New Video Projects From Shatner | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

New Video Projects From Shatner January 29, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Books,Shatner , trackback

William Shatner continues his quest to become king of the Internet with the addition of a couple of new online projects. Firstly a site called VideoJug announced today a new set of interactive videos of The Shat discussing his “candid and personal views on life, Star Trek and the entertainment business.” And if you want to get more personal, LiveAutographs.com is offering the opportunity to get a personalized video of Shatner signing memorabilia.

Shatner on Trek, the universe and everything at VideoJug
Video Jug, which describes itself as the ‘how-to YouTube’ has put up 30 clips of William Shatner discussing a range a topics in 6 categories (William Shatner…On Fame, On Acting, On Trek Books, On Parenting, On Education, and on Singing/Rapping). The clips were shot this month and VideoJug are discussing adding more from Shatner in the future. Below are the clips for ‘William Shatner on Star Trek Books.’

Check out the William Shatner Channel at VideoJug for the rest.

 

Get Personal with Shatner via LiveAutograph
William Shatner has also signed on with LiveAutograph a company that “moves autograph signings into the homes of fans. ” The service allows fans to get a personalized autograph from Shatner on items ranging from a photograph, to his cover of Time, to a Diamond Select Bust. In addition LiveAutograph will provide you with a video of Shatner signing your item and he will also personalize the video with a special message or even answer a question. Prices range from $200 to $650 depending on what you choose to have Mr. Shatner sign. More information available at LiveAutograph.

LiveAutograph also offer the same service with Nichelle Nichols (TOS: Uhura) and Walter Koenig (TOS: Chekov)


Some of the items you can get signed (on video)

 

Plus The Latest Shatnervision
Although Bill is branching out to these other video ventures, his video home on the web is still Shatnervision. Here is the latest from our Shatnervision pals…behind the scenes on for a new Priceline ad.


Behind The Scenes With Shatner As “The Negotiator”

Comments

1. Chain of command - January 29, 2008

Good ole Bill! LOL

2. linda - January 29, 2008

Wow

3. Captain Presley - January 29, 2008

Move over Stern. The Shat is “The King of all Media!”

4. Nathan - January 29, 2008

Oooooh my….

5. Quatlo - January 29, 2008

I admire William Shatner and his zest for life. I also believe he may well have pimped himself right out of the new movie with the endless product endorsements and media overexposure.

6. NZorak - January 29, 2008

Oh goody, another round of complaining about Shatner not being in the new movie will start in 5….4….3….2…

7. VOODOO - January 29, 2008

#5

Yeah, why have someone who is popular and well known in a Star Trek film?

8. VOODOO - January 29, 2008

#6

I would like to kick off this round of complaining about Shatner not being in the new movie.

Only kidding…. I will do no more complaining (tonight that is)

9. Xai - January 29, 2008

6. NZorak – January 29, 2008
You called it.

10. CmdrR - January 29, 2008

When you say Shat, you’ve said it all.

Love ya, Bill!

11. dalek - January 29, 2008

As this is on topic Shatner and Shatnervision:

http://www.livevideo.com/shatnervision

Check out video “Weyland Stands In For Shatner”. He comments on team Abrams inability to have Bill in the movie as the “how” is a bit of a no-brainer even to the cast on Boston Legal lol

12. Old Trek - January 29, 2008

Has anyone noticed his hair and sideburns getting more “Jim Kirkish” than “Dennie Cranish?”

13. Harry Ballz - January 29, 2008

Look, I LOVED watching Shatner as Kirk many years ago, but now….NOW I’d pay real money if he’d disappear for,oh, a week or so….to say that the Shat is OVEREXPOSED is an understatement! That would be like saying Kirstie Alley has “a bit” of a weight problem! Enough already!!!

14. Webomatica - January 29, 2008

Man… “The Shat” still has it. I’ve been a fan for quite some time, and I think he walks that line of camp and talent.

15. Ralph - January 29, 2008

Did anyone see the professionalism in the takes?

16. Darth Ballz - January 29, 2008

I have something the Shat can sign!!! LOL!

Darth “Long and straight” Ballz

17. The Realist - January 29, 2008

Only 16 posts on a shat story! WOW. Must be a slow day at Shat Fans HQ.

18. S. John Ross - January 29, 2008

All I can say is that William Shatner still played the one and only Starfleet captain I’d ever take orders from (from Picard, I’d take advice and I’d listen very seriously to that advice … with the other captains, I’d just smile politely and pretend to pay attention).

I wince a little whenever I see a Priceline ad, though. From Kirk, I’d take orders. From Salesman Shatner, I can’t even bear the sales pitch.

That said, the Shat is god, now and forever, and if he wants to amuse himself thus, it is not my place to question the Shat :)

19. Bink - January 29, 2008

Betty White just Shat-ner pants! Has nothing to do with anything, but it sounds funny:^)

20. Battletrek - January 30, 2008

I wish Bill wasnt so round now, hard to believe that guy in the video used to be Kirk.

21. Iowagirl - January 30, 2008

#17

We couldn’t post; too busy perusing Bill’s online projects. But we are always lurking… :)

22. bono luthor - January 30, 2008

Still looks like Kirk to me. All be it Kirk at 76. Nothing wrong with that.

23. TK - January 30, 2008

#12 yeah, i noticed that too…… (doesn’t mean anything, doesn’t mean anything……………………………… or………. does it????????????)

?

24. Mrs. Harry Ballz - January 30, 2008

20. Battletrek – January 30, 2008
I wish Bill wasnt so round now, hard to believe that guy in the video used to be Kirk.

Dahling, where’s your sense of adventure? It’s just more cushion for the pushin’, honey. Live and let live. My husband, Harry and I are so much happier living by this motto. Perhaps you should try it as well? Hugs and kisses.

25. Shatner4TrekXI - January 30, 2008

I don’t know what video people are watching, but the man isn’t nearly as fat as some of you want him to be.

Either way, his physical appearance isn’t why he’s not in the movie. Abrams came up with his weak excuse, that is bought only by the same people that didn’t want him in the movie in the first place.

Overexposure is a good thing when it comes to promotion. Bottom line is that this decision will affect box office negatively. Not too bright.

26. TruthBTold - January 30, 2008

Well, it seems that people will take anything that Abrams dishes out because it has the label Star Trek on it. That’s not too bright either.

27. Krik Semaj - January 30, 2008

I still can’t understand why so many people feel that the movie NEEDS Shatner. It doesn’t. It probably could have been done without Nimoy too. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a huge fan of both of them &TOS (I was there from the beginning) but this is a new cast. Let them have their day. Most fans get it, and are looking forward to the new incarnation. The franchise needed new blood, and it finally got it.

28. TruthBTold - January 30, 2008

27. Krik Semaj – January 30, 2008

The franchise needed new blood, and it finally got it.

