Shatner: Star Trek Is Frog February 26, 2008
by John Tenuto , Filed under: Shatner , trackback
William Shatner is the gift that keeps on giving. A new ShatnerVision video shot at the opening of Star Trek The Tour (from a month ago) shows the original Captain Kirk answering that perennial question “are you in the new Star Trek movie?” He is very positive about not being in the film, but also very positive about the film itself. He then goes into a discussion of how Star Trek is like a frog…really..see it below.
More from the Tour. Shatner talks about what influence Trek had on his life
Retirement for Shatner?
Plus Don’t Forget: The Shat and The Oprah Today!
Here is a preview image from Bill’s first visit to the Oprah show
More info at Oprah.com
By the way, this is the last weekend for Star Trek The Tour in Long Beach (it was extended until March 2nd)
Tickets available at StarTrekTheTour.com
Loading ...
Comments»
Shat on Oprah?1?!?
I may have to watch (ouch)
Should I lower my viewing standards? Hell ya! It’s the Shat!!
What a character. I love this guy. I love how he thinks. His mind leaps around like. . . like. . . a frog.
AICN is reporting George Takei may be in the new movie.
Please God no.
SULU!
All good things…
arrrr… Star Trek leaps around… in place and time…
Piner: “Full stop! We’ve reached Heaven and… oh my God… look at me in 40 years! And dead! Well, at least I’m still having some fun…”
Shatner: “Why did that stoic, cold and evil wanker leave me buried under a bunch of rocks? God needed a starship to get me out of there and into Heaven.”
James Spader: “This isn’t Heaven, you dope. And David E. Kelly is not God… but he do have a starship.”
I have gotten so far and away from topic that I be takein’ me leave now…
arrr…
There…is…no…better…headline…than…this! :-)
#4 this is all it says:
George Takei, who played Hikaro Sulu on the original “Star Trek” and now serves as announcer on Sirius’ Howard Stern radio show, recently had lunch with J.J. Abrams, Takei tells Sirius’ Howard 100 News.
Asked if he would be in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming “Star Trek” feature with Leonard Nimoy, Takei would only issue a “no comment.”
Lunch=Roll in film–me thinks not
Takei’s “no comment” was shrewd, it left it open for discussion and to get his name out there more, but without saying he was in it… But I’m betting he ain’t.
Shatner: “Why did that stoic, cold and evil wanker leave me buried under a bunch of rocks? God needed a starship to get me out of there and into Heaven.”<<<<<
Sorry, Bill. It wasn’t the rocks holding you down. ;-) Why do you think Starfleet had to send a Nebula-class ship? They have really BIG tractor beams!
Love the Klingon theme playing in the background during Shatner’s “frog” analogy.
AICN also insisted Shatner was going to be in the film, and Yelchin said that Nimoy is the only original actor. Bottom line is Abrams managed to botch the easiest decision on his plate by not including Shatner. Takei would only make the film better, but it would also increase the bitterness over the Shatner debacle.
#12–(sigh.)
Just gotta love Bill.
I might do the unthinkable and….watch Oprah.
12. Good god, give the “shatner” thing a rest. Please.
Disagree; keep the Shatner stuff coming.
He’s an icon, and an essential part of Star Trek.
STILL.
Um, in case you didn’t notice, the article has Shatner talking about his lack of participation in the movie. If you don’t want to talk or read about this topic anymore, then why would you post on an article directly related to the topic?
What’s amazing is that people ARE still talking about it. People still believe that Shatner will be in the movie, probably because it is SUCH a no brainer that people can’t fathom someone consciously hurting their own movie by not using him. It’s such a ridiculous thought. Yet it happened.
Frog and frog, what is frog?
Shatner is god, now and forever.
will he jump around on the couch? (please oh please!)
i hope his appearance is online later so i can catch it…
#14–Yes. My wife actually caught me setting the TiVo last night to record it. I, rather embarassingly, had to explain that Shatner was on and I wanted to see what he said. She told me that I was “such a child”.
