not.

140. James Heaney - Wowbagger with two "g"'s and no "n". - January 24, 2008

Waitwaitwait… S. John Ross. That seems… dimly…

*googles*

Aha! Last Unicorn! You invented the dueling weapons from “United”! Kudos, sir! That was an excellent three-parter, even if you weren’t watching the show at the time. Thanks.

#106: Actually… that could work. I still think it would have to be careful, artful, and contributing to the overall themes of the movie, which I can’t judge without actually having a copy of the script in front of me. But the “look! It’s Kirk! Screw explanation!” method could well work, especially as this is a movie for the mainstream audience.

141. Chris Peterson - January 24, 2008

YAWN…

142. nscates - January 24, 2008

@ 139
So what do they do, have a big press confrence where they declare what is and what isn’t canon to a fictional series? Seriously?

I’d think the general public would collectively go HUH??????? WTF are they talking about?

It’s all fiction. Canon, non-canon… fiction. Completely unreal no matter who says what. They’re just stories – some of them great stories, others not so great. Debating the reality of one fictional piece over another just seems… kind of pathetic, really.

I’ve loved Star Trek since I started watching as a child in the early seventies, but I NEVER forgot that it was fiction. I think that for some people, that line gets a little too blurry and that has a great deal to do with the generally negative perception of Trek fans in general.

Just my two cents, nothing personal.

143. richpit - January 24, 2008

Fanboy level? On a scale of 1 10, I’m a -5. But, of course, I’m not 100% sure I understand what it is to be a “fanboy”…

144. Scott - January 24, 2008

Lets hope Shatner is the next one.

145. Mazzer - January 24, 2008

Well I think that he should…. ahh, forget it. I’m sick of this whole Shatner thing. Can we please move on?

146. PaoloM - January 24, 2008

#142 “It’s all fiction. Canon, non-canon… fiction”

You didn’t get my point. I don’t care too much about canon. I was just saying that Star Trek belongs to Paramount, so they can decide what they want.

147. Captain Scokirk - January 24, 2008

112. Captain Scokirk…

“Quit saying they can ‘do anything….it’s Sci-Fi…..’”

Then you quit saying, “Bringing Spock back took the WHOLE movie!”

(THIS IS A FACT, THE PRODUCERS ARE TELING A SPECIFIC STORY AND THEY STARTED WITH A STORY IDEA, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT BRING BACK 70 + YR OLD CAPT. KIRK, IF IT WERE TO HAVE BEEN DONE IT REQUIRES AN ENTIRE FILM, WHEN SHATNER DID IT IT WAS AN ENTIRE NOVEL, THIS IS THE REASONING BEHIND THIS STATEMENT )

You have to realize there is more than one school of thought on this. Some of us feel Generations need barely be acknowledged. That the greater good would be in simply seeing Shatner onscreen with Nimoy again.

(WHILE I ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER SCHOOL OF THOUGHT ON THIS I THINK THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE FRAMED IN REFERENCE TO THE FILMED TREK LIBRARY NOT WHAT FANS DEEM ACKNOLEDGABLE OR FOR THE GREATER GOOD, WHATEVER THAT MEANS)

If a tie-in novel explained in great detail how and why Kirk was alive, and Paramount declared it “canon”, no one would be able to argue it.

(I THINK THE POINT IS TO CRAFT A STORY THAT MORE OR LESS FITS WITH THE ESTABLISHED FILMED CANON, PRINT STORIES HAVE NEVER BEEN CANON, AND WHEN I USE CANON IT IS SHORTHAND FOR THE FILMED TREK LIBRARY NOT NECCESARILY GR’S APPROVED VISION, I AM NOT REFERING TO VISUAL CANON WHICH THEY SEEM TO BE PLAYING LOOSE WITH BUT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO THAT WHILE REMAINING FAITHFUL TO THE STORIES THESE ARE THEIR(PRODUCERS)RULES NOT MINE)

“for all we really know Nimoy plays older Quinto, not neccesarily Quinto = young Nimoy”

That’ll be the day. I like Quinto, but … no.

(NOT REFERING TO THE ACTOR BUT THE CHARACTER, AS PRESENTED TO US AS A YOUNG MAN, IN NO WAY AN ATTEMPT TO DENEGRATE NIMOY AS AN ICON/PERFORMER)

“Everyone else in the audience just says ‘Isnt that that old guy who takes pictures of Fat chicks?’”

(THIS WAS A JOKE, A BAD JOKE MAYBE BUT A JOKE NONE THE LESS . NEXT TIME I’LL PUT A :-) SO NOBODY GETS ALL WORKED UP)

Please. As if Nimoy is more known for that book than for Mr. Spock? Dude. (shakes head with pity)

(SEE LAST COMMENT)

“MI: III doesnt bring Phelps back from the dead and make him a good guy again…”

I fail to see how that is relevant. MI: III wasn’t jumping around in time and featuring original series stars.

(WHILE I GRANT 1/2 POINT ON THIS ONE REPORTEDLY PETER GRAVES TURNED DOWN ROLE IN 1ST MI MOVIE SO AT SOME POINT THERE WAS A DESIRE TO INVOLVE ORIGINAL ACTORS, AND BESIDES IT IS A SPY MOVIE FANTASY THEY CAN DO ANYTHING….) DO INEED TO ADD :-) HERE?

I think Stern’s sidekick Artie Lange put it best to Mr. Abrams (paraphrasing):

‘So you’re gonna show every era of Star Trek history EXCEPT any where Shatner was alive?’

(SHATNER IS A REMARKABLE ACTOR, LOOKS GREAT FOR HIS AGE AS A REGULAR JOE BUT HIS CHARACTER DIED “14 YEARS AGO” AND HE CAN NOT CONVINCINGLY PLAY HIMSELF FROM 14 YEARS AGO, AS CAPT. KIRK HE LOOKS TO OLD AND OUT OF PRIME PHYSICAL CONDITION TO PLAY HIMSELF FROM SUCH A LONG TIME AGO, THAT IS THE HARSH REALITY. SO THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED POINT IN TIME THIS FILM SEEMS TO BE VISITING THAT THE ACTOR CAN BE EXPECTED TO PLAY)

I am not against Shatner or Kirk I have always debated this issue from the point of view of trying to divine what the producers are doing from what WE KNOW about the film, not what I want to see, WHAT ARE THEY (the Producers) doing and how does it fit with our understanding of what came before.

148. I AM THX-1138 - January 24, 2008

FB7-I’m getting it under control.

The great thing about the Shatner debates is at least it’s not the same argument over and over again.

Right?
Is it? I mean that both sides bring new and unique points of view each time to the table. No? Don’t they?

Another Shat threads no surprise
I’ll take red-hot pokers for my eyes
Rancor spewed just to spite ‘em
It goes on ad infinitum
And leaves many to offer their sighs.

149. Snake - January 24, 2008

Stern and co quizzing Abrams about Shatner reminds me of something….

Stern – Why did you leave him in Generations? Shatner trusted you..and you denyed him his future…

JJ – I saw no future…

HS – JJ I must have your thoughts…may i join your mind…

JJ – Certainly…

HS – He spoke of your admiration…

JJ – yes…

HS – Asked you not to grieve…

JJ – ….yes…

HS – The needs of the Shat…outweigh..

JJ – The needs of the story…

HS – or the cameo…

JJ – …Bill….

HS – I have been and always shall be Kirk…live long and prosper…

JJ – noooo….

150. Captain Scokirk - January 24, 2008

Abrams Talks Strike, Shatner, Cloverfield ‘Sickness’ And More [UPDATED]

This is the thread title ? So I one wanted to talk about Abrams and Shatner they would come here right?

Who’s reading this thread to find out who else is getting a cameo?

151. Captain Scokirk - January 24, 2008

re: 150

err.. “If one..”

best to proof read when being snotty…

I’m tired of this one too , but sometimes it’s hard to resist….

152. Litenbug - January 24, 2008

44. Ivory – January 24, 2008
“Berman – killed Kirk

Abrams – put nail in coffin”

You forgot to mention Shatner holding him down

153. Battletrek - January 24, 2008

Is anyone tired of these fanatics, whether they be for Shatner or any other celebrity? They really don’t help things in the slightest.

154. jonboc - January 24, 2008

Wow…I’m surprised everyone isn’t all over that leaked pic of the uniform and blog. Hmm…maybe Tom Cruise is in this thing after all.

155. Litenbug - January 24, 2008

50. Ivory – January 24, 2008
“I’m distracted by the stupidity of the argument that Shatner’s presence would somehow be a distraction”
What part of the past three Abrams interviews did you not read?
Here’s the timeline.
Shatner agreed to kill Kirk 14 years ago, resulting in a script written without old Kirk as a character. They don’t put characters into movies that are not needed to move the story along.

“It’s time for Kirk/Shatner fans to face the fact that they never wanted Shatner and he will not be in the film.”

They did, but he killed the character, otherwise he’d be on set… right now. They aren’t dumb and this isn’t the big conspiracy you keep making it out to be.

NOW you can face that fact…. or shall we beat the dead equine one more time?

156. Mike Thompson UK - January 24, 2008

Still think originally if Nimoy had refused to come out of retirement (big possibility) then they would of gone the Shatner route.

Pleased Nimoy is in, sad and dissappointed Shatner isn’t.

Generations:- Although the story was a missed opportunity for the whole tos cast meets TNG, I’m still pleased Shatner made the film. It felt a bonus at the time because Paramount was pushing TNG movies and there was not going to be a Captain Sulu series so again TOS characters were at an end. Bill knew that too.