Then Abrams should’ve been more original. He should’ve moved forwards instead of backwards. How is reinventing the wheel supposed to be an original concept? He’s not providing new blood – just clones.

29. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#25–It is only seen as a “weak excuse” by people who think a Shatner appearance is necessary for a good Star Trek movie. How can the notion that bringing back Kirk does not fit into the story constitute a “weak excuse”. Do you feel that it is JJ’s responsibility to spend Paramount’s $130 million to “correct” what you see as someone else’s blunder? I wonder why Paramount did not make hiring Bill a prerequisite, if not doing so is such a “stupid business decision”. Surely they are conscious of the enormity of their investment.

#26–Not true. I have yet to see anything he has done. But I will give anything called Star Trek at least one chance to make me happy. So far, I like where this one is going. Resisting the temptation to bring back Shatner as Kirk may have been the best thing for this film. The truth is, it has been very difficult to enjoy Bill portraying James Kirk in the last three ST films he WAS in. In fact, I cannot enjoy STV at all. This way, I can just remember him as he was in Star Trek for the first 20 years, the great James T. Kirk, instead of seeing him, once again, as the bufoonish Shat putting on a Star Fleet uniform, fistfighting aliens in his golden years, and trying to deliver one-liners the way he has done in the last few films.

30. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 30, 2008

#29 “The truth is, it has been very difficult to enjoy Bill portraying James Kirk in the last three ST films he WAS in.”

Somebody press STOP. The CD is skipping!

:)

31. MrRegular - January 30, 2008

STV in its depiction of ShaKaRee and “God” comprises the most compelling film scenes that I have ever known. Inspiring and a masterpiece, although I do admit the rest of the film has flaws.
I hope to thank the Shat in person someday for this climatic sequence from STV.

32. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#30–Cute, but you could have directed that at the first person to sink this thread into the abyss of the Shat/No-Shat discussion. If my words are repetitive to you, how about #25′s assertion that “… this decision will affect (the) box-office negatively”, or “…Abrams came up with his weak excuse…”? No. That’s not a broken record, is it?

33. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#31–Are you serious???? That movie was a piece of crap!!! Flaws? Are you kidding me? The only thing “compelling” about that awful thing was when it was clear that it was about to end!

34. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#28–The spinoffs were never the same. It was never as colorful, the characters never had the “magic” found in TOS, and the 24th Century was far too sterile, boring (last season of DS9 aside), and it just got stale. The only thing about the original feature films that became stale was the age of the actors and the lack of explanantion as to why they all seemed to be stuck under Kirk’s command (with the exception of Sulu). There is plenty of unexplored TOS-era Star Trek history that can be used to restore its original flavor. After all, we pay to see Superman–not Son of Superman.

35. British Naval Dude - January 30, 2008

#31 Unless he be pulling our pegleg, we have found someone that is actually fond of STV! Hell hath frozen over!

I wanna go to ShaKaRee! – he was the best Bond after all…
stating the obvious: Sean Connery was first for tha part of Spockie’s brother and the namesake of heaven, apparantly… say it slowly… ShaKaRee…

But I must admit, if I meet an obvious Almighty imposter, may I have tha moxy to beg the question: “Excuse me…Why does God need a starship?”

Flashing back to V, I think we all can look fore-ward to what a fine film XI will be thus compared…

No offense to ye, Mr. Shatner…
arrrrr….

36. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 30, 2008

Closettrekker, I’m going to pay $650 to have Shatner personalize a DVD of Star Trek V for you! The message will read: “Glad you enjoy my performance here. See you in ST XI! – Bill”

:)

37. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#36–If you do, I’ll sell it to Mr. Regular, since he found it to be “compelling” and “inspiring”. And if I see Bill in the theater, I’ll be sure and hand him a tissue.

:)

38. Harry Ballz - January 30, 2008

#24 Mrs. Harry Ballz “just more cushion for the pushin’”

Yes, well trust my beloved wife to have this opinion…..

I would say that she’s a “little wide in the beam”, but that would be understating it…..let me put it this way….

If you paved her ass you could open a parking lot!

She was diagnosed with Flesh Eating Disease…..the doctors give her 17 years to live!

She was sunbathing this past Summer wearing a Malcolm X t-shirt and a helicopter tried to land on her!

If she gains six more pounds she’ll deserve her own zip code!

Well, you get the idea………. :)

39. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#36–And if you are birthday shopping, throw in an autographed copy of Shatner’s “Rocket Man” (vinyl, please), or perhaps an autographed script copy of “Airplane II: The Sequel”. While you’re at it, maybe you can send me a photo of him in “TJ Hooker” garb, holding on to the hood of a moving car. You are so thoughtful, Shatner_Fan_2000!

40. Shatner4TrekXI - January 30, 2008

#29–it’s seen as a weak excuse by anyone who wasn’t anti-Shatner in the first place. The only people who are buying it are the people that are buying into anything and everything Abrams was saying from the beginning. And those people are seeing the movie no matter what. This excuse is just spin control for something that the Abrams team botched very badly. They got negative press for this decision. Bottom line is that if the plot involves Spock time travelling, which it does, and Kirk’s life is saved as a result at any point, which is the rumor, then it makes no sense to say that you can save Kirk’s life at one point, but not the other. It’s just a company line.

As has been pointed out by others, Generations existed at every single point in the script writing process, but this excuse did not surface until recently. He never said, “we desperately want Shatner in the film, but the problem is Kirk died in Generations.” He just said, “we desperately want him in the film and want to write a part worthy of him.”

As for JJ’s responsibility to correct Generations, by taking on this job, it does become his responsibility–more so by choosing to revolve this movie around Kirk. Someone else once mentioned that as the main protagonist, Kirk’s life and protecting it becomes vital to the future of the franchise. Kirk’s death, for the betterment of the franchise, needs to go from the known to the unknown. So JJ would be failing if he doesn’t accomplish this task.

I get that Abrams screwed up and may have underestimated the disappointment over his failure to secure Shatner. But I don’t think too many people will buy into that excuse unless they were already on board with Abrams in the first place.

41. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#40–Here we go again….

You said, ”
it’s seen as a weak excuse by anyone who wasn’t anti-Shatner in the first place. The only people who are buying it are the people that are buying into anything and everything Abrams was saying from the beginning. And those people are seeing the movie no matter what. This excuse is just spin control for something that the Abrams team botched very badly. They got negative press for this decision. Bottom line is that if the plot involves Spock time travelling, which it does, and Kirk’s life is saved as a result at any point, which is the rumor, then it makes no sense to say that you can save Kirk’s life at one point, but not the other. It’s just a company line.”