#17–Most non-fans (the only ones who could logically see it as a “no-brainer”) are probably unaware that his character died a few bad films ago. As for a lack of Shat “hurting their own movie”, having him did not save STV or Generations, and it was painfully obvious in STVI that he couldn’t really play the role well anymore. It is not ridiculous at all. What possible benefit could casting him as a man, who wouldn’t be alive post-Nemesis anyway, have for Mr. Orci’s tale of the beginnings of the TOS-era characters? Nimoy’s character is just as iconic, and even more importantly, available (alive) to suit their needs. William Shatner, as great as he was portraying Kirk in his day, is irrelevant to this incarnation of Trek. It is not a mistake. It is a decision which proves that JJ and co. are serious about making this film something which will attract new fans to the franchise. The Shat won’t help to do that. His presence would present continuity problems for their story and take up valuable screen time explaining why he is there to traditional fans, and give non traditional fans something new/old with which to poke fun at Star Trek. No thanks. I enjoyed the twenty years or so in which Bill actually played the character well. I, and many others, put up with him overstaying his welcome for another decade in a Starfleet uniform for nostalgia’s sake. It is time for something new. It is time for Star Trek to move on.
I’ll watch him on Oprah today. He can still be very entertaining even now—just not as James T. Kirk. So do everyone a favor and find the serenity to accept the things you cannot change! The rest of us will be here, eagerly awaiting the release of this film, and the introduction of the TOS-era characters to a whole new generation.
George Takei may be in the movie but not The Shat??? Now that’s a STXI frog with warts!
Maybe Takei is seeking revenge because Shat’s used George’s trademark ‘Oh my’ line when Kirk died in GEN.
Shat forgot to mention that while he is not in the movie, several of his hairpieces are - and they will have cameo roles as Tribbles.
Yikes.
#8 Well a ‘no comment’ certainly means he at least wants people to think there could be a possibility.
Yikes.
#21–George is probably more than willing to have a cameo.
#22–lol!!!!
#22: “Shat forgot to mention that while he is not in the movie, several of his hairpieces are - and they will have cameo roles as Tribbles.”
DeForest Kelley wore a toupee too, why is Shat always singled out????
#26–Mr. Shatner is in good health and thriving. He is also the kind of guy who has played to the satirists. No one really cares about his toupees, but he has always been invitational to jokes–and even laughs at himself.
Mr. Kelley has passed on, and was never anything but loved and respected by everyone around him. Quite frankly, making jokes about such a man is more distasteful than poking fun of Shatner. His ego makes him a target for jokes, and he doesn’t seem to care. Somehow, I doubt his feelings are hurt… DeForest Kelley never made it to Oprah.
De NEVER wore a wig….
Shatphibian! a strange new genetic hairless creature…
#36 I Love My Moogie
Maybe he is singled out because his hairpieces changed shape and color so many times that it could lead one to believe it was a mood-piece, and changed it’s appearance according to his emotional state? His hair actually got thicker and darker for TMP than it was in TOS. I’m not complaining, though. He’s still the Shat, even if his hairpiece was a piece of one.
Sorry, thats #26, not 36. I see too far into the future…
watch TMP closely and Shat’s hairline changes thruoghout. Guess the makeup guys were out of practice.
Now if I understand that whole Nexus concept just right? If one were to go back int the nexus wouldn’t Kirk still be there? The kirk that aided Picard against Sorrin was a Temporal Nexus copy, because remember that Picard found Guinan in the Nexus and I believe that she stated that a part of her would alway be here, Lame though this is, it could provide Abrams with a way to allow Shatner into the movie. Im not saying this is good Idea but it might be a solution to this whole controversy.
arrrr…
in another minute after tha image still, Oprah hurls Shatner down a bowlin’ alley… see in tha still, she’s tellin’ him how her straw reaches all the way over ta his milkshake… and that she puts her straw in his milkshake…
sorry… I was just thinkin of dear Daniel Day who got an award tha other night…
actually looks like they be playin’ cops and robbers with each other… TJ style…
Oh-
iz today the hair news day? lookit the other post about bald Bana…
hairrrrr….
#33–There are dozens of ways it COULD be done, but not one good reason why it SHOULD.