You’ve got to remember Berman would still be in charge today had he not screwed up the last two movies.

157. Battletrek - January 24, 2008

What does all this arguing accomplish? Shatner being in this film or not will not be decided by it.

158. Gene - January 24, 2008

I have this feeling that Abrams really is not up to speed on Star Trek movies 1-6. And I am really feeling sorry for the guy in these interviews.

JJ. We can’t use Shatner/ KirK because he died.

Q. But didn’t Nimoy/Spock die?

JJ. Yes, but he lived on.

Outside of those of us that know the trek history…doesn’t that reason sound silly to the general public?

First he asked Shatner to me in the film…when informed by Shatner he died in “Generations”…then,,,,Abrams says…well we can’t use Shatner…he died “on screen” in “Generations.”

So, my question is….when Abrams asks Shatner about being in the film…was this script not written yet? Everyone keeps saying that for Shatner to be in this movie…it must go with the story…then why even go to Shatner?

I ask this because it seems like Abrams is saying….great script written…then we had to get Nimoy because his part is important for the script. Then again, why talk to Shatner in the first place?

I wish some would ask Abrams….have you watched the orginal movies yet?
Gene

159. S. John Ross - January 24, 2008

#140: I did go back and watch the episodes when someone told me about it, and I did enjoy them (for one thing, I always like seeing Coombs). It seemed to confirm what a lot of fans were telling me at the time, that the show started getting good just as they were yanking it. Ah well :( Maybe someday I’ll go back and watch the whole final season …

I deserve no credit for inventing the weapon, though; the general description of the weapon had already been established in the LUGTrek corebooks (and had been a decision, IIRC, of the mighty mighty Steve Long, who meant the description to evoke an Earth-style Katar). What I did was flesh out the culture and history behind it (including a language, rules for the duel, history of the various clans and nations from their pre-Federated balkanized years, etc) using what small scraps we had to work with, pre-Enterprise. And they used one word from the language I devised in thhe show (“Ushaan”), and thus is the saga of how I accidentally contributed exactly six letters to Trek canon. My 1.5 seconds of fame, as it were. ;)

But either way, you’re welcome, mr. Infinitely Prolonged! Love the nick.

160. The Vulcanista - January 24, 2008

#120

You’re absolutely correct; in the early events of XI, young Kirk and Spock will not have developed the friendship and chemistry that we know and love. You are also correct that only Nimoy and Shatner could have portrayed those two characters at that point in their relationship. Agree totally!

However, what we’ll get to see this Christmas is how that friendship developed, as portrayed by Pine and Quinto, into what we love so well. And that, my farmgirl friend who’s really in Germany, is the story in which *I’m* interested! I think we have to give some level of trust to the folks making this movie that they knew what they were doing when they cast this movie. :)

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

161. Katie G. - January 24, 2008

I was going to post this in the “Pine” thread but now this article is out, think I’ll post it here:

Well, I’ve been reading all of the posts and, based on my own observation have to say that, according to past behaviour, the character Spock would not have just accepted Kirk’s death. He had more than a “love” for the man. It was deeper than that. Kirk did what he did to restore Spock (in ST:III); but because the producers/directors whatever, don’t want to do another similar movie for Kirk, there he lies on Veridian III.

It appears that the people who did “Generations” were moving on to TNG movies as was done on TV and this was how they bridged the gap and tied in the two series — put the two Enterprise Captains in the same movie and bid “adieu” to one of them.

Shatner must have also thought it was the end (i.e. couldn’t imagine what more they could do with his character at that age) so he agreed because I can’t see him giving up on playing “Kirk” unless that was his thinking. The prequel (Enterprise) didn’t last 7 years so maybe they didn’t want to try it again. Too bad he didn’t come up with the idea of training a new set of cadets at the academy — primed to take over the Enterprise; then the new, younger crew would not have to worry about the all-mighty canon. Also, they probably didn’t think of the idea that interest in a young Kirk, Spock etc. would be profitable. Perhaps a little short-sighted on their part?

So, I again ask my question (asked before), why doesn’t William Shatner, with all of his money/resources, do his own movie? Then he gets to call the shots in everything. Is this a stupid question? I don’t think so unless there’s something I don’t know. Unless he has already attempted to sway his friends but to no avail?

I’ve heard that many of the original cast didn’t like Shatner very much (as was also reflected in the spoof “Galaxy Quest” with Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver et al) but don’t know how true that is either. I’ve tried to find books/articles written by the original crew about that sort of thing (Koenig, Takei, Doohan, Nichols) but haven’t found any. I’m not very good at research. Don’t know where to find things. I didn’t even know there was a Star Trek magazine. Didn’t buy magazines and never saw it on the stands. Saw a couple of old ones last year in Value Village and grabbed them. Can’t believe I didn’t know about it.

Anyway, Shatner could do his own movie and call the shots, couldn’t he? Or does it have to be “okayed” by copyright owners or canon “protectors” (if there is such a thing)? Would Majel Barrett Roddenberry own anything or how does that work? If Tim Russ could do a movie with some of the Star Trek actors (”Of Gods and Men”), why can’t William Shatner (or am I just showing my naiveté)?

Anyone brave enough to try to answer these questions?

162. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 24, 2008

William Shatner *could* do a movie, but only (a) if Paramount decided not to take it down (all fan films and fan productions, including my starshipexcelsior.com, exist only because we credit Paramount as the sole owners of the copyright–and they choose not to exercise the right to take us down) and (b) he made absolutely no money off of the film. Nor could any distributors, i.e. movie houses, so it would have to be all-online.

So I can’t see him doing that.

Good to see you, though, K.G.

163. Katie G. - January 24, 2008

Re: #162. James Heaney – Wowbagger

Hey, thanks.

I had to post this thing 3 times. It kept disappearing. Thought Anthony deleted it, but never got any warning messages to that effect. Weird.

Appreciate your answer. I can’t see him putting the money into it either, if he is not allowed to make money on it. Am beginning to understand the process.

ttyl

kg

164. The Vulcanista - January 24, 2008

#163

I think there was a slight server crash earlier this evening. I got some funky message from WordPress about 8:30 this evening EST that they couldn’t make contact with the host. Anthony can verify.

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

165. Pete Tong - January 24, 2008

#130

If I am well informed, this is just the jacket, not the actual uniform.
Maybe that’s why they moved the insignia to the collar.

Underneath that jacket there’s a tight turtleneck uniform hiding.

#129

You are right! Much better design, than they had in TMP.
_ _ _ _ _

The link to the field jacket uniform, or whatever can be found under post #124

166. Harry Ballz - January 24, 2008

#148 THX

Best limerick yet! Your affinity for composing them is like how Kirk took to green-skinned slave girls! :)

167. the Guardian of Forever - January 24, 2008

Cloverfield made me really nauseated the first time. The second time not so much. So when I go again this weekend I probably won’t get very sick at all. (Yep, three times. I’m crazy.)

168. Iowagirl - January 25, 2008

#160

I respect what you say, my dear friend of the Vulcan mysticism. But I’m not interested in seeing the beginning friendship without knowing that our dear old Spock is going to save our dear old Kirk; the man who devoted an integral part of his life to engineer the basis for the fulfilment of his friend‘s mysticism and destiny.

IMO, ignoring that would not be a re-imagination, but a distortion.

Peace to you from your German farmgirl friend. :)

169. Black Fire - January 25, 2008

Shatner directed and came up with the story for ST V. Shatner had Kirk say that he knew he’d always die alone.

ST:Generations: Kirk dies the death Shatner seems to have envisioned for him.

RIP

170. me - January 25, 2008

Shatner didn’t accept a cameo? So they ask him?
Shatner is an idiot, why didn’t he accept?

171. starship1 - January 25, 2008

I wish Bill could have been in this movie in any capacity. He’s been such a central figure in the Star Trek universe, it would have been classy to have him in handing off the reigns of the Kirk character to the young man replacing him. There are always possibilities, and they could have found a logical way to bring him back. It probably would have made more sense than Spock’s resurrection in any case. I’ll go to see the movie anyway, maybe not as many times as I would if Bill were in it, but I’ll watch and buy the DVD. Star Trek Lives!

172. Timncc1701 - January 25, 2008

170
Apparently for the same reason Nimoy didn’t accept a cameo in Generations. Ego. I can begin to understand how it would be awkward for whatever story line they have to shove in Shatner. I guess they figure it would take away from the pace of the film or the story line development. Too bad there is a strike on now. But you know, there could be a flashback conversation between Shat and Nimoy remembering how Nimoy saved him on Veridian III. . .I don’t know. It might be a personality conflict between JJ and the Shat. I’ll see the film regardless out of curiosity.

173. ctiii - January 25, 2008

Abrams & Co are either full of it or extremely dense creatively. There are several ways to revive Shatner in the new movie as Kirk without major rewrites or infringing on “the story we’re trying to tell”. It would be no more out of place or fanboyish than an entire movie about Spock being brought back in TSFS.

The easiest way which has been brought up on here before is to have Spock implant foreknowledge of Kirks death when he travels back in time via a mind meld with Quinto’s Spock or Pine’s Kirk(re-delivering his classic line from TWOK, “remember…”), and then when he returns to the future Shatner’s Kirk is there waiting for him, they exchange smiles, and the credits roll.