Let’s start by clarifying something. Wanting a film without Shatner is not the same thing as being “anti-Shatner”. It would be difficult to be a TOS fan without having some appreciation for the man’s past work.
People are “buying it” because they have no reason to believe that it is wrong. You do not know what the story is, and therefore do not know if Shatner’s return would benefit that story. And it does make sense that he could be saved at an earlier time and not during the events in “Generations”. If Spock (and all of this is speculation) saves Kirk at an earlier time, he is PROTECTING the timeline. If he saves Kirk during the events in “Generations”, he is CHANGING the timeline. That is not a “company line”, it is maintaining the integrity of Spock’s character!!!

You go on to say that it IS his responsibility because the film revolves around KIrk. THAT, my friend, makes no sense. JJ’s responsibility is to use that $130 million budget to make the best Star Trek film he can. The notion that a Shatner appearance (or more specifically, a story that resurrects Kirk) will make it so is an opinion. And the notion that he has to be saved for the betterment of the franchise is just as ridiculous. Are you saying that you cannot have a protagonist in a movie who you know is going to die at some point? I guess we should throw out movies depicting real people of whom we already know the fate. And as far as Star Trek’s unexplored history within the 23rd Century, it is unknown!!!

Why do you think he screwed up? If it was such a “stupid business decision”, then why did Paramount give JJ the right to make a film without Bill (could it be that Bill hasn’t made a really successful ST movie in 20 years)? As far as being on board with Abrams, I didn’t know who he was until I learned the name of Star Trek’s new writer/director, but I will give any new Star Trek movie a chance. If it sucks, it will have been a bad movie. It will have nothing to do with a lack of Shat (who did not save the last 3 Trek movies he was in). So far he has done nothing to give me cause to be pessimistic.

You are just disappointed that JJ is not telling the story you wanted him to. For all you know, this could be the best Star Trek film since TWOK–or even better (I know, it’s hard to imagine). We have all of the characters we know and love. We have the time period we know and love. We have people on board who have done their homework. Spock won’t be stepping out of character and making such an immoral decision as to risk altering the timeline (and possibly affecting billions) by going back to prevent Kirk’s death as it already happened. I don’t see the problem.

42. Shatner4TrekXI - January 30, 2008

Just scroll up in this thread–you will find people talking about Shatner’s age, and calling him fat, and insulting him every which way. That is anti-Shatner, no matter how people try to claim otherwise.

And again, there is plenty of reason not to buy into Abrams’ excuse. The fact is, the way the Shatner thing was handled was utterly abysmal. At no point did this excuse pop up until last week, and it contradicts previous comments and actions. So you can buy into everything the man says all you want, but odds are, you weren’t in the “I want Shatner in the movie” camp anyway. The bottom line is that the Shatner debacle has negatively affected the film. Abrams knows this. He has to say something, but I doubt he convinced anyone that he upset with this excuse.

Who is to say that Spock is protecting a timeline in one instance, but not in Generations? Who is to say Kirk was supposed to die by Soran’s hand? Kirk’s appearance in Generations required a different form of time travel. And Relics certainly shows a scenario where Kirk is alive, after the events on the Enterprise B.

As for the integrity of the Spock character, if anything, it would be inconsistent. He is extremely loyal, and would see the waste of Kirk’s premature death–in any era. Spock would find a logical reason to save Kirk’s life, and do it. Look what he did just to give Captain Pike a chance.

If you are saying the it is JJ’s responsibility to make money, fine. But to ignore Shatner, who would bring in more business is hardly a wise decision.

Bill hasn’t made a successful Trek movie in 20 years? Are you really going there? Star Trek VI doubled its budget domestically. No Trek movie has done that since. PARAMOUNT hasn’t done anything that successful since they got rid of Bill. And bottom line is, Bill is synonymous with Trek. To imply that he wouldn’t be a draw is a sign of a desperate argument.

Of course I am disappointed in Abrams’ choice. I am angry at the way the situation was mishandled. So angry, that I will not pay to see this movie. I am not alone. I didn’t see the last movie either because it wasn’t the story I wanted to see. Given the results of the last movie, it is a mistake to alienate a portion of the audience. Even if just 10 percent feel as I do, they lost money.

And sorry, but it is not out of character for Spock to save Kirk’s life. There is no evidence that what happened in Generations was right either, and Relics shows if anything, that something is wrong. I’ll also add that Picard and Kirk travelled back in time to a point before Picard found Kirk in the nexus, and in the second timeline, no one retrieved Kirk, so there is a perfectly original, living Kirk, still there. But that’s another issue.

Using Generations as an excuse is just that–a weak excuse.

43. Ron - January 30, 2008

#18: And your polite smile would last right up to the moment when Sisko would knock your teeth out. After that, I imagine you’d probably listen a little closer.

#35: Count me as another who is fond of ST5. Oh, I’m under no illusions that it’s “brilliant” or a “masterpiece,” but when enjoyed for what it is — a profoundly bad movie — it’s a fun way to spend a couple hours.

#41: “JJ’s responsibility is to use that $130 million budget to make the best Star Trek film he can. The notion that a Shatner appearance (or more specifically, a story that resurrects Kirk) will make it so is an opinion. And the notion that he has to be saved for the betterment of the franchise is just as ridiculous.”

Kudos, Closettrekker, for these well-reasoned arguments. In a perfect world this would be the end of the discussion — but unfortunately I know full well that won’t be the case.

44. Krik Semaj - January 30, 2008

#41 Well said
#40 What? The only people upset with the decision to not use Fatner are the 20 or so people on this site who vocalize it everyday. The rest of us are looking forward to this backward look at ST. The rest of the worlds population ( the 5 billion or so that don’t visit this site) couldn’t care less that he is not in the movie. They just want a good movie.

45. Ron - January 30, 2008

Since the increasingly bitter Shatner/ST11 argument is now heating up in this comment thread as well, I’ll revisit the solution I posted in an earlier article: Shatner could appear as Kirk in a Star Trek: New Voyages episode. It’s a winning situation for everyone:

Shatner: he gets to play Kirk again
Shatner’s fans: they get another “one last adventure”
STNV: gets another huge injection of legitimacy due to Shatner’s appearance
STNV fans: get to enjoy another great episode
Abrams and Paramount: no pressure to shoehorn Shatner into the film (or come up with a contrived and awkward “resurrection” for Kirk)
Nitpickers/Canon police: STNV’s canon status is ambiguous enough that they can take the episode or leave it as they please

It’s a solution that really does cover all the bases and satisfy everyone. I can’t imagine James Cawley would say no to Shatner were he to ask (or vice versa).

46. Captain Presley - January 30, 2008

I like STV. I’ll take it over any of the TNG movies.

47. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#42–You are missing the point of my argument about Spock saving Kirk’s life. If Spock travels from what we know as the “Star Trek present” (where the spinoff shows left us) to prevent Kirk’s death years before, he is risking altering the timeline, thus potentially risking the very existence of billions of lives that have moved on since that time. Quite simply, ANY interaction between an “undead” Kirk and anyone else, could endanger that timeline. Think of what has taken place in that timeline since then–Borg Invasion, Dominion War, etc. Those are monumental events in the history of the Alpha Quadrant, and any seemingly subtle change in that could have an equally monumentous effect. For it to be within Spock’s character, such an act would have to take place immediately after the events in Generations–before the timeline would have significantly moved on. So much for tying “present day” Star Trek with the beginnings of the TOS characters!
For all you know, this could have been one of the key problems in developing a story, which included Shatner in a significant role. They did identify very early on that Kirk’s death was a problem for them in doing so. I’m not quite sure how you missed that. To me, it seems perfectly plausible that straying from the main plot of the story to “correct” Kirk’s death would not fit into the flow of their story. The only way for Shatner to appear would have been in a cameo role, which he stated (also very early on) that he did not want. No flashback scene, no role as a different minor character(like Robert Mitchum in Scorcese’s remake of “Cape Fear”), only a role he felt was important to the film. Why does Shatner get a pass in your disappointment, if you wanted to see him so badly? Generations is not an “excuse”–it is canon, however unfortunate that is. If Spock were to have some reason to visit Kirk in the nexus, assuming it had come around again, it would still have to be beneficial to JJ’s story. Apparently, it is not.

As for those who call Bill fat, old, or whatever else, I’m quite sure that they just feel his time as realistically playing Jim Kirk is over. Honestly, what was going through your mind when you saw him fist-fighting a shapeshifter in the snow–right smack in the middle of his “golden years”? Did you not think it was a little absurd? You may not like this, but in his last few performances as Kirk, he really couldn’t (or didn’t)deliver. At some point, he stopped being William Shatner as James Kirk, and started pandering to the SNL crowd by playing Jim Kirk as William Shatner. I didn’t like where he took the character, and felt he overstayed his role a bit. I am glad I won’t see that again in this film, as it was very unbecoming of the character I grew up adoring.

It’s unfortunate that you won’t see the movie. I guess there are Shatner fans, and there are Star Trek fans, and hopefully some who fall in-between. I didn’t see Nemesis either, but because I was never a big fan of TNG anyway, and I was tired of seeing those characters. From what I hear, I didn’t miss much.
I’ll be right there to see this one, with my wife, my kids, and alot of hope that for the first time in a couple of decades, I’ll see some really good Star Trek on the big screen. Just my not-so-humble opinion.

48. Closettrekker - January 30, 2008

#46–I’m not much of a TNG fan, but I’d sit through a TNG movie marathon before I cursed my senses again with that abomination. As I’ve said before, I just pretend it didn’t happen.

49. Krik Semaj - January 30, 2008

#46 I agree with you.
STV rules. It is arguably the best Trek movie ever released in 1989. No other Star Trek movie of 1989 even comes close.

50. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 30, 2008

#37 “And if I see Bill in the theater, I’ll be sure and hand him a tissue.”

Good one! Just because I think it’s a mistake to exclude Bill from XI, doesn’t mean I don’t have a sense of humor. :) Let’s just hope we don’t all need tissues!

As far as ST V, I guess it depends on how much of your love for the series comes from the interactions of the Big 3. Because they nailed that in V. Bill, Leonard and De were all terrific together. ST V’s heart was in the right place, and it was better, IMO, than at least half of the bland TNG features.

51. Dr. Image - January 30, 2008

#50 Agreed re:V
STV has gotten better with age. Their character interaction was at its most natural, and as laughable as some of the scenes and effects are, it’s just an entertaining romp overall. I mean, “What does God need with a spaceship?” Come on! It’s classic!

52. steve adams - January 30, 2008

Didn’t Shatner refuse to sign autographs because he felt they would just be sold on Ebay?

Now he’s selling his autograph online for hundreds of dollars…
^
That’s pretty low..

53. Scott - January 30, 2008

Go Shat! Go!

54. thomoz - January 30, 2008

If we have to drop a “dead character” from the original cast into this Trek film, then they ought to computer animate DeForest Kelley, right down to his pinkie ring, into this film in a walk-on. They could snip his dialog from old ST-TOS episodes, syllable-by-syllable.

I’ll bet his family needs the bucks worse than Bill does too!

55. The Realist - January 30, 2008

21. Iowagirl – January 30, 2008 – I’m so glad that you are all still here! I was getting worried! LOL :-)

56. TruthBTold - January 30, 2008

#34 Perhaps the spin-offs that came after might’ve been bland, but then came Enterprise which was a prequel and that wasn’t anything to write home about. Funny that featured the beginning of the whole Enterprise saga and it did miserably. Now Abrams wants to go back and revisit the beginning of Kirk and company? Anyway, as I said before be creative and move forwards. No one said that TNG crew had to be used. A creative writer could’ve came along with some new concepts and characters. Abrams decided to play it safe and take the easy way out with his Fake Trek clones.

57. S. John Ross - January 30, 2008

#43: Actually that’s kinda cool; I didn’t know he did stuff like that :)

DS9 just went to the top of my “shows I really do mean to give a second chance to” list …

58. Battletrek - January 31, 2008

Shatner Fan could you please stop dissing TNG for no good reason, dis Voyager instead if you have to.

59. Iowagirl - January 31, 2008

#55

Next time, don’t fight the pain! :)

60. Closettrekker - January 31, 2008

#56–”the easy way out”? Are you kidding? He has people (hardcore Trek fans) burying it before it’s even finished.
As for the whole “moving forward” concept, I would watch it–at least to give it a chance, but I would be surprised if it got any more viewers than ENT. And your comparison to ENT is all wrong. How can you compare a Berman/Braga tv series to the TOS characters? You called them “clones”, but they are just new actors playing classic characters. It’s done everyday in theater, and was done quite successfully in Superman: The Movie and Superman II. Do you think that Christopher Reeves was not as good as the iconic original Superman/Clark Kent–George Reeve. Please. Like Mr. Cawley said, these actors may pleasantly surprise you in those roles (paraphrasing, of course). Some people are just afraid of change, that is, when it comes to something they have seen done a certain way for so long, despite the fact that even greatness can be improved upon (ask the New England Patriots).

#58–No offense but, “I’m forced to agree with the Doctor”. Shatner fan is correct. The TNG movies were pretty bland, even bad. Even the best of them, “First Contact”, wouldn’t measure up to the original movies 1-4, although I would rank it above STV and VI. That’s just my opinion. “Generations” and “Insurrection” might be a tad better than STV, and not as palatable as STVI, but “Nemesis” and STV–might be a tossup (or throw up).