#35 I think the Shat and his Rug of the Day SHOULD be in the new movie Because in a few years, he will be GONE. and what a LOSS that will be….
#25 no no Closettreker I don’t thinks its a good Idea either it was just a thought thats all, but ill bet that if Shatner were in this movie in some capacity then there would be far less complaints about the movie. Then again i could be wrong about this as well.
[Gasp] - - We’re stuck in one of those time loops where the same period of time keeps repeating itself and the same discussion keeps occurring.
Quick, anybody - - WHAT YEAR IS THIS??
:-)
kg
I’m very positive, too - about Kirk, and about Shatner, and about their congruence.
#36–He made his Trek exit in Generations, however unsatisfying it was. I would rather have a good movie. The Shat is doing just fine professionally, and in roles better suited for who he is today. Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams are making a film which revisits iconic Star Trek characters, one of which was helped to such popularity by the work of Bill Shatner. That is quite a tribute.
May we all be so well respected, 40 years from now, for OUR work.
#37–I actually understood. I was agreeing with you. I’m sorry if my post gave you the wrong impression (I assume you meant post #35).
#17 “it is SUCH a no brainer that people can’t fathom someone consciously hurting their own movie by not using him. It’s such a ridiculous thought. Yet it happened.”
Totally. And for you Borg drones who chime in with, ‘Shatner not being in the movie will not hurt it’ … let’s just say, it hurts this TOS fan’s heart! And the hearts of many others.
Nimoy PLUS Shatner > Nimoy alone. No one would argue that.
And say whatever you want, all day long, but years from now this film will be viewed by many as the one last chance to have them together again in Star Trek … and it being passed on. UGH. Dumb!
36. Derek Evans - “I think the Shat and his Rug of the Day SHOULD be in the new movie Because in a few years, he will be GONE. and what a LOSS that will be….”
Exactly. I made my last post before I read your comment. When Shatner is gone, it will REALLY drive home the point of what a missed opportunity this is turning out to be!
#40 Closettrekker- I’m not trying to be combative. ..I understand your point. I just wish that we could have more adventures with the original cast. As they pass on..that possibility grows smaller and smaller. I’m thankful for ANY Star Trek movie. I just love the old cast do much!…sorry! Please E-Mail me a Kleenex.
#42–Nimoy + Shatner does not necessarily= good movie. One third of the bigt three is already passed on, so the wonderful dynamic of Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley is relegated to dvd. As I said before, The Shat left the building in Generations.
“Nimoy PLUS Shatner > Nimoy alone. No one would argue that.”
Nimoy’s character happens to be relevant to the story, and does not require a suplot to get him in. Obviously, Shatner’s character is not relevant to the story and brings the baggage of his character’s death. So, in this case, I WOULD argue that (I can’t believe you underestimated me).
…In other words, The Shat in STXI is a negative number!
#44–I hear you, Derek. They have given us some great moments.
Shatner Fan and the rest of you:
Sorry your heart is hurt, but do you really need to start name-calling? I’m hardly a Borg drone, and I’m of the opinion that this movie does not need Shatner in it, for all the reasons that have been stated overandoverandoverandoverandover again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Apparently, William “I-Don’t-Do-Cameos” Shatner and JJ could not come to terms on salary or story. That’s it. Game over. Go over to Shatner’s site and bitch to him if you didn’t like the outcome of their negotiations.
You know, I could take you and the other hard-core Shatfans with the name “Shatner” in your screennames seriously if you actually contributed something to this forum besides the constant spammy “Shat Must Be In It” rants and tantrums.
Dear Vulcan, when does my vaca start???
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
#47—And the award goes to…The Vulcanista!!!
#47 Need a little ‘Pon Far’?
-I’m still a Shat fan…but it’s a free world..you know..
#49
No; I need some grownups to start posting here, starting with YOU!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
I think we’re in for a “Search for Spock” like moment. Shatner will not be listed in the opening credits, but his Kirk will magically be in the closing and give Spock that hug he wanted to in Star Trek V. ANd we’ll see the dozen or so actors playing Kirk and Spock in the ending credits with Shatner prominently list at the top.
#51…Uh..You’re are a little TOO emotional Vulcan. This is just supposed to be a little light heated discussion. So chill out.