That idea doesnt change “the story we’re trying to tell” in that it doesnt make Abrams story about trying to bring Kirk back, it just makes things logical in the context of Spocks character wanting to do anything for his friend. After all, if your best friend died, and you were able to go back in time or were going to be going back in time anyway, wouldnt you, while you were in the past, do something to try and prevent his death? Obviously Spock cares enough about Kirk to go back in time to prevent the Romulans from harming him, so why would he do all that just to let him die in a unbecomming manner that is completely preventable?

Aside from the greater enjoyment and acceptance of “the story we’re trying to tell”, Shatner’s mere presence in the film as Kirk will boost the box office numbers a fair amount and grab the respect of the existing fans who are ready to turn their back on Trek in the same way that the studio along with Abrams & Co appear to have.

174. Marian Ciobanu - January 25, 2008

A TWILIGHT ZONE fan is more appropriate for the new trek movie than a old trek fan…

175. Randall - January 25, 2008

#173:

I agree with you in essence, but you’re forgetting something. We know that Shatner was adamant that he didn’t want to do a cameo. Your scenario would amount to a cameo.

And if you didn’t do it that way, if you were to involve Shatner more, then the film would have to be built around this idea of returning Kirk to life. And I can totally understand that that’s not the story Abrams wanted to tell. Maybe in the next movie, but not this one. This one has to revitalize Star Trek, not just be another sequel.

Now…. the only thing we can say is that Abrams could have pushed more for Shatner to just DO the damn cameo…. maybe said to him, “look, there’s no other way to do it, it has to be a brief appearance at the end of the film. Please do it.” Maybe Shatner would have relented.

BUT… two things then: A) at what cost? Shatner could have demanded big bucks. Okay, maybe that doesn’t matter, but money is what it is in Hollywood, and studios don’t like to just blow it no matter how it sometimes looks that way. But more importantly, B) Abrams has repeatedly raised the “fanboy” objection, and I think he’s sincere in this. Right or wrong, I think he is of the opinion that a Kirk resurrection would have cheapened his film. I can see this, I can understand it. I don’t know as I totally agree with it—but then he’s the Hollywood professional here, not me.

176. nyxtreme - January 25, 2008

Let’s hope there is a scene that would bring the SHAT back in the next movie!!!

177. ThePhaige - January 25, 2008

It Bothers me when a character dies they try to bring them back in a convoluted way, Like Ripley in Alien Resurrection. It just feels so forced to make it buyable.

Look Kirk dies in Generations and yes it was lame how it was handled. But whats done is done.

If Shatner was to be in this film, the only way I could see doing it is if he recorded a video message for Spock sometime before his death and that Kirk wanted it delivered to Spock in the future as a farewell. Or even recorded it while in the Nexus having a gut feeling his leaving the Nexus to Help Picard would be his final mission. After Spock views the recording left for him he realizes that Kirk did not die as History recorded it (saving the Enterprise) . Remember History does not have a record of Kirk getting sucked into the Nexus and help save the future enterprise crew(if not the Starship) This could set up the whole movie from there. It could be a Holodeck recording where The 2 could interact. Spocks loyalties are legend in Trek lore and he would feel some responsibility to NOT change the time line. It has been rumored that Romulans(for some odd reason) come back to assassinate Kirk when he is younger. This could be Spocks way of keeping continuity with the time line and set the motivation for his return to the past. He could also set the record straight as to what Kirk actually did with regards to the Nexus and Saving the crew in the future.

Then Spock could return home to Vulcan and pass away as this was his last haunting demon(mission)He is at peace and ready to die now. Then have them flash to Starfleet academy in the old Spock timeline and Show them erecting the memorial of Spock in the final slot to complete the circle and show the legendary crew all memorialized together and a huge gathering of Starfleet and civilians cheering in honor.

then they return back to Kirk and Crew our new actors and ship heading out officially on the first 5 year mission.

Obviously The whole middle of the movie is Spock and the new crew through his younger counterpart accomplishing the mission. I dont think the old Spock would interact with too many past characters or he would have to erase their memories, even the younger spock.

178. FlyingTigress - January 25, 2008

#177

“If Shatner was to be in this film, the only way I could see doing it is if he recorded a video message for Spock sometime before his death and that Kirk wanted it delivered to Spock in the future as a farewell.”

/The Tholian Web…

179. j w wright - January 25, 2008

they could still to the pre 1701B shatner, his death scene is the lamest excuse ever.

and howard is da man! he should be a trek villain!

he would have been better than that schmoe in ‘insurrection’

180. j w wright - January 25, 2008

again, lets all say it together.

‘shatner as kirk in this new film has nothing to do with ressurecting kirk from the dead’

okay, everyone on the same page?

181. Sean4000 - January 25, 2008

I do believwe that Shatner was unhappy with his character’s death as soon as 1 year after Generations premiered. It was about this time that he hired Judith and Garfield to write “The Return”

182. sean - January 25, 2008

#172

Nimoy turned down both directing and being featured in Generations because he thought the story was crap. And hey, guess what? Most people seem to have agreed with him. He was vocal in his reservations about Trek V as well, which I believe is the reason people feel reassured when he tells us this film is in good hands. He seems to have a fair idea of what constitutes good Trek and bad Trek.

I’d say this should settle the issue once and for all. JJ & co wrote a story that didn’t feature Shatner’s Kirk as a central character, and Bill didn’t want a cameo. I don’t think that makes either of them bad people, it’s just the reality of the situation.

183. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#70–You said,”We don’t know anything about this story … other than it’s going to be a lot different from what we’ve seen so far. Looks very much like a reboot. If it’s in alternate timeline, previously dead people can live again.”
We do know that it is JJ’s story, and he does not seem to think there is a way to make Shatner’s Kirk’s return fit. What we know is limited to that, I agree, but that IS what we have to go on.
You went on to respond to this:
“And the ‘fanboys’ will not make the studio their money back.”

“I don’t believe anyone said they would. closet, since you respond to every sentence I type with 6 paragraphs, yet don’t seem to “hear” a thing I am saying, I’m not sure we should continue with this!”
Well, Shatner fan, I am sorry that my continued comments frustrate you. It is not personal, but as long as you continue to post about why you believe Mr. Abrams should have put him in, I’m afraid that I am inclined to defend his right and decision not to do so. While I hope that does not offend you, as that is not my intention, the truth is that only you can decide what it is you allow to bother you or not. My comments are also in no way limited to your posts.

#50–No, it is a new work of art by JJ Abrams. You do not have to be William Shakespeare to have a right to your own vision as to how you wish to create your own work of art, and that is as true of a Star Trek film(within that fictional universe, of course) as it was of Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

#103–I have to say, “fair enough.” Glad to hear you will give it a chance.

#106–The difference in your analogy about Cloverfield is that it is a stand alone film (at least to this point), and there was/is no established history outside of that to handicap the story. As far as your “Alien” analogy, you are correct. “Alien:Ressurection” was horrible, and part of the reason it was doomed from the start is that they felt they could not do an “Alien” film without Sigourney Weaver. It would have had a much better chance of success if they had simply written a good story which did not involve the character of Ripley (who was dead at that point in the timeline–hmmm, where have I heard that theme before?).

#110–That is rather irrelevant, considering Bill told JJ he did not want a cameo anyway. Why does Bill get a pass on that with you, while JJ does not? Or did you somehow read that “distracting” comment differently than I did?

#116–I do not blame Shatner for declining to do a cameo. Such an appearance would only serve to give some fans the gratuitous Shat they are asking for. I don’t expect Bill to care about that, especially with all of that Boston Legal $$ coming in. This just gives credence to the argument, made by some, that Bill does not want to do Star Trek unless he is the “star” in Trek. If he has somehow changed his mind about doing a cameo, then he really screwed up with all of those insults he hurled publicly about JJ’s decision making on this project. Perhaps he never got the “do not burn your bridges” antectdote.

#122–That just means you are more of a Shatner fan than a Star Trek fan. And that is okay. You can still see Boston Legal, TJ Hooker reruns, and your TOS DVD’s (I know I enjoy them). But I’ll be at the movie.

#123–I like that attitude and approach. Frankly, I was disappointed with most Trek spinoffs (beginning with “Farpoint”). But I have been waiting a long time for something like this, and will give it every opprotunity to succeed in my eyes.

#173–Oh, ctiii. I’m just going to let that one go. As if!!! Your scenario involves Spock acting in a way unbefitting his character—risking altering the timeline, rather immorally, for personal reasons. I wouldn’t mind a “flashback” scenario that depicted Kirk prior to boarding the Enterprise-B, but 1) that would amount to a cameo, which Bill doesn’t want to do; and 2) that does not guarantee a fit into JJ’s story.
You are knocking JJ’s creativity level simply because he is not telling the story YOU want him to tell. Maybe you can talk Paramount into giving YOU a budget to make YOUR Star Trek movie.

#177–Someone else’s movie. Actually, that sounds like a novel to me. It’s not horrible, and it’s rather creative, but forgive me if I would prefer to put my faith in JJ–knowing his script has the approval of Leonard Nimoy, and the set designs and acting( portrayal of the TOS characters) now have the admiration and respect of Mr. Cawley (who has, up to this point, been an outspoken critic of any deviation from the original).

184. dalek - January 25, 2008

The Shatner thing is highly annoying.

This has to have been Abrams reasoning all along. So why the hell did they get people’s hopes up saying they were desperate to have him in the movie and go on for months and months saying the issue isn’t settled?

JJ you and your pals have given fans false hopes when you should have been fair to us at comicon and said you couldn’t give him a cameo and he doesn’t fit in the story. We’d all accepted before then he wasn’t going to be in it. You’ve been extremely unfair and messed with people’s feelings over this.