61. Shatner4TrekXI - January 31, 2008

#47–how do we know that Generations is the proper timeline. Just like Spock knows that Kirk is supposed to exist and be a contributor, perhaps Spock also realizes that Kirk’s death in Generations was also wrong. Again, there is canonical evidence in Relics that Kirk lived in the 23rd century after the Enterprise B and that his death in Generations alone was the error. It would not be out of character for Spock to not only save Kirk, but to figure out a way for him to not disrupt history.

That’s all in the writing. For example, suppose Spock’s present is literally a few days after Generations. The amount saving Kirk would change the timeline would be minimal compared to the benefit. Let’s not also forget that Kirk’s death was the result of Picard travelling back in time, plucking a historical figure out of his era to help fight the battle, and getting that historical figure killed.

In the original timeline, Kirk did not die. Soran won and entered the nexus. So if we are truly talking about preserving a timeline, there is no moral issue, because Kirk already died because of a historical change. Spock undoing that change arguably puts things back where they should have been.

Abrams, as late as ComicCon, did not mention Kirk’s death as a problem. It was “finding Shatner a role worthy of him.” Of course, he never talked to Shatner after that, according to Shatner himself. The death excuse doesn’t fly.

And given that Shatner delivered in Generations and outacted Stewart, to say he isn’t capable of doing the part is ridiculous. Shatner as older Kirk can do anything Patrick Stewart’s Picard can do. We don’t need him doing the flying drop kick and nailing the green chick. We have Chris Pine for that.

Star Trek has gone in the wrong direction since Generations. I put up with a lot of lousy Star Trek over the years, and at this point, for Paramount to earn my money, they have to do something right. The way William Shatner was treated is absolutely appalling. To show this kind of disrespect for a legend and to tease the fans for so long, is just a sign of poor judgement, that there is no way I can trust these people to get it right. So no, they won’t be getting rewarded.

I’m a Star Trek fan, but I’m a fan of good Star Trek. 14 years of garbage means they’ve used up their goodwill, and the way they treated William Shatner is no way to win it back. It’s a mistake to alienate anyone at this point, and they should be inclusive. To include William Shatner would be bring in more fans. But to act the way they did in this debacle just soured the movie for me. To play up the hopes on such a hot issue and to come up short is just horrible. They lost my business, and I know I’m not alone.

62. Closettrekker - January 31, 2008

#61—You said,

“#47–how do we know that Generations is the proper timeline(?)”

That is easy. The “current” timeline, which Spock is apart of, is where the last of the TNG-era spinoffs left us. That includes years of time after the evnts in Generations. Spock could only see that timeline as “wrong” if the story picked up right there, before the Borg Invasion, the Dominion War, etc. It’s not up to Spock to determine whether a timeline, altered by his resurrection of a personal friend, would be any better or worse! It is not in his nature to play God for personal reasons.

You go on to say, “It would not be out of character for Spock to not only save Kirk, but to figure out a way for him to not disrupt history.”

By doing what, sealing himself and his previously dead friend in a box so that neither of them could ever interact with ANYONE, be sought out for advice on “current” affairs, or have any quality of life beyond the fantasy that Chris Pike lived the remainder of his days in? If Spock wanted to go back in time and rescue his friend, why would he have waited so long to do it? And if the film is set PRIOR to anything that happened after those events, then the film really would not accomplish the goal of tying the “current Star Trek timeline” to the beginnings of Kirk and co., would it?

You said, “Star Trek has gone in the wrong direction since Generations.”

You’ll get no argument from me there( except that I think it started long before Generations), but Spock joining the likes of “Admiral” Janeway in throwing out all ethical, morally responsible, and professional bearing in order to bring the order of things to his personal liking won’t make it any better. It would just bring the ethics of Trek to an all time low, and erase the lesson learned in “The City On The Edge Of Forever”—that preventing even a seemingly insignificant death in the past can have catostrophic consequences beyond what you think in the short-term. Why do you think Gene changed Harlan Ellison’s original ending to that story? Because Kirk wouldn’t do that, and neither would Spock.

You said, “…and the way they treated William Shatner…”

So we are back to believing that, after all of this time, Star Trek(and more specifically, JJ Abrams) still owes something to William Shatner? So much so, that some fans believe he can only write a story about TOS-era characters if he is handicapped by “correcting” Kirk’s death in Generations and finding Bill a significant role? That is beyond absurd.

You said, “To show this kind of disrespect for a legend and to tease the fans for so long, is just a sign of poor judgement, that there is no way I can trust these people to get it right. So no, they won’t be getting rewarded.”

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the preceding events. He said all along that it was a problem. I understood immediately why it was a problem, and knew very early on that if he wrote a story that made “correcting” Kirk’s death a point of plot that it would either present serious problems in character continuity, erase the “current” timeline’s integrity, or worse.
The only scenario where I could see a significant role for Bill, without those issues, is if they completely ripped off the storyline of TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise”–wherein Spock would have to “restore” the current timeline (while playing the role of the sole person unaffected), and somehow convince Kirk that he is not supposed to be there, needing his assistance to make things right, despite knowing that to do so, Kirk would have to die as he did before.
Sadly, that story has already been done (and wasted on the TNG crew).

You said, “They lost my business, and I know I’m not alone.”

Why not join the rest of us fans, who are disinfranchised with recent Star Trek, in looking forward to seeing the original characters who made the show special in the first place? I can’t understand your aversion to this. Are you unable to appreciate a brush artist’s work just because he paints a different picture than your idea of one which is worthy of canvas, or because he chooses to use something other than your favorite color to do so? Probably not. This is no different. We all know that Mr. Abrams is talented. For all you know, after seeing this film you may very well have a different view than the one you seem to have already made up your mind about. Let’s reserve judgement on his art until the appropriate time–when the artist has made it available to the World.

63. Shatner4TrekXI - January 31, 2008

Actually, we have not seen Spock since Unification. We have had one mention of him still being on Romulus since then, unless I am mistaken. We do know that plenty happened in the TNG timeline since Generations, but there has never been any mention of Kirk in Generations since. For all we know, there was some sort of manipulation by Spock that happened immediately after Generations that we are not aware of, saving Kirk’s life.

For all we know, from before FC onward, Kirk had been saved and living his life doing something else that we never saw. Anything is possible with an open mind.

The 24th century portion of this movie does not have to follow through with where Picard and crew would be post-Nemesis. It could take place well before Nemesis. They are not bound by that.

A Yesterday’s Enterprise ripoff wouldn’t work, because when the dust is settled, the most important thing is that Kirk must be alive. Anything else is a weak reset ending that was a staple of the Berman and Braga era where Trek failed.

Abrams did NOT say all along that there was a problem with Kirk’s death. In fact, he was notorious for his silence on the issue. He went from July to earlier this month without saying a word, and in 5 months, all he could come up with was this weak excuse. If you are to believe it, then Abrams never wanted Shatner in the movie because these problems existed from the script stage. The two sides did not enter into serious talks. How could they have? Abrams didn’t even have the decency to let Shatner know he wasn’t in the movie. Nimoy had to tell him.