Make that ..’Light HEARTED…not heated. Sorry. I was laughing as I typed.
If I looking for frog, him name is Hopkin green frog. I lost my frog.
ps, I’ll find my frog, who took my frog ……
OMG — Oprah is on now!!!!
She’s usually on at 4 p.m. EST.
IT’S ON RIGHT NOW!! I CAN HEAR BILL TALKING!!!!!
QUICK RUN!
Don’t give up Shat fans!!
Of course all this talk is moot because Shatner is definitly in.. I have my sources.. which are none at all.. which doesn’t really make any sense..
I wonder how this discussion will be like to re-read after the movie comes out..
The whole Generations excuse is one of the weakest statements out there. The only people buying into that are the same people that didn’t care about him being in the movie in the first place. If this movie has Spock time travelling to save Kirk, then there is no difference between saving Pine’s Kirk or the Generations Kirk. None.
And let’s not forget that Generations was in existence long before Abrams was, “desperately trying to get Shatner into the film.” The bottom line is that Abrams made a conscious decision, and the film suffers as a result. There is absolutely no way bringing in Shatner would hurt this movie. Not with a competent writer. The movie is about the original crew, and Kirk’s future is relevant. Unfortunately, Abrams made a terrible decision and did it in a way that would anger the most fans possible.
umm yeah like thats gonna happen.. ok folks don’t forget to come back to this thread after the movie comes out for a little perspective discussion.. heheheh
Katie G. whats up no commentary for the fans?
Shatner’s cool.
I don’t care whether he’s in the Trek movie or not, period; it’s just not an interesting topic. All indications are that he isn’t.
Guys — I tried to post a note that Oprah was on, and that William Shatner WAS ON - - but it didn’t take. The note said “duplicate post detected” then didn’t post it AT ALL!! Sorry…
She’s usually on at 4 p.m. EST but it appears that it’s on now, 2 - 3 p.m. EST. Hope your TV listings were more accurate than mine.
kg
Damn. Now it posts. Oh well…
kg
why here be a little curiousity…
an anagram of Shatner would be “Has Rant” or, perhaps “Rant Ash”
(oh, for that h to be another s…”)
and that anagram would not so much be indicative of the man himself but rather his legions of followers… much like a Roman god having his priests and servants cast about on canonical law and the keeping of the immortal god’s visage…
not that canons be bad… continuity keeps us comfortable…and i do like me Cap’n Kirkie… best skipper ever…
arrrr…. need a kiss from oprah…
People keep bringing up the Nexus as a possible solution to the Shatner problem. However, people keep saying so many different things about what the Nexus can do (supposedly), that I think it warrants someone watching Generations TODAY to see if we can get a clear set of facts. I volunteer myself. If anyone else wants to do it, fine. The more heads we get on this thing, the more info we dig up.
#58–
” And let’s not forget that Generations was in existence long before Abrams was, “desperately trying to get Shatner into the film.” The bottom line is that Abrams made a conscious decision, and the film suffers as a result.”
There is no question that Abrams was just being diplomatic (in my mind anyway). As soon as he read Orci and Kurtzman’s script he had to know there was no reason for The Shat to hit the fan here, and Bill certainly made it easy for him by saying he would not do a cameo. How is the film suffering? It has now been given the prized May release date, now that the studio has seen the dailies. Your conclusions make no sense.
Furthermore, Abrams is the director–not the writer. He did make a “conscious decision”, and that was to agree to direct a movie based on Orci and Kurtzman’s script. Are you suggesting that he should have refused unless Shatner was written in? Didn’t Shatner pitch a movie to Paramount which depicted his return? I wonder what happened there.
“The movie is about the original crew, and Kirk’s future is relevant. Unfortunately, Abrams made a terrible decision and did it in a way that would anger the most fans possible.”
Why is Kirk’s future (which is already past to a post-Nemesis Spock) relevant? Who are you to say that Abrams’ decision not to alter Bob and Alex’s script was terrible? Have you seen it? And I am as big a TOS/Captain Kirk fan as the next guy, but I am not angered at all. I want them to make the best possible movie, not the best possible movie that includes Bill Shatner. I love old school Shat, but you are affording this guy far too much reverance.