This will be known as the film that Shatner wasn’t in. I think I’m going to jump off the good ship Enterprise hybrid and enjoy my TOS DVDs. Trek 11? You’ve talked yourself out a ticket here for the sloppy handling of this whole affair and your constant snubbing of Bill Shatner in favour of all your industry pals. The man hasn’t even been invited to visit the set. I find it disgusting. I’ll keep an eye out for Gods of Men, TOS remastered and New Voyages and enjoy the return of Indiana Jones and Rambo, whilst forgetting new Star Trek because it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I don’t feel sorry for myself tho. I feel sorry for Bill. I don’t think anyones been made to feel more outcast from his own franchise as Bill has.

Bottom line is you couldn’t come up with anything better than a fanfic — speaks volumes. And you choose the story that you’re using as an excuse that he doesn’t fit into. Makes me wonder how you’d feel if someone killed off Jennifer Garner in Alias by slipping on a banana skin, and refocussed the show on Carl Lumbly. Then did a spin off movie set in a time when she was still alive but recast her with a younger actress and didn’t even let Garner on the set.

185. Sean4000 - January 25, 2008

“””””Bottom line is you couldn’t come up with anything better than a fanfic — speaks volumes. And you choose the story that you’re using as an excuse that he doesn’t fit into. Makes me wonder how you’d feel if someone killed off Jennifer Garner in Alias by slipping on a banana skin, and refocussed the show on Carl Lumbly. Then did a spin off movie set in a time when she was still alive but recast her with a younger actress and didn’t even let Garner on the set. “”””

This is the best post I’ve read in a LONG time! My thoughts exactly.

186. TJ Trek - January 25, 2008

Okery. Why is everyone so irked about no shatner. I’m glad JJ is pointing out the obvious. THE MAN DIED. KIRK DIED. and, #2… a great story doesn’t neccesarily have EVERYTHING IN IT. The original Spock, The original Kirk, the kitchen sink. If it doesn’t fit with the story. Then it doesn’t work. And if a cameo is not an option for shatner, then you would have to make him a major plot point. And that would be like going GENERATIONS on poor JJ. I mean look at that film. It had so many things that were “required” of it that it turned out to be crap. I’m afraid if JJ became “required” to stick Shatner in the movie as a major plot point, that movie would turn out to be crap. just think of GENERATIONS every time you think Shanter must be in the movie.

187. AJ - January 25, 2008

All: Go back to TWOK. Pre-release screenings revealed that the general audience was disappointed with the death of Spock, so that scene “Remember, I have no time to discuss this logically” was filmed after those screenings because Paramount wanted an out for a sequel. Nimoy said yes, but only if he could direct.

Perhaps the idea of Kirk as an old man didn’t resonate with what was most likely a young test audience. Maybe old Spock here is like Yoda in SW. A wise old alien sage with pointed ears with an interesting past.

188. AJ - January 25, 2008

And remember the Shat’s quote “it’s bad business!”? Maybe that’s what the quick visit with JJ was all about.

189. Iowagirl - January 25, 2008

#184

You couldn’t have stated it any better! I hope Bill’s ego is big enough to roar with laughter about this absurdity.

190. Demode - January 25, 2008

At the very least, they need to show Nimoy looking at a picture of Shatner in the movie. Even better if it’s the Star Trek 6 cast photo. I think it would be a nice touch.

I still don’t know why we can’t get Shatner in the film. Yes he died… but there all always ways to go around that. Heck, they could even do a “Jack Crusher” moment and give us a holographic Kirk; not one who interacts with Spock, but one who leaves a message and says good bye to him. There is precedence for this… in the original series, Kirk left a videotaped message for Spock in the event he died. A holographic version of this would really be no different, and it would be a good way for the character to say good bye. Yes, it would be a cameo, but one that everyone would love.

191. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#184–I take exception to your reference to Star Trek as “his (Shatner’s) franchise. It is not, never has been, and never will be his. Not even the character of Jim Kirk is his (that was Mr. Roddenberry’s revised vision of the Enterprise Captain after his initial character [Chris Pike--played by Jeffrey Hunter] was rejected by NBC, as I understand it). He was given that role to play for a quarter of a century, and that is more than enough.
You also downplay the assertion that bringing Shatner’s Kirk into this film does not fit into the story. You called it an “excuse”, when really, it means everything to the flow of the film.
This notion, that JJ Abrams is obligated to clean up someone else’s mess (Generations), is absurd. The notion that Star Trek owes anything else to Bill Shatner is equally absurd. At one time, TMP’s producer wanted to replace the old actors completely, and didn’t Star Trek’s caretakers allow Bill’s ego to screw up a feature film already (STV)? Didn’t they allow him to play the role into his 60’s? Mr. Abrams (and Star Trek in general) does not owe Bill anything else. It is over (Shatner’s portrayal of James Kirk). Like he said, if his character was not already dead, it would have been much simpler to include him as a major figure in the new movie. As it is, such a thing would require devoting time in the film to resolving that issue satisfactorily, according to the standards of its director. He should not be handicapped with that in order to make a Star Trek film. Your dissatisfaction with what he is doing is based solely on the reasoning that he is not making the movie YOU would make.
For all you know, this film could be the best of all Star Trek movies and save the franchise, yet your concern seems to be limited to something so ridiculous as this. He will not be in the film. So what? Bill Shatner was never Captain of the Enterprise. James T. Kirk was. If you think that James T. Kirk is William Shatner, then how do you reconcile the hundreds of other characters who have been portrayed by different actors? The script does not call for an old James Kirk (that guy is dead). It does call for an old Spock (that guy is alive and well), played by Nimoy, and he has been with the franchise a whole year longer than Bill was.
I, for one, hope that JJ makes a great Star Trek movie. The fact that Bill will not be in it is a relief. “Correcting” Kirk’s death would pollute this film with too much crap, and interfere with the telling of the story JJ wants us to hear. He probably could have had a cameo, but didn’t want it. If you don’t like it, then say so after you have seen the movie. I certainly will. For now, everything I hear coming from anyone associated with it is positive. And the only thing negative being said by anyone (people not associated with it) is that JJ is not telling the story they would tell. Oh well.

192. Demode - January 25, 2008

187#

“Perhaps the idea of Kirk as an old man didn’t resonate with what was most likely a young test audience.”

… I have yet to meet a young person who does not think Shatner is cool. Kids/teens/young adults love him! I work with teens, and everyone I have talked tobaout Trek has said they hope Shaner is in the movie. Shatner is as popular with the youth of today as he was in the 60s… perhaps even more so!

193. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#180–Certainly, but that doesn’t satisfy the assertion that an appearance of Shat would fit into the story as JJ would require, nor does it make any other type of appearance fit outside of the term, “cameo”–and we have all heard that Bill does not want that anyway. The fact is, making his potential appearance relevant to the story is the issue, not whether or not Kirk can be prevented from dying (although that is the predominant solution for fans who refuse to accept that he will not be/should not be in this film) the way he already did in someone else’s movie. The only argument left seems to have turned from could or could not, to whether or not it was JJ’s responsibility to write a different script from the one he wants to direct.

#190,192–I don’t think that(young people’s opinions of him) is the issue, either. What is wrong with taking JJ’s word at face value? It is HIS story, and only HE knows what will work in that story without compromising the integrity of his own artistic vision. If you see it and do not like the story, you are free then to say that another one would have been better, or that adding this or that would have saved it. It is impossible to fairly judge a piece of art BEFORE you have seen it.

194. Daoud - January 25, 2008

Perhaps it would be best to cast Shatner in a central role in Cloverfield 2.

And no, not as the monster or one of its colleagues.

Its lawyer, of course. Suing the US Army for damages to its horde.

195. nscates - January 25, 2008

@191
” and didn’t Star Trek’s caretakers allow Bill’s ego to screw up a feature film already (STV)? ”

Huh? How did his ego screw it up? I thought that it was sub-par special effects coupled with the studio’s continued tinkering of the script.

196. AJ - January 25, 2008

193:

“I don’t think that(young people’s opinions of him) is the issue, either. What is wrong with taking JJ’s word at face value?”

Because everything he says is referring to a $135m investment by a public company, and is controlled by the Corporate Affairs Dept. of that company. Look at all the happy corporate faces we’ve seen on these threads from the creative side. The success of Cloverfield, STXI, and Indy IV is already reflected in their share price, and no one who has been on that set will ever say anything negative.

It’s an easy brush-off of a topic he would like to go away, as BBK is as easy as movie-magic, but not in the cards

197. Shatner4TrekXI - January 25, 2008

#186—The entire movie is involving time travel. If someone kills Kirk’s mom when she is pregnant, Kirk is dead. If someone goes back in time and stops it, you have undone a Kirk death.

Why is it any different with undoing Generations?

198. ThePhaige - January 25, 2008

#183

I agree, and trust me I have faith in these guys (JJ etc). Whatever they come up with I am hopeful will capture what IS Trek. I simply was illustrating that there really arent many logical ways to bring Kirk back. My scenario is the only way I can think of that I might buy . I am sure there are other scenarios, but then there is a fine balance to get our buy in on the new actors. Too many of the original actors would divert the focus. This is
Star Trek , these will be the actors who carry the torch, and we may get to see some new episodes that took place between and around the existing episodes that were aired.

Frankly the exclusion of Shatner in this film wont deter me in an way, nor am I a believer that his inclusion is even necessary for this movie to be huge. I am into the characters and KIRK IS going to be in this film. So long as Pine pulls it off they have my endorsment.

199. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#195–His poor direction/casting decisions allowed the actors to give subpar performances (especially the Romulan and Klingon ambassador characters), allowed for a horrible character in Sybok, and resulted in buffoonery on the part of the franchise’s main 3 characters (I actually threw up a little at “Row, row, row your boat” and the asinine rock-climbing scene). To answer your question, his ego demanded that, since Nimoy was allowed to direct, he should be as well–despite not having any of the talent necessary to do it well, and it showed throughout that entire abomination that was STV: The One I Like To Pretend Never Happened. And the studio probably found it necessary to meddle with the script because it was so awful!!!!

200. Closettrekker - January 25, 2008

#196–You are completely missing the point. What, exactly, is it that JJ has said that is unbelievable? Only he knows if or how a Shatner return would fit, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the story he wishes to tell. Since Kirk is dead, showing him after Generations would require “correcting” his death, and somehow fitting into the flow of the story. Simply showing him briefly in a flashback would amount to nothing more than a cameo, which Bill does not wish to do, and even if he did, JJ still would have to fit it into the flow of the story. He does not see a way for it to do so.THAT should be enough for you, yet that is not the only factor. There is also a writer’s strike. You seem to want to ignore the obvious obstacles and saddle JJ with all of this baggage in order for you to approve of him doing a Star Trek movie. Why is it his responsibility to include Shatner? Because someone else’s movie killed his character? Because Star Trek still, after all of this time, owes something MORE to Shatner? Please. Give me a break. Even if he is harboring some personal dislike for Bill, could you blame him? Bill has spent considerable time in public, criticizing JJ and his decision making, even using the word “stupid”. I employ alot of people, and not one of them is dumb enough to ever publicly say that a business decision I have made was stupid just because it did not involve them. Who is HE, of all people, to criticize a director? He directed STV!!! You are right about one thing, I’m sure he does wish it would go away, as it should. Shatner is not, and should never be JJ’s problem. He was commissioned to do a Star Trek movie, not a Shatner movie.

201. DEMODE - January 25, 2008

Star Trek V was a fun film. It was silly at times, but so was a lot of classic Trek. I think Bill did a pretty good job overall. The only thing I found to be subpar (and really hope they go in and fix) was the effects.

202. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 25, 2008

Re:173. ctiii – January 25, 2008
“Abrams & Co are either full of it or extremely dense creatively. There are several ways to revive Shatner in the new movie as Kirk without major rewrites or infringing on “the story we’re trying to tell”. It would be no more out of place or fanboyish than an entire movie about Spock being brought back in TSFS.”

Agreed. As i’ve always said, creative writers (experienced in fantastic fiction or not) can make the impossible seem possible–THAT is the heart of science fiction. Any excuses at this point are just that: excuses, but that does not guarantee anyone will buy it.

203. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 25, 2008

Re:10. Harry Ballz – January 24, 2008
“His recent behaviour has eroded a tremendous amount of goodwill old time fans felt for him”

I do not see/hear/sense some great amount of negative feelings toward Shatner around the internet or out in the world. What I do hear are the complaints of a few (and i’m not talking about you at this point) feeling he’s (in some way yet to be explained) “raining” on the parade of certain fans’ desire to buy Trek2.0 hook, line and sinker.

204. Xai - January 25, 2008

Writers are hired to be creative and weren’t hired to put a band-aid on a 15 year old movie. I highly dislike the insinuations made that these guys are not creative when you’ve not seen ONE word of the script or direction.
Generations shouldn’t have been written this way, nor should the actor have gone along with it. Mistake compounded by the original bad business decision.

And this production company shouldn’t be saddled with fixing Generations. They have their own story they want to tell us and perhaps Shatner and some fans ought to back off some and let them work. If it fails.. you can sing “I told you so” to anyone that will listen. They’ve announced their cast, they are filming, they are keeping fans informed as best they can and still holding on to their secret. Good for them.
The story is Star Trek, Not “The Return of Shatner” or The Search for Spock’s Dentures. It’s STAR TREK and I want a good story unhindered by agenda.

205. COMAPSSIONATE GOD - January 25, 2008

#204:

The points are clear.

#173. ctiii – January 25, 2008
“Abrams & Co are either full of it or extremely dense creatively. There are several ways to revive Shatner in the new movie as Kirk without major rewrites or infringing on “the story we’re trying to tell”. It would be no more out of place or fanboyish than an entire movie about Spock being brought back in TSFS.”

or:

#202 – “Agreed. As i’ve always said, creative writers (experienced in fantastic fiction or not) can make the impossible seem possible–THAT is the heart of science fiction. Any excuses at this point are just that: excuses, but that does not guarantee anyone will buy it. ”

This is not rocket science. Either one is up to the challenge of dealing with fantastic fiction or one is not. Period. If one IS up to the challenge (or claiming it), then there are no excuses for *suddenly* lacking the ability to write a thing within the most FLEXIBLE of templates in fiction.

We’re dealing with a series which played host to characters becoming god-like, people travelling through time, facing massive planet-killing devices, alien empires, aggressive cybernetic beings, mirror universes, and of all things, characters killed and restored to life…..yet NOW, someone wants to pay attention to a plot, and in doing so, develop a block preventing the ability to be brilliant and inventive (making it all SERVE the main plot) when that was never a problem with innumerable writers (of certain series) in franchise history…..until now.

THAT is what inspires the justified criticism.

206. Battletrek - January 26, 2008

You guys are insane, bye now!

207. Schiefy - January 26, 2008

Didn’t have time to read all of the posts but…

I seem to recall that Nimoy wasn’t interested in doing Generations because it would have only been a “cameo” role–was there a similar reaction then as there has been with Shatner’s desire for the same?

I think when someone has become as iconic as the original cast (or even more recent Trek incarnations) members then those actors have every right to desire more than a cameo role in a Trek film.

On the other hand, I am sure if JJ had found a creative way to bring back Kirk the elder to serve the overall story then Shatner might have considered it before rejecting it completely. I would like to believe that Shatner is not entirely that egotistical as he plays (I never thought he was in his 70’s NYC Trek convention appearances).

208. Battletrek - January 26, 2008

Good point Schiefy, although I still don’t get all this Shatner love, especially after reading that everyone but Nimoy, and I guess his immediate family, despises him.

209. Woulfe - January 26, 2008

Star Trek 5’s problems come form all over.

1. The paceing of some scenes, this should of been fixxed in editing, did Shatner do the editing on the film or someone else ?

2. The less then stellar FX by five & dime FX house Bran Ferran & Associates ( doesn’t that sound like a LAW firm not an FX house ? )

3. Uneven treatment of the co-stars, what I mean by that is the camera seems to cut to quick from someone when Kirk / Shatner is in the same scene, as if to say, this is my movie, the camera should be on me more.

4. Some incredibly hard to believe science. Sha-ka-ree is at the center of the Galaxy ? What about the super massive black hole there ? The fact it takes a short time to get there even is also a tough one to swallow.

5. If one reads the making of book you see that the potental for a great Star Trek was there, and so many things happened along the way that should of been easy to fix, but weren’t due to time, money, ect.

Yes there are great character moments in the film, that’s something Shatner understood about Star Trek, too bad he messed up on the rest of it though, I think if he could go back and redo parts of it it’d turn out a lot better, Just look at TMP after re-editing and redoing certain FX shots.

He learned a lot while makeing Star Trek V, like how NOT to make a Star Trek movie, and he should go back and finish the dang thing, hey here’s an idea, seeing as Shatner isn’t in the new film, how about get ILM to help him finish Star Trek V, i’m sure they wouldn’t mind a bit of extra work while doing the new film, and JJ can be happy for helping to make it happen.

It’s a win-win situation, Shatner gets to repair Star Trek V at last and the rest of us get the new movie to enjoy plus a finished version of STV !

– W –
* How’s that sound folks ? *

210. Closettrekker - January 26, 2008

#201–And you approved of the “frightened” and touchy-feely Romulan ambassador, the Klingon Warrior “apologizing” with his head down(or even being expected by another Klingon to do so), the very idea of the colony that the benevolent Federation (which was Roddenberry’s vision of utopia) completely neglected to the point of utter deprivation? How about the very existence of the character of Sybok? What, exactly, did you find about the project that was “Classic Trek”? Was it Scotty and Uhura humiliating themselves? Spock being reduced to singing “Row Your Boat”? What did Bill do a good job on? As I said before, I actually threw up in my mouth a little—nothing fun about that!

#202, #205–Being “up to the challenge” has nothing to do with it. Whether meeting that challenge is beneficial to the story or not is the whole issue. If straying from the plot to bring Kirk into it does not benefit the story, then he should not be in the film, period. Paramount gave JJ that budget to make “his” Star Trek movie, not the one that “Shatner at all costs” fans want him to make. It was never his responsibility to “correct” Kirk’s death (or find a way around it), nor does he owe anything to Shatner. It is called Star Trek, not Shatner Trek, and William Shatner was never in command of the Enterprise—James T. Kirk was. If you have an idea about a Shatner/Kirk movie, write it down and pitch it to Paramount. Maybe they will buy the script from you or give YOU a budget to make YOUR own Star Trek film… I would rather see JJ’s!!!