While I would have loved to embrace this movie, the Shatner debacle made that impossible. Again, it shows such poor judgement, both from a business standpoint, and from a fan standpoint. It makes no sense to NOT use Shatner in the movie. There is NO downside.

Abrams is talented, but he has shown bad judgement before–notably in his idea to make Lex Luthor a Kryptonian when he was in charge of the Superman franchise.

Generations is the shark jumping moment for Star Trek. Like it or not, Star Trek never recovered from Kirk’s death. It may have lingered, but it never thrived. Ratings declined every single year since then until the show finally blew its audience.

But Shatner brings in the audience. After the box office of Nemesis, Paramount can’t afford to alienate its audience, but that’s exactly what they did by telling fans of Star Trek’s biggest and greatest star that they are not wanted.

There is still time. If Abrams wants my business, and the business of all the others that this decision alienated, he only needs to pick up the phone and give Mr. Shatner a call.

64. Closettrekker - January 31, 2008

#63–”There is still time. If Abrams wants my business, and the business of all the others that this decision alienated, he only needs to pick up the phone and give Mr. Shatner a call.”

Not with a witer’s strike on. You and some others may consider that a “weak excuse”, but I assure you it is taken very seriously within the community. If he were to write Shatner in now, he would be in violation of solidarity, his own integrity, and the writer’s guild.

Shatner himself told us that JJ said there was an issue regarding Kirk’s death. So did Mr. Nimoy. Just because JJ didn’t say it in a personal interview, doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. The information was second hand, but there nonetheless.

You said, “Actually, we have not seen Spock since Unification. We have had one mention of him still being on Romulus since then, unless I am mistaken. We do know that plenty happened in the TNG timeline since Generations, but there has never been any mention of Kirk in Generations since. For all we know, there was some sort of manipulation by Spock that happened immediately after Generations that we are not aware of, saving Kirk’s life.

For all we know, from before FC onward, Kirk had been saved and living his life doing something else that we never saw. Anything is possible with an open mind.”

Now you are just shoehorning a “Kirk’s death correction”, without any knowledge of how, or even if, it would benefit the story. That is a recipe for a bad movie.

You said, “Again, it shows such poor judgement, both from a business standpoint, and from a fan standpoint. It makes no sense to NOT use Shatner in the movie. There is NO downside.”

Wow. To say that is a matter of opinion is an UNDERSTATEMENT! Any alteration of Kirk’s death results in all kind of issues, but we keep going in circles without you ever grasping those issues. Apparently, preserving character integrity means much less to you than seeing Bill in a Star Fleet uniform again, or living out his retirement years without any benefit to the story. And again, why didn’t Paramount require JJ to write Bill a part if it was so important businesswise? They DID approve the script!

I’ll give you that using Shatner in this movie has no downside, but only if it is a cameo-type role, which Shatner has made clear he does not want. I could envision a flashback scene (if it benefitted the story), or even a minor role apart from that of Kirk. But neither of those options would suit you or Bill, yet in your eyes, it’s all JJ’s fault. Again, beyond absurd.

I am sorry (for you, not the rest of us) that Mr. Abrams is not telling the story you wanted told. You should have written the story yourself, found a director that was willing to make your movie, and let him help you pitch it to Paramount. But since you didn’t, you probably should leave the writing to the professionals. The only things that don’t “make sense” here are the following: your willingness to criticize and pass judgement on art before it is published; your inability to understand the issues with Kirk’s death; and your seemingly endless dedication to the “dignity” of a man who not only cares nothing about you (“Get A Life”?), but has been more than amply honored and compensated for his time and contributions to Star Trek(how about that piece of garbage he called STV?). Not every hero dies of old age, and Star Trek is not Shatner Trek. It was, is, and always shall be so much more than that. How many more “sendoffs” is this guy owed?

65. Battletrek - January 31, 2008

60. Kirk was embarrassing in Generations compared to Picard, don’t know what you’re talking about there. Nemesis was really the only weak TNG film only because of how plotless it was. Go watch Insurrection again it’s a lot better than you think.

66. Krik Semaj - February 1, 2008

#63 “If Abrahms wants my business etc…”
Ha. Right.
You know damn well that you, and everyone else WHINING over no Shatner, lack of respect for canon etc. and every other pointless reasons that this movie is just wrong, will still go tosee it. You will more than likely camp out to get in first, and you will probably go see it more than once. You can deny it all you want, but you know it’s true.
The rest of us with common sense regarding this movie (It’s just a movie after all) will be watching for you.

67. TruthBTold - February 1, 2008

#60 I think hardcore Trek fans are buying into this new movie because they haven’t had anything in so long. I think Cawley is only saying positive things because he’s in the movie. He knows what side his bread is buttered on.

As far as Superman goes, couldn’t help noticing how you didn’t mention Superman III and IV. Funny.

New actors=clones=Fake Trek

68. Ron - February 1, 2008

#63: “Abrams is talented, but he has shown bad judgement before–notably in his idea to make Lex Luthor a Kryptonian when he was in charge of the Superman franchise.”

I’m not an Abrams apologist, but let’s clarify the record on this “Lex as a Kryptonian” bit from the script that was aborted in favor of the movie that eventually became “Superman Returns.”

First of all, this information came from “Ain’t It Cool News,” which claimed to have read the script. We should all know this by now, but once more for the newbies, AICN just is not a consistently accurate source for stuff like this. Said “script” could have come from anyone or anywhere, including one of the many 13-year-old fanbois who make up the AICN “community.”

Secondly, the script in question was an early-draft script. NOT a shooting script. Early draft scripts sometimes have a “let’s throw all the ideas in the bucket and see which ones float” feel to them, as this one certainly did (again, based on AICN’s review). There’s no reason to think this idea — and I won’t argue with you, it was a bad one — would have survived subsequent revisions.

Finally, and the AICN article acknowledges this, there were significant demands made on the script by producer Jon Peters, who clearly was after a very “revisionist” type of Superman mythology (kung-fu fighting Superman, anyone?). The Lex-as-a-Kryptonian silliness strikes me a lot more as a Peters demand than something Abrams actually would have put in himself. Either way, there’s enough reason to speculate that maybe that wasn’t “his idea” after all.

With these facts in mind, I’m a lot less likely to hang that particular albatross around Abrams’ neck. And knowing that both Leonard Nimoy and James Cawley have endorsed the “purity” of this project should be enough to assure fans that bad ideas like that won’t be the order of the day.

69. Closettrekker - February 1, 2008

#65–You’ll get no argument from me on Shatner’s embarassing portrayals of Kirk in his later appearances. But I am just not a huge TNG fan. I won’t apologize for that. I just do not care much for the characters. I watched, but never with the same passion with which I still watch TOS and the original 4 films.