” Not with a competent writer”.
So now Bob and Alex are incompetent writers? Why? Because they found they could tell a better TOS-era story than one that was about Shatner’s return? Give us all a break, please.
#45 Closettrekker … “Nimoy’s character happens to be relevant to the story, and does not require a suplot to get him in. Obviously, Shatner’s character is not relevant to the story and brings the baggage of his character’s death. So, in this case, I WOULD argue that”
I didn’t inquire about any of that. I merely said that the DUO is more fun than the solo. Which is absolutely, inarguably take-it-to-the-bank true. And there’s no point in arguing the semantics of “how” again; suffice it to say, Closet, that many fans feel Shatner CAN be worked in w/out it hurting the story.
#51 “Uh..You’re are a little TOO emotional Vulcan. This is just supposed to be a little light heated discussion. So chill out.”
Agreed. Chill, Vulcanista. This is a Shatner thread. Art thee human … or art thee Vulcan?
#60 “Shatner’s cool.”
……I may faint. :)
65 - All I can add is an “Amen!” Can I get a witness?!?!?!
Mongo feel bad for people want Shatner in movie. Mongo wish something he could do. Director mans and Shatner not agree. What can do? Maybe watch movie anyway to see if bad or good. Answer always in future.
Yeah, I’ll chill when all the rest of you Shatfans chill as well. Just expressing my opinion like the rest of you.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Re: #59 ensign joe
Not sure whether you’re mocking me or just teasing me…
I’ll chose the “teasing” option. I’d like to keep it friendly.
About re-visiting this thread after the movie has come out - - here’s a line from one of my posts on the “Cho” thread:
“The proof will be in the pudding. I hope these threads are around after the movie comes out so we can be vindicated (or be given a raspberry).”
Re: No commentary:
Naw. Sorry to disappoint. I’ve given up. What’s the use? It’s already been said in every previous thread on Shatner and even in some that weren’t about him at all. I’m weary. Besides, when I first started posting regularly, one of the threads exploded into a very nasty mêlée and I’m hesitant to repeat that experience.
Although…
I will echo I point I made a long time ago that it would have been fabulous if Mr. Shatner had a cameo as his young self’s grandfather. That would have been brilliant.
Maybe I SHOULD change my posting name from “Katie G.” to “Chatty Cathy”. Can’t seem to refrain.
Gotta get some work done. See ya, ensign joe.
Guess I just gave you a commentary. Hah! [laughs at herself as she leaves to do some housework].
kg
I am a frog too.
65–Bill was never even shown the script. The discussions never got passed an early meeting, and Abrams never even had the decency to let Shatner know he WASN’T in the movie. AFTER the news broke, Abrams perpetuated it for months, and did nothing to act on these “desperate” desires to get him in the movie. Make no mistake, there is no way Abrams could have handled this worse.
The film is suffering because a very large section of fandom is very upset over the Shatner debacle. And Shatner brings in box office. Abrams’ ridiculous decision will hurt the bottom line, no matter what it is.
Abrams is the director and not the writer, I’ll give you that. But he IS the boss. He is the one that makes the decision, and the failure to do the right thing here is his responsibility.
As for Kirk’s future being relevant–who cares about the plot of a movie when you know exactly how the main character dies? And you KNOW he dies stupidly and for no reason. It’s been wisely pointed out by others that Kirk is once again the main protagonist. What kind of franchise has the main character’s death anything but a mystery?
Yes, Shatner pitched a movie. You know what happened? Rick Berman said no. You know, the guy that ruined the franchise? That guy.
There is no way that the best possible movie would not include Shatner, because there is absolutely no way that his inclusion could do anything but help the movie. If you don’t believe me, ask Nimoy, who said that the movie would be better with Shatner in it.
And yes, if a writer cannot come up with a decent method of including Shatner in a movie where the whole plot seems to be about protecting Kirk’s life, then that writer is not competent.
Thing is, I don’t believe that they were unable. I believe they made a ridiculous decision, and it may not even have been unanimous. The bottom line though is that it is still bunk and the movie will suffer because of it.