#207–No, there was not. There was also no loud whining about him not being in the film to the point that some even refuse to see it for that reason. No one said that it would not be Star Trek, because the iconic Spock (played by Nimoy) was missing. (sigh), Why is it JJ’s responsibility to resurrect a dead character and be “creative” enough to find him a role befitting his status? Does that baggage not infringe on JJ’s (the artist’s) own artistic integrity? he said very plainly that if the Kirk character were not dead, he could easily have made him relevant to the story. Obviously, his death presents an issue that would require straying from the plot of the film to resolve. Protecting or failing to protect the flow of the story can easily be the difference between a good movie and a bad one. I would rather have a good movie without Bill than risk having a bad one with him in it.

211. AJ - January 26, 2008

201: Problems with STV besides SFX:

Sybok and “Vulcan Princess”
Cheap Mos-Eisley imitation on the Planet of Galactic Peace
Corporate middle-management Romulan ambassador
Horses
Kirk just hands Sybok the Enterprise
Jack Daniels product placement
Uhura and Scotty
Too many decks
New Enterprise doesn’t work
Uhura dance
Shuttle lands in bay without tractor beam
Chekov and Sulu lost in the woods
God on a planet in the center of our galaxy

On and on. The movie was a complete disaster, and was overstuffed with humor, as Paramount thought that STIV’s success was due to the light spirit of that film, and not to the content and pacing of a good story with a message.

212. Closettrekker - January 26, 2008

#211–very well put.

213. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 26, 2008

Re: 210. Closettrekker – January 26, 2008

“#202, #205–Being “up to the challenge” has nothing to do with it. Whether meeting that challenge is beneficial to the story or not is the whole issue. If straying from the plot to bring Kirk into it does not benefit the story, then he should not be in the film”

Apparently, your quote above means you did not understand what I posted earlier:

C.G.: “yet NOW, someone wants to pay attention to a plot, and in doing so, develop a block preventing the ability to be brilliant and inventive (making it all SERVE the main plot) when that was never a problem with innumerable writers (of certain series) in franchise history…..until now.”

In short, SERVING the main plot is a priority, NOT (in your words) “straying from the plot” in order to restore Kirk. Trek writers have made the wholly fantastic seem believeable enough within its genre frame before, and it served the main plot, therefore if the chance to restore Kirk was there (and apparently, it was, hence the talks with Shatner), then it is the job of a creative writer to make it all work–the very thing we have witnessed in one form or another in over four decades of Star Trek.

In other words, no excuses, as J.J.’s interview leads one to believe.

“It was never his responsibility to “correct” Kirk’s death (or find a way around it), nor does he owe anything to Shatner. It is called Star Trek, not Shatner Trek, and William Shatner was never in command of the Enterprise—James T. Kirk was.”

Now you’re coming off like one of the fans forever stuck in Shatner-hate mode, which fails to help your argument. NO one here EVER claimed ST was “Shatner Trek”, or that anyone “owed” anything to Mr. Shatner. Once again, it seems irrational dislike of one actor (perhaps his fans, too) leads to false claims, when that’s not even remotely necessary and has no bearing or value to the discussion.

“I would rather see JJ’s!!!”

Jeeze, guy! Another comment having no bearing on the discussion!

214. Closettrekker - January 26, 2008

#213–“no one her ever claimed…that anyone ‘owed’ anything to Mr. Shatner”?
Are you serious? Really? I have seen dozens of posts that claimed that exact thing!

I think it is you that missed the point of MY post. I do not hate(or irrationally dislike) Shatner. On the contrary, I have spent hundreds(maybe over 1000) of hours watching and enjoying his portrayal of James Kirk! Nor do I hate Shatner fans. I disagree with his recent comments, but that is hardly the same thing.

My point was, that just because it was possible or plausible for Shatner’s Kirk character to return, we should not assume that bringing him back would help JJ tell a better Star Trek story. I am not quite sure why you seem to be so offended by that contention. These boards are for fan opinions, and I assure you that I am as much a fan as you or anyone else.

You said,
“In short, SERVING the main plot is a priority, NOT (in your words) “straying from the plot” in order to restore Kirk. Trek writers have made the wholly fantastic seem believeable enough within its genre frame before, and it served the main plot, therefore if the chance to restore Kirk was there (and apparently, it was, hence the talks with Shatner), then it is the job of a creative writer to make it all work–the very thing we have witnessed in one form or another in over four decades of Star Trek.”

This is the assumption I am talking about–that “if the chance to restore Kirk was there, then it is the job of the creative writer to make it all work.”
Well, no it isn’t. It is JJ’s job to write and direct the best Star Trek film he can, to tell the best story he can. You have assumed that bringing back Kirk (whether it is THE story or part of it) IS the best story he could tell.

Am I misunderstanding you? Have I made a “false statement”? Or, when you made that comment, did you take my exaggerating method of contending that Star Trek is not all about Shatner, as a suggestion that you actually said that? I do not think you are that dense. I think you are frustrated that JJ’s idea of the “best story he could tell” differs from the one that you would have told, and you are, in turn, taking it out on me because I defend his right to artistic integrity. It is NOT JJ’s responsibility to find Shatner a role in the film, just because it is “possible”, even if it WERE easily done. Do you question the creativity of a painter who chooses not to paint the picture you would have chosen, or if he chooses not to use your favorite color to do so? Why not wait until his art has been made available to the World before judging it. That is usually how it works. There is nothing anti-Shatner about my opinion, rather, it is pro-artistic.

215. Xai - January 26, 2008

214 Closettreker
Well said

216. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 26, 2008

Re:#213–”no one her ever claimed…that anyone ‘owed’ anything to Mr. Shatner”?
Are you serious? Really? I have seen dozens of posts that claimed that exact thing!”

I’ve read and participated in many a thread here, and fans argue for Shatner being in the film for fan reasons, creative reasons, financial reasons, etc., but i’ve not read what you are suggesting.

“My point was, that just because it was possible or plausible for Shatner’s Kirk character to return, we should not assume that bringing him back would help JJ tell a better Star Trek story. I am not quite sure why you seem to be so offended by that contention. These boards are for fan opinions, and I assure you that I am as much a fan as you or anyone else.”

Actually, the opposite is in effect: a couple of recent posters (one I responded to yesterday) seems to be VERY offended with the mere suggestion that the writers are not creative. To take offense over that view of a couple of people he (or she) does not know is over the top emotionalism to say the least.

Futhermore, I deal in the reality of the genre, and accept that it grants CREATIVE writers a template to tell any kind of story, to the point where limits do not exist–other than in the mind and abilites of the writer. The point i’ve made all along.

C.G.: “In short, SERVING the main plot is a priority, NOT (in your words) “straying from the plot” in order to restore Kirk. Trek writers have made the wholly fantastic seem believeable enough within its genre frame before, and it served the main plot, therefore if the chance to restore Kirk was there (and apparently, it was, hence the talks with Shatner), then it is the job of a creative writer to make it all work–the very thing we have witnessed in one form or another in over four decades of Star Trek.”

Closettrekker: “This is the assumption I am talking about–that “if the chance to restore Kirk was there, then it is the job of the creative writer to make it all work.”
Well, no it isn’t. It is JJ’s job to write and direct the best Star Trek film he can, to tell the best story he can. You have assumed that bringing back Kirk (whether it is THE story or part of it) IS the best story he could tell. ”

You are off in this way: There is no assumption when J.J. actually discussed Shatner’s participation with the man. This was a real consideration, therefore we must acknowledge that Kirk’s return was (at some point) part of the story development process. The failure to carry it through can only speak to the questions on creativity addressed earlier.

So, there is no real assumption there.

“Do you question the creativity of a painter who chooses not to paint the picture you would have chosen, or if he chooses not to use your favorite color to do so? Why not wait until his art has been made available to the World before judging it. That is usually how it works. There is nothing anti-Shatner about my opinion, rather, it is pro-artistic. ”

I question the creativity of anyone with the most diverse, flexible template in all of fiction (with one of the most flexible properties in entertainment history), claiming an element could not be worked into a script, when 40+ years of Trek has played host to stories taking an idea and making it a NATURAL, fluid part of the story, including characters returning from the dead.

Regarding your comment on judging? Perhaps you should pass that on to all of the pro-Trek2.0 members with posts revealing they are already selling themselves to high degrees on something that is certainly NOT “MADE AVAILABLE TO THE WORLD” as of this date.

Works both ways.

217. Xai - January 26, 2008

205. COMPASSIONATE GOD – January 25, 2008

Sorry, what you responded with are not facts, just opinions. You’ve not proven the writers have a lack creativity just because they choose to not include Shatner. That’s just a biased opinion.

CG from #216, regarding the level of writer creativity…”There is no assumption when J.J. actually discussed Shatner’s participation with the man. This was a real consideration, therefore we must acknowledge that Kirk’s return was (at some point) part of the story development process. The failure to carry it through can only speak to the questions on creativity addressed earlier.”
“can only speak to the questions on creativity”
I disagree unless you were there during the conversation. Negotiations break down, studios offer too little money, actors ask for too much money… I don’t know what went on behind the scenes and neither do you. The “failure” to carry it through is unknown at this time.

Compassionate God from #213…”. NO one here EVER claimed ST was “Shatner Trek”, or that anyone “owed” anything to Mr. Shatner. Once again, it seems irrational dislike of one actor (perhaps his fans, too) leads to false claims, when that’s not even remotely necessary and has no bearing or value to the discussion.”

You are overstating again and assuming the worst of people. “Irrational dislike of one actor (perhaps his fans, too)”? Call Homeland security.
Read on…

From the “James Cawley to appear in new Star Trek movie” thread…
“—-37. Sybok Amok – January 23, 2008
William Shatner created James T. Kirk while Abrams was still in diapers, now JJ owes The Shat his rightful place at center seat!”