#67–Correction: we haven’t seen anything GOOD in so long.

As for Mr. Cawley, that’s negative speculation on your part. Without a reason not to, I’ll take his word at face value. The facts are these: he has been an outspoken critic up until seeing what was going on from the inside, and once on the inside, he warmed up to it. Sure, he is likely to have been impressed that JJ knew who he was and was familiar with his work to some degree, but THAT IS IMPRESSIVE! It is equally impressive that he thought enough of him to offer him a part in this film. James did not completely fold. He still made clear that some of it was not what he would have done. You do not have reason to doubt him, so you have invented one.

70. TruthBTold - February 1, 2008

Cawley mentions he wouldn’t have done the things Abrams has done. What things? Why does he beat around the bush? How come he isn’t more direct? Could it be because his ego has been massaged by Abrams and he has a small cameo in the movie? I think so. He’s not going to bite the hand that feeds him now. That isn’t invention – that’s reality. That’s how the real world works. Y’know you would keep your mouth shut too if you were in this unoriginal Fake Trek film as well. ‘Nuff said.

71. Krik Semaj - February 2, 2008

#70. You’ll probably be the first in line.
I never get how some fools can get so angry over a movie. In “reality” most of TOS was pretty bad. 30% were good episodes. You know you are going to see it no matter what you post here.

72. S. John Ross - February 2, 2008

#70: Cawley probably had to sign a legal NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) before he would be allowed to set foot on the set, much less be fitted for wardrobe. I doubt he’s being silent for being “massaged,” he’s just legally bound to secrecy, the same as anyone else near the film.

#71: It’s a little odd to assume that everyone posting here will see the film no matter what. I post here quite a lot, and I skipped the last two Trek films entirely (haven’t even seen them on video). If I hear anything that turns me off from the new film, I’ll skip it just as easily. So far, nothing has turned me off and I’m still looking forward to it eagerly … but that could change (I hope it doesn’t … it’s been a lot of years since I’ve seen Trek on the big screen!) :)

73. Closettrekker - February 2, 2008

#70–You said,
“Why does he beat around the bush? How come he isn’t more direct?”

That’s easy. Abrams likes to keep most of the details quiet for now. Now that James is on board, it is logical that he would respect that. He did hint that the uniforms were “perfect”, and all unofficial leaks so far have been limited to “hints”. I am not sure what makes you so skeptical.

You are still speculating without any solid reason to doubt his word.

Fake Trek? Is Superman: The Movie “fake” Superman? Is any modern production of Shakespeare “fake”? Is any remake of a classic film “fake”, just because the original actors have aged beyond being able to play their characters?

Unoriginal? He is not telling someone else’s story. He is using the “unexplored” history of TOS-era Trek as a setting. That setting is a tool to be used for telling his own “original” story.

74. TruthBTold - February 2, 2008

#71 “You’ll probably be first in line”. Ummm, I don’t think so. I’m sure you’ll be. Those people who are already planning on camping out two months early for tickets I wish them good luck and advise them to bring plenty of toilet paper. I’ve yet to be convinced to waste two hours of my life watching this movie.

#73 There are ways Cawley could be more direct without giving details of this film away. He could say something like I don’t like the bridge and leave it at that. I think he won’t because he’s in the film and heaven forbid if he upsets Abrams or he’ll be cut out.

As far as telling unexplored history, is it really important for me to know what girl Kirk shagged to help him cheat on the test? Do I need to see him as a cute little kid along with his cute brother? Puhlease. Unoriginal. Just filling in the gaps and that’s all. That’s what makes this film unoriginal and thus Fake Trek.

It does nothing and adds nothing. Fake Trek

75. Ron - February 3, 2008

#74: “I’ve yet to be convinced to waste two hours of my life watching this movie.”

Who do you think you’re kidding? You’ve already spent longer than that typing up all these “Fake Trek” posts of yours. All your bluster doesn’t convince me one bit that you won’t be right there in the theater with all the rest of us on opening weekend. And if you do insist on maintaining your arrogantly negative attitude instead of just enjoying what may very well be a legitimately good Star Trek movie, then it will be your loss all the more.

76. Sarah James - February 3, 2008

How interesting…
Because ever since Star Trek VII I don’t think I’ve seen Shatner in anything that I’d call intelligent. He’s just not very sophisticated as an actor is he? Or as a person…Also his books never made too much sense once you actually began reading it. Oh well, it’s never too late to begin learning. Good luck Bill!

77. TruthBTold - February 3, 2008

#75 Expression of Opinion doesn’t = Arrogance. If you don’t like freedom of expression, then don’t read my messages. I don’t believe in a tyrant’s rule thank you very much.

Guess what? The new movie is going to include alternative timelines. How unoriginal. Like that hasn’t been done to death. Well, since it deals with alternative timelines then it must mean this is an alternative crew. Alright! Live on Fake Trek!!! Yahoo!

78. Ron - February 3, 2008

#77: You’re bashing the new movie without having seen even a single completed frame of film beyond the teaser, because you’ve decided ahead of time that it cannot possibly meet some vague personal criteria you’ve established for it. You really don’t think that’s a little arrogant?

As I said earlier, your TOS elitist act isn’t too convincing. I’m still betting you’ll be there opening weekend…and even if you’re not, well, the rest of us will enjoy the event and you can sit at home and extract whatever personal satisfaction you can in preserving the “purity” of your TOS experience. It will be your loss.

79. TruthBTold - February 3, 2008

#78 You’re acting like this movie will be the best movie in the history of film making. Isn’t that being unrealistic? Without seeing one frame you think it’s going to be better than the last original Trek film? Where can I get the rose tinted glasses that you wear to view the world and how much do they cost? LOL

80. TruthBTold - February 3, 2008

#78 you can sit at home and extract whatever personal satisfaction you can in preserving the “purity” of your TOS experience. It will be your loss.

I never said I was a Star Trek purist. I said that I wanted originality and so far from what I’ve read this movie offers none. Therefore it’s not real Star Trek to me. It adds no new concepts nor does it explore any. That’s what Star Trek is about. Therefore this movie is Fake Trek.

81. Ron - February 4, 2008

#79, 80: Surprised to see a post that doesn’t include your “Fake Trek” slogan in it. Relieved to see that you rectified the situation in #80 cause I was getting a little worried. Anyway, I’m sure you realize you’re reading quite a bit more into my words than I actually said. I never claimed that it would be the best movie in the history of film making. What I’ve actually said is that there’s no reason to believe at this point that this won’t be a good movie. And to me, maintaining optimism and hoping for a good movie is better than hearing a few unconfirmed plot points and deciding, with virtually no basis for doing so, that it will not meet my nebulous standards for originality and turning my nose up at it.

