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.

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.

“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!

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.

“There’s something rotten in Denmark.”

All will be revealed…

\S/

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.