This isn’t the only instance of this kind of statement and you can go to nearly any Shatner thread and find the “Shatner IS Trek” proclaimation.

Could Shatner be written in? Sure, if that was the story the writers had chosen to do. But that’s not the story, thus JJ’s answers.

218. PutBillInIt - January 27, 2008

#138.miguel. Cool Idea. Or Abrams could pay homage to another TV Series by having Shatner play the role of the gremlin right outside the window of the captain’s quarters.

219. Kat - January 27, 2008

Did anyone ever give consideration to Q being involved in reuniting old characters with new ones in a Trek movie? Certainly something can be written about doing that. He was an interesting character in Star Trek series who can be the catalyst for a new movie. Also, nothing has been mentioned here about the fact that Shatner wrote a script for this new movie and it was turned down. He now has a book out with almost the same storyline for “The Academy Days”. It was his script for the new movie.

220. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 28, 2008

Re: 217. Xai – January 26, 2008
205. COMPASSIONATE GOD – January 25, 2008

Sorry, what you responded with are not facts, just opinions. You’ve not proven the writers have a lack creativity just because they choose to not include Shatner. That’s just a biased opinion.”

Sorry, but you must realize that your comment about my facts being “opinion” ARE your “opinion” NOT facts.

See how that works? I can disregard your comment just as quickly as you would like to dismiss my statements. The difference here is that unlike you, i’m not becoming increasingly defensive over a comment about others. If YOU choose to believe they are creative, that is your choice to do so, and more power to you, but you must also understand that it does NOT mean you are correct (or that the opposite view is incorrect).

“The “failure” to carry it through is unknown at this time. ”

To even acknowlege failure–even in the way you–do still suggests a some sort of failing on their part.

I will continue to cite the failure as we have already witnessed a solid way of restoring life to a character–one which the audience accepted. This way was found in the plot of Star Trek 3. “Somehow” that film’s writers were able to arrive at a creative, believable solution for Spock’s return.

Same franchise. Same characters. Same tools to work with, therefore excuses just crumble.

“Compassionate God from #213…”. NO one here EVER claimed ST was “Shatner Trek”, or that anyone “owed” anything to Mr. Shatner. Once again, it seems irrational dislike of one actor (perhaps his fans, too) leads to false claims, when that’s not even remotely necessary and has no bearing or value to the discussion.”

Xai: “You are overstating again and assuming the worst of people. “Irrational dislike of one actor (perhaps his fans, too)”? Call Homeland security.
Read on…”

Cute, but everyone here can browse threads to see example after tired example of anti-Shatner/anti-Shatner fan posts. Like clockwork, if someone posts a single line of support for the idea of Shatner being in the film (or speaks of his importance to the franchise), in comes the whiners, and the bashers, telling others how or what to think, and how it is “wrong.”.

Xai: “From the “James Cawley to appear in new Star Trek movie” thread…
“—-37. Sybok Amok – January 23, 2008
William Shatner created James T. Kirk while Abrams was still in diapers, now JJ owes The Shat his rightful place at center seat!”

This isn’t the only instance of this kind of statement and you can go to nearly any Shatner thread and find the “Shatner IS Trek” proclaimation. ”

I said I did not see posts of that nature, and until now, that remained the case. The fact that you now present one does not sell the idea as being some widespread, shared belief of Shatner fans.

“Could Shatner be written in? Sure, if that was the story the writers had chosen to do. But that’s not the story, thus JJ’s answers.”

Everyone makes mistakes. See Voyager, Enterprise, and the TNG movies (except First Contact). However, admitting mistakes never justifies it.

221. Xai - January 28, 2008

220. COMPASSIONATE GOD – January 28, 2008

Deflect, parry, sidestep.

“I said I did not see posts of that nature, and until now, that remained the case. The fact that you now present one does not sell the idea as being some widespread, shared belief of Shatner fans.
Sorry, no… read your own #213 again. “NO one here EVER …”? You said you read the posts.

And the difference is that you assume the worst based solely that Shatner’s not it. While I’ll allow that’s your opinion… that’s a very narrow view.

222. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 29, 2008

Xai…tsk, tsk.
This is not going to sink into flameville, so I will say this:
You can bang your head into the wall over this, but get used to life’s central truth: your view may not be “facts” for anyone else. On more than one occasion i’ve had to say this on this board, but if you want to believe the writers are creative based on what you know, or that the excuses behind Shatner not being in the film, hey, that’s your business, but that piece of aggressive, pro-Trek2.0 self-satisfaction–which IMO is all your argument amounts to–is not going to convince anyone else.

223. Closettrekker - January 29, 2008

#216, 220, 222–All of this is still centered around one thing: your belief that the writer had a responsibility to include Shatner’s return in the story. Because JJ had talks with Bill proves what, exactly? That he recognized Shatner as having a large fan base and that a much younger Bill Shatner helped to shape one of his central characters? Perhaps he wanted to explore the possibility of a Shatner cameo (which Bill immediately made clear he wanted no part of). Bill wants a significant part in the film. That would require resolving the issue of Kirk’s death or depicting Shatner in a more than minor flashback scene. For that to happen, it would have to benefit the story that JJ wishes to tell, otherwise, it is out of place. No amount of creativity will make that story a better one than the story JJ wants to tell, otherwise, he has made it clear that Shatner would have had the role in the film which he wanted. Furthermore, even if Bill was to change his mind about how significant his role needed to be, there are new issues which complicate things. There is now a writer’s strike, for one. I have heard this called “a lame excuse”, but people in the industry take these things very seriously as a way of showing solidarity. It is true that he could be cast as a different character, but only a very minor one in order for the audience to take it seriously (as JJ pointed out), and that would also amount to a role far less significant than Shatner wishes to play in a Star Trek film. I am baffled by how anyone could fail to understand JJ’s point of view. There are inhibitions storywise, with regards to the state of the writer’s guild, as well as on the part of Bill Shatner himself. Why is all of the criticism about this subject directed at JJ, while Bill gets a pass?
I am equally baffled as to how you could have missed the dozens of comments posted by Iowagirl, Shatner fan 2000, Sybok Amok, and others throughout the many Shatner threads, which claim that JJ (and in some cases, Paramount or even Star Trek itself) owes Bill a role in this film. I stand by my contention that this is a simple case of some fans being disappointed that JJ’s “best story” is not the story that they wanted told. They wanted JJ to “correct” what they felt was an injustice– done in someone else’s movie. That was never his responsibility. If he can tell a great story that works best without dedicating time and energy toward “correcting” Kirk’s death, then shouldn’t he? I believe he should. You accuse Xai of wanting to believe that the writers are creative based on what he knows, yet your assumption that they are not creative enough is based solely on the notion that Shatner will not be in the film. For all that you know, this may be the greatest Star Trek film since TWOK. If it bombs, then only JJ will be to blame. But he won’t have the excuse of being handicapped by this nonsense (some ridiculous notion that it is his creative responsibility to bring back Shatner’s Kirk). Nor would bringing him back somehow guarantee that the film will be successful. After all, did it make Generations a success? STV? Even if this movie is STVI on its best day, the studio, JJ, and all of us here will say it was a disaster. It has to be at least as successful as STIV (which has a Shatner performance over twenty years old). If someone gave me THAT much money to complete a task which HAD to succeed, I’d be damned if I’d let anyone else’s ideas about how and where I need to be creative handicap my work! You can bet it would succeed or fail on MY ideas and those of MY team alone! As a self sustaining independent businessman, I support JJ’s right to take that approach as well. If I had listened to people telling me how my business HAD to be run to succeed, I damned sure wouldn’t have the financial freedom to live my life as I do now and provide so well for my family, and I certainly couldn’t sit here and discuss Star Trek with you wonderful people all day.
By the way, what the heck is pro-Trek2.0 self satisfaction? I’m afraid you lost me there.

224. Xai - January 29, 2008

222. COMPASSIONATE GOD – January 29, 2008

Flameville? “Tsk, Tsk” LOL. Your condescension is noted.

I think you need to take some of your own advice from #222 and look back and see what you’ve posted previously.

225. Superman - January 30, 2008

I still don’t buy it.

“There’s something rotten in Denmark.”

All will be revealed…

\S/

226. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#225–Buy what?

227. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 30, 2008

Re:Closettrekker: #216, 220, 222–”All of this is still centered around one thing: your belief that the writer had a responsibility to include Shatner’s return in the story. Because JJ had talks with Bill proves what, exactly? That he recognized Shatner as having a large fan base and that a much younger Bill Shatner helped to shape one of his central characters? Perhaps he wanted to explore the possibility of a Shatner cameo (which Bill immediately made clear he wanted no part of). Bill wants a significant part in the film. That would require resolving the issue of Kirk’s death or depicting Shatner in a more than minor flashback scene. For that to happen, it would have to benefit the story that JJ wishes to tell, otherwise, it is out of place. No amount of creativity will make that story a better one than the story JJ wants to tell”

After Star Trek 3, we both know that creativity can solve problems AND serve the story where it does not feel out of place or rushed.

Think of it: is it easier to make audiences believe in giant, talking intelligent robot/cars than the idea of restoring Kirk in a series which has few limits and restored once-dead characters back to life ?

“It is true that he could be cast as a different character, but only a very minor one in order for the audience to take it seriously (as JJ pointed out), and that would also amount to a role far less significant than Shatner wishes to play in a Star Trek film. I am baffled by how anyone could fail to understand JJ’s point of view.”