I also never said anywhere that I thought it will be better than the last TOS film — but then again I’m one of the few who didn’t think ST6 was as good as its made out to be anyway. I felt the allegory was a little too forced, and the whodunit way too lame and predictable. Suddenly, for this one and only time in Trek history, the Star Fleet officers wear 20th century American military insignia, and the Klingons speak with Russian accents? Why, whatever could it all mean??

I guess what I’m wondering is, how exactly do you know that the movie doesn’t “add or explore new concepts?” Assuming you’ve read the script or seen the production dailies (since that’s the only way you’d know what the movie offers in terms of “new concepts”), perhaps you’d like to share what you know?

82. Closettrekker - February 4, 2008

#77–There has been nothing but speculation to indicate that “alternative timelines” will have anything to do with the story. Again, you are basing your conclusions on nothing at all which is substantial. Why does any of it have to take place in an alternate timeline? Do you see the 79 TOS episodes as the whole of the 5 year mission? Is it inplausible to you that parts of the story could take place during events prior to “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, after the final episode, or in between 2 others? Why?

Even if there was to be an “alternate timeline”, would Nimoy’s Spock’s involvement not indicate to you that such an altered timeline would exist only until Spock restored the original timeline we know?

What if Spock is not time travelling at all, but instead, something happening in the 24th Century makes a “Lost”-like flashback relevant to the plot?

Your negative conclusions about a film which you have yet to see indicate that either your imagination is somewhat limited, or you just want it to be bad for some other reason. You also seem to have a curious aversion to what you call, “filling in the blanks”. This is Star Trek. There are a million possibilities in which such a project can tell an excellent “stand-alone” Trek story—one we may not have seen in a feature film since TMP, if you ask me.

#80–You said,
“…it’s not real Star Trek to me. It adds no new concepts nor does it explore any. That’s what Star Trek is about. Therefore this movie is Fake Trek.”

How do you know it adds no new concepts or explores any? It seems to me, you know nothing more of this story than I do. If you can build case in your mind for this being a bad movie (with only vague hints as to who and what will be in it) on this kind of “straw foundation”, then you have my sympathies. I will waste no more time with you.

83. TruthBTold - February 4, 2008

Ummm, alternative timelines were mentioned in the spoiler section on this very website.

You talk about my proof being based on straw foundation – well what about your proof? You have absolutely nothing to go on then says this movie is going to make the franchise better. Oh, Abrams is directing it. Big deal, so what, who cares? This doesn’t give us a guarantee. From what I read here on this website I have not been impressed and no one has done anything to change my mind. Where’s all your solid proof that I’ll be missing out? Ummm, there isn’t any.

#80 Don’t do me any favors. You go have a good sulk and keep thinking there’s no place like home. Buh bye.

84. Shatner_Fan_2000 - February 4, 2008

The only appropriate response to this entire debacle is …

Pffffffhhhhhhtttttt!!!!!!

A giant raspberry.

85. Closettrekker - February 4, 2008

#83–The difference is, I never said that it would be great, just that it very well could be. Your statements are such as you have already drawn a premature conclusion.

I did see (after my last post here) the spoiler you speak of. While I admit that it gives me pause, I am happy as long as it is a good story that, in the end, restores the original timeline. No permanent altered timeline, please. Other than a gratuitous Shatner shoehorning, that might be the one thing that could easily ruin this for me, more than anything else. Check that. That could be worse than a Shatner shoehorning!

But do not compare my guarded optimism to your definitive pessimism. There is no comparison.

86. Ron - February 4, 2008

#83: “You talk about my proof being based on straw foundation – well what about your proof? You have absolutely nothing to go on then says this movie is going to make the franchise better.”

Please stop putting words in people’s mouths! No one is saying “the movie is going to make the franchise better.” None of us has enough information to say that at this point, or refute it — not even you. What’s actually being said is that there are reasons to be optimistic, ranging from Abrams’ pedigree as a writer-director to Nimoy’s enthusiastic endorsement to the quality of the talent that has been hired to fill the roles. That’s all. You can choose to believe otherwise, of course, but understand that’s a reflection of your personal attitude, not the result of any sort of fact-based reasoning process.

87. TruthBTold - February 4, 2008

#85-But do not compare my guarded optimism to your definitive pessimism. There is no comparison.

Guarded optimism. That means that even you have your doubts. Why? Don’t you believe this film will be a booming success? I don’t blame you for your doubt that you finally admitted to. From what I read here I’ve been seriously wondering myself. That’s not being pessimistic – that’s being realistic.

Let’s do the time warp again. With alternative timelines. Snooze.

88. TruthBTold - February 4, 2008

#86 I thought you signed off? LOL Anyway, look at Abrams track record. He’s not Martin Scorsese that’s for sure. Nimoy? What has he done except parade aboout like some New Age Hippie? Like Shatner, Nimoy doesn’t impress me. What impresses me is a good story. Where is it? When you find it let me know. LOL

89. Ron - February 4, 2008

#88: You’re getting me and Closettrekker confused. He signed off, I didn’t — but I am now, since the discussion is going nowhere and your comments are becoming increasingly silly. Enjoy the view from your high horse, and when you figure out that you can’t form an intelligent opinion about something you know virtually nothing about, let us know.

90. Closettrekker - February 4, 2008

#87—”What impresses me is a good story. Where is it? When you find it let me know. LOL”

The only thing which raises doubt in my mind is the possibility that any alternate timeline might be permanent and not so subtle. But that remains as what it is—speculative doubt, not a negative conclusion.

Like Anthony said in the thread about the Writer’s Strike, they are not making their details public. None of us knows that the story is good or it isn’t. It involves time travel and possibly altered timelines. Well, that’s been done well, and it has been done poorly. It has been a common theme in Star Trek. Even in TOS, there were some pretty good ones.

Of course he’s no Scorcese, but neither were any other previous Trek movie makers. I wouldn’t compare the best Star Trek films to some of those done by my favorite director. That’s a whole other genre in filmmaking.

I’m not sure I’d like Star Trek with a Rolling Stones soundtrack, either.

Nor do I think “Gangs Of The Orion Syndicate”, or “Raging Klingon” would sell as good Star Trek. How about “Ferengifellas”, or “The Last Temptation Of Surak”? What else could you suggest–”Quark’s Casino”? Maybe “Mean Planetoid”? “Cape Remus”?

I know you didn’t mean it that way, but I couldn’t resist…The point is, he has done some popular and successful work (not to mention carrying with him a large following of his own), and he is young. You have him sunk before he even sets sail.

As for Nimoy, it does make me feel better that JJ’s story was impressive enough to lure Leonard out of hiding to portray Spock again. Mr. Nimoy was never comfortable being defined by Star Trek, so it says alot about the script that JJ wrote. At least it says enough to refrain from burying the film before it’s even finished…

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