#72 “…The film is suffering…”
The film is suffering?
Katie G. Actually I was neither teasing or mocking.. well you anyway.. I was mocking myself.. when combined my posts should have read:
“Don’t give up Shat fans!!
Of course all this talk is moot because Shatner is definitly in.. I have my sources.. which are none at all.. which doesn’t really make any sense..
I wonder how this discussion will be like to re-read after the movie comes out.. umm yeah like thats gonna happen.. ok folks don’t forget to come back to this thread after the movie comes out for a little perspective discussion.. heheheh
Katie G. whats up no commentary for the fans?”
“Re: No commentary: Naw. Sorry to disappoint. I’ve given up. What’s the use?”
I was actually requesting commentary on Shat being on Oprah since you were watching it.. lol :)
Yeah I could see bringing back Shat to do a grandfather-type thing…. but I think I’d see right through it.. so I don’t think it would work very well with me..
#72: “and Abrams never even had the decency to let Shatner know he WASN’T in the movie.”
This is untrue.
I dont know. All of us should be lined up outside that theater and watch this film. Can you imagine the noise level in that joint?? Endless chatter…JJ Abrams is sitting back thinking “WOW” This can go on and on forever,,! What will they do after the film is seen?! HA AHA
This thread will go to radio silence as all go to turn on TV sets to watch Shatner on Oprah, myself included! :-)
BTW, they’re doing something with Rick Sprinfield and a fan right now.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
arrrr…
….In one of Chuck Palahniuk’s books he has a character, working as a projectionist, who splices frames into films he is showing to the moviegoers…
There’s a FINAL solution to the beleaguered Shatner problem going ’round and ’round…
course, if memory serves, those film splices in the book were of a salty nature… soooo, find yer favorite naked Shatner picture and bribe your local projectionist to splice it in…
watchin’ the film all peaceful:
“Hey- Look at how cool that new Enterprise is! and… oh me God!!!! What in the name of Beckham was that filthy thing?…Hey, look- tribbles!”
uh, oh… I be part of the problem rather part of the solution…
arrrrr….
PostScript:
Being the jolly giver he is, if you dinna have a nudie Bill photo, I know for a fact he will graciously oblige. Thank ye Bill. ‘Course me other sailors give me the stink eye now…
Got one from the other Bill, too… Thank ya Mr. President…
arrrrr…
#41 sorry about that Closettreker, part of that was slight typo and misunderstanding on my part. These debates and comments make one thing very clear, its that some fans just cannot let go of the past, and the problem is that holding on to the past could end up choking the life out of this franchise.
I have stated this before or some variation of it in past comments. That science fiction, any science fiction, has to stay ahead of the curve to stay relevant. No one wants trek to become the next flash Gordon(I am of course referring to the old Buster Crabbe Serials) Trek needs new blood.
Gotta come to the Vulcanista’s defence on this one!
Alot of the Shatner fans seem to hold Kirk in a demi-god kind of light! Yes he is and will always be James T Kirk to many of us but that is no reason to ignore the facts. Abrams told Shatner he wouldn’t be in the movie. And as for #72, How exactly did Rick Berman ruin the franchise!?
Re: #74. ensign joe
No problem.
And okay, I haven’t left the computer yet; I was about to go then saw a new article posted by Anthony and got side-tracked.
I’ll go now and make notes on what Shatner and Oprah talked about and let you know. Actually, let me go and check if it’s on again (as it usually is on now).
Nope. It’s “Budget 2008″, a CTV news special. My local listings didn’t have that and if it weren’t for my accidentally flipping the channels I wouldn’t have caught the Oprah show. I only watch it when she has something I’m interested in. It’s too easy to use the TV to avoid what I should be doing.
See ya later in the evening.
kg
#72—-How is the film suffering? Because you claim your views represent a large group who won’t see it now? And Shatner brings box-office? Please. The target demographic is not 45-60 year old sci-fi fans. Unfortunately, they do not have the spending power to get Transformers-like numbers. Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams did that with a silly 1980’s cartoon without half the following of Star Trek! And you are going to try and convince us that this film is hurting without Bill Shatner? That he is somehow the make or break casting decision?
And who said the script was about protecting Kirk’s life? It is just as likely that it is not.
#80 Irish Trekki some fans just cant Imagine Trek without Shatner in the role of Kirk and thats the way it is. Its like talking to a wall.
#79 “some fans just cannot let go of the past, and the problem is that holding on to the past could end up choking the life out of this franchise.”
Then again, some fans - like me, for instance - recognize that the old cast is … well, old … and that recasting is therefore a necessity in order for the characters to continue. We support the remaking of TOS, and are fully planning to plunk down our $10 in 2009 and give this a fair chance. We *also* have every confidence that it would only add to the experience and certainly the HEART of this movie if Shatner were there with Nimoy to properly bring closure to the TOS era while launching the new. So … what’s wrong with that?
I may be wrong, but I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that the new cast should be scrapped, and the old guys alone should carry the film.
#83
Point taken, and I know it’ll be weird but at the same time I just don’t see how Kirk (played by shatner) could be included in the movie! What do you guys want, a substandared movie with Shatner in it or a groundbreaking Trek Film that could revitalise the franchise?
To add, I would like to see box office numbers from major motion picture releases that have William Shatner as star or in any capacity of appearance. I would like a “Shatner must be in this movie” person to look the numbers up, and prove that he would make a dent in the box office, or even guarantee it would make big numbers.
Start with:
-Loaded Weapon I
-Miss Congeniality 2
…and continue with movies that feature Shatner in a non-Trek capacity.
If you don’t care about Rick Springfield and Henry Winkler, Shatner’s interview with Oprah takes place 30 minutes into the episode. She also sent the audience home with 1st season TOS-R DVD set!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
#84 Kirk died in Generations and that how it should be left. In any drama character die and if you keep resurecttiong them it cheapens the meaning and drama of their death. Why do we need both of them to have closure anyway.?
#84—The ONLY thing really wrong with that is that bringing Shat’s Kirk back would require a suitable explanation and the screentime necessary to do that, along with such a resurrection making sense as part of the story. That, my friend–no matter how you slice it–is unnecessary baggage. Nimoy WILL be there to usher in the new, and he doesn’t bring that baggage. He’s enough. He’ll have to be.
#85—The latter!!!!!!
#85
I can only speak for myself, but I for one would favor a groundbreaking Trek film with a new cast for the new adventures they want to tell along with the time-tested and established Shatner-Nimoy magic. IMO, anything else wouldn’t be groundbreaking, but just different, and would feel incomplete.
#86–Airplane II: The sequel, or how about Free Enterprise (The Shat as himself). Ok, Airplane II may have done alright (spoof market wasn’t yet saturated), but I don’t think there is any evidence that Shatner is the box office star he is being made out to be by #72. Shatner4TrekXI, you are in need of a reality check.
Shatner could easily be worked into the film (A) without bringing anyone back from the dead (B) without any expository baggage and (C) without changing a single word of the existing script. Easily, trivially.
This means that if Shatner isn’t in the movie it’s for real-world reasons and not story reasons. Those reasons may include a marketing concern that Shatner’s appearance would be an unecessary distraction, and they may very well include Shatner’s own disinterest in a less-than-substantial role. They may include many other factors as well. No matter what those reasons are, though, they are real-world, business reasons and people reasons, not story, not canon, not continuity.
Claims to the contrary by those associated with the film are diplomatic, polite, and to be expected. It’s right and proper to deflect the issue to story, rather than to come across as unpleasant by shining the light on the more tedious, and somewhat grimmer, world of the business behind the fun stuff.
#89 “The ONLY thing really wrong with that is that bringing Shat’s Kirk back would require a suitable explanation and the screentime necessary to do that, along with such a resurrection making sense as part of the story.”
Closet, away from Trek fan sites, no one cares about Generations. But it WOULD generate press, audience interest, and most of all GOODWILL if Shatner and Nimoy - THE 2 pillars of Original Trek - appeared with Pine & Quinto. Everyone, old fans and new alike, would win! These endless arguments would not exist. That is why many of us thought this was a total no brainer: the good of The Shat would outweigh the depressing mediocrity of Generations and the 2% of the audience who remembered it and gave a crap. More and more franchises - Superman, The Hulk, Rocky, to name a few - are beginning to realize that they need not be slaves to every detail of what has come before. Especially if what came before didn’t work!