I–for one–would not care to see Shatner in another role. That stinks of soap operas, or back in the Universal horror days of Karloff starring as “The Monster” in 3 Frankenstein films, only to show up later as a mad scientist in “House of Frankenstein.” One actor for one character.

“I stand by my contention that this is a simple case of some fans being disappointed that JJ’s “best story” is not the story that they wanted told. They wanted JJ to “correct” what they felt was an injustice– done in someone else’s movie. That was never his responsibility. If he can tell a great story that works best without dedicating time and energy toward “correcting” Kirk’s death, then shouldn’t he? I believe he should.”

I believe that the future of a franchise which abused, trashed and New Aged Trek to the point of massive fan abandonment, needs the following:

1. You call it “someone else’s movie” yet if J.J. refers to Kirk being dead via “Generations” then he’s not only acknowledging the film, but placing his own in the same continuity (otherwise he could have completely disregarded the TNG-ENT plots as i’ve suggested in the past). If Trek2.0 is in the same continuity–enough to respect the plot–then he’s more linked to films past than he realizes. Remember, Roddenberry and others disregarded a significant part of the plot of Star Trek 5, and that decision still stands today. J.J. could have followed the same action.

2. In launching a new Trek, many fans would be more than settled with the new cast sailing off into sequel-land IF Nimoy AND Shatner provided a proper sendoff–the two faces of the franchise in one last adventure (worthy of their characters’ shared history) in the “present” while the new Kirk and Spock are left to explore everything we did not see pre-second pilot.

“You accuse Xai of wanting to believe that the writers are creative based on what he knows, yet your assumption that they are not creative enough is based solely on the notion that Shatner will not be in the film.”

My observation of Xai is correct, however, the Shatner issue is not the subject of some minor sub-plot; it is a chance to see the series go in a direction that is free of the mistakes of recent Trek history–the same mistakes which sent fans running away from the last TNG film and “Enterprise.” If one desires a new, bold Trek, why even acknowledge a chapter which inspired few fond memories?

“By the way, what the heck is pro-Trek2.0 self satisfaction? I’m afraid you lost me there. ”

It means the act of a person selling himself so hard on the merits of the forthcoming film, that no opposing views are possible (in his or her mind), therefore he or she acts with an assumption of a production’s quality (the part which satisfies) , when he or she is as in the dark about the film as everyone else.

228. Xai - January 31, 2008

CG.
Your assumption of a lack of creativity in the writers will be proven or unproven in 328 days. But since they didn’t follow your template for success, they already failed.. at least in your mind.
I am happy assuming the best in people until they prove me wrong. Additionally, I’ve done the reading and research and asked the questions of people that HAVE interviewed the writers. Based on all that, I look forward to this movie. My only demand is that they entertain me in good Trek fashion. I have no agenda beyond that.
I hope you go to the film and can find some small way to enjoy it, even if they didn’t follow your desires.

229. Closettrekker - January 31, 2008

#227–
You said,

“After Star Trek 3, we both know that creativity can solve problems AND serve the story where it does not feel out of place or rushed.”

The “correcting” of Spock’s death WAS the story in STIII. It also did not require going back in time and risking the current timeline. It did not take place years after Spock’s death. It did, however, require an entire movie.

You said,
“I–for one–would not care to see Shatner in another role. That stinks of soap operas, or back in the Universal horror days of Karloff starring as “The Monster” in 3 Frankenstein films, only to show up later as a mad scientist in “House of Frankenstein.” One actor for one character.”

Apparently, JJ agrees with you there, even though it worked tremendously well in Scorsese’s remake of the classic, “Cape Fear”.

You said,
“…yet if J.J. refers to Kirk being dead via “Generations” then he’s not only acknowledging the film, but placing his own in the same continuity (otherwise he could have completely disregarded the TNG-ENT plots as i’ve suggested in the past). If Trek2.0 is in the same continuity–enough to respect the plot–then he’s more linked to films past than he realizes. Remember, Roddenberry and others disregarded a significant part of the plot of Star Trek 5, and that decision still stands today. J.J. could have followed the same action.”

He HAS placed his film in the same continuity, otherwise Kirk’s death wouldn’t be an issue. He does not want to tell the story of Kirk’s return. I don’t blame him. That’s a liability. He wants to tell a story which involves Spock, who is still alive, and the past. Kirk’s return obviously does not benefit the story. If he still does it, it is shoehorning–plain and simple. That is a recipe for a bad movie. He had made clear that he will not do that, and I am thankful for it. I would much rather see a good Trek movie without Bill, than a bad one with him. This one has great potential, it seems. There has been nothing said that leads me to believe otherwise.

No one I know, outside of a handful on this forum cares that Shatner isn’t in it. A few that did not see Generations have asked me about him, but when they learn that it is about a young James Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc., they just smile and say, “cool”. No one, after learning that the character actually died in Generations, complains that they should put him in anyway! The average moviegoer doesn’t see it that way, from what I gather. When they here it’s about the TOS-era and a young version of those characters, along with the fact that “the guy from LOST and Transformers, etc.” is directing it, they get their interest peeked. The truth is, more “average movie-goers” will probably go see it due to Abrams involvement, and those who haven’t been able to take Shatner seriously in a long time, now have an excuse to return to the Star Trek they knew a long time ago. I know alot of people who feel that way. I would have seen it anyway, because I am a hardcore fan, but I’m alot more optimistic about it knowing that they aren’t handicapping the story with Bill Shatner.

I’m sure they won’t lose any sleep over the loss of your ten bucks–it just means that people like me will have to see it three times instead of two!

230. COMPASSIONATE GOD - February 1, 2008

Re:228. Xai – January 31, 2008
CG.
Your assumption of a lack of creativity in the writers will be proven or unproven in 328 days. But since they didn’t follow your template for success, they already failed.. at least in your mind.”

I think they made a mistake regarding Shatner. To announce a bomb (which I have not) is an outright prediction, not posted as of this date.

“I am happy assuming the best in people until they prove me wrong.”

Were you around when Star Trek: The Motion Picture made its debut in 1979? I was, and I–like a few million other Trekkers–all lined up with anticipation, thrilled at the idea of Trek coming back with the original cast, after a decade of “just” the animated series, the failed attempt to bring TOS back to TV and reruns. At that time, many of us read the magazines’ various reports on the making of TMP–from ship designs, new Klingons, new plot developments–the works, and so many were just bursting at the seams…..what we ended up with was a very uneven film.

Its nice, even strong and fun in certain areas, but that anticipation of the best elements of Trek reborn did not happen. That is what I mean about selling yourself as though its going to be great–especially this early in the game, and with far LESS information at the same time, than 1970’s fans had before the debut of TMP.

“I hope you go to the film and can find some small way to enjoy it, even if they didn’t follow your desires. ”

I hope so too, because I feel burned from Voyager, Enterprise and most of the TNG films. Nothing can remain good forever, but the former PTB beat Trek into the ground, until it was nothing but fragments, so this new film has even more to live up to the main audinece who would even CARE about Trek in the first place. Individuals can think good, bad or not even care about Shatner’s participation, but I think the film would get a sense of completion to have the “big two” side by side in one last adventure, sending the new cast off to establish new adventures.

231. COMPASSIONATE GOD - February 1, 2008

Re:229. Closettrekker – January 31, 2008
“The “correcting” of Spock’s death WAS the story in STIII. It also did not require going back in time and risking the current timeline. It did not take place years after Spock’s death. It did, however, require an entire movie.”

The point was that the writers were ABLE to find a way. I did not say the new film had to use all of the running time to solve the problem…OR they could have made it simple, and IGNORE Generations, as Enterprise seemed to ignore established events of other Trek series (the one positive influence you can take from the series).

“You said,
“I–for one–would not care to see Shatner in another role. That stinks of soap operas, or back in the Universal horror days of Karloff starring as “The Monster” in 3 Frankenstein films, only to show up later as a mad scientist in “House of Frankenstein.” One actor for one character.”

Apparently, JJ agrees with you there, even though it worked tremendously well in Scorsese’s remake of the classic, “Cape Fear”.”

Agreement with J.J.? Shocking, but hey–it can happen.

“He HAS placed his film in the same continuity, otherwise Kirk’s death wouldn’t be an issue. He does not want to tell the story of Kirk’s return. I don’t blame him. That’s a liability. He wants to tell a story which involves Spock, who is still alive, and the past. Kirk’s return obviously does not benefit the story. If he still does it, it is shoehorning–plain and simple.”

It is only shoehorning if the writers half-butt the effort to create a believable means of restoring him. If they do not half-butt it, who knows what kind of script could come from that? Writing is a challenge, and overcomng such challenges can make for great storytelling.

“No one I know, outside of a handful on this forum cares that Shatner isn’t in it.”

That’s your experience. I happen to have the opposite experience with fans (diehard and casual) outside of the internet who like (and in many cases love) the idea of a return to the TOS period, and after learning about Nimoy’s participation, expressed desires to see Shatner as Kirk again.

“because I am a hardcore fan, but I’m alot more optimistic about it knowing that they aren’t handicapping the story with Bill Shatner.”

I’m a hardcore fan too, but I just see the lost potential of not bringing Kirk back to (as posted to Xai) get a sense of completion to have the “big two” side by side in one last adventure, sending the new cast off to establish new adventures.

In a perfect Trek world, that would be the best way to launch the new series.

232. Shannon Mocco - April 21, 2011

Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything. But imagine if you added some great photos or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and clips, this blog could undeniably be one of the very best in its field. Excellent blog!

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