Also, it wouldn’t be my first choice, but if the filmmakers really could think of no other way, they could’ve set Shatner’s role pre-Generations. Even that would’ve been better than nothing!
#92–You may very well be correct, but the only way to include him without the baggage, and without changing the script is in a more minor role portraying someone besides Jim Kirk. I don’t think that either side wants that. The Shat said he does not, and JJ has declared that as a potential distraction. My personal thought is that, while it would be a cute moment, it would handiicap my ability to buy into the story—just as “shoehorning him in” as Kirk would. To me, that IS an artistic concern, at least on the part of JJ Abrams. I suppose that falls into both categories.
And if he was to be written in without regard for continuity, there would be one hundred times the uproar among established Trek fans than we have seen due to his casting omission. We know that even when its bad, some Trek fans have to have the canon. Whether it is REALLY an issue with Abrams is irrelevant to this forum. It IS an issue here—on this site, and in the minds of probably at least half a million people (a conservative and uneducated estimate), who actually put a ton of stock into Star Trek canon. That many people can make alot of noise. While JJ wants to build a broader audience for their Star Trek, it would make no financial sense to alienate established fans by destroying storyline continuity. So, in essence, that is also both an artistic and a real-world issue as well.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, those “artistic” concerns are very much “real-world” when it comes to making money now and down the road. It all matters one way or another. Either way, it still doesn’t look like the Shat will hit the fan.
# 93 Ill wager that even if Shatners not in the film you’ll still plunk down the 10 bucks to go and see.it JJ Abrams is not interested in that argument and he’s not going weigh down his film with the unnecessary story baggage of trying to resurrect KIrk to satisfy a few Dissatisfied Trek fans. Why should he? for the sake of Goodwill? Please. He going do the film his way and that it.
#95 “Ill wager that even if Shatners not in the film you’ll still plunk down the 10 bucks to go and see”
I believe I already said that, but thanks anyway. :)
lol, anyone else think it’s unlikely the Audience members for Oprah will truely enjoy their TOS sets. They Screamed in joy of course, but I imagine so many of them thinking….”Star TRAK…..why didn’t I get happy days….”
Just saw the interview and it was pretty good - wish they had given him more time and talked more about Trek. Someone tell me why Rick Springfield (who is this guy) got more time than Shat?
#96 I like it when im right
#93–”…that they need not be slaves to every detail of what has come before. Especially if what came before didn’t work!”
Shatner fan, you and I would never disagree on that.
However, the sad reality is—if the writers simply threw out the precious canon, half the people who traffic this site would jump off the proverbial bridge! If it were up to me, we could pretend that Generations (and Star Trek V, for that matter) never existed. But even when its bad, its still there. The writers claim to adhere to canon, or at least to provide “a canon explanation” for any seemingly non-canon issues.
Believe it or not, I wouldn’t be protesting if Abrams’ movie included The Shat. But it doesn’t, and I won’t question that decision. I won’t judge an artist’s work until it has been made available to me. I will assume that it would have added nothing to the quality of the story. If after seeing it, it appears to me that resurrecting him would have been a benefit, I will be the first to say so. But I doubt it…
98.
Yeah, that suprised me too. I’ve never heard of springfield either, and Shatner is certainly a bigger star than Henry Winkler (cool guy, just saying)
I’m guessing it’s because he was the musical guest and appealed more to the Oprah audience. either way, I thought Boston Legal would’ve set him up for a bigger spot.
#94: I agree with everyhting you’ve said, but it doesn’t soften, alter, or undermine the point of my post above. In other words, I suspect it’s that we agree, but are talking about two different but related subjects. My post is about the futility of the exercise, not the validity of it or of its value to we the fans. I indulge as well, after all.
98, 101
Springfield was a big-deal teenybopper rocker back in the late seventies and at the same time also a soap star on “General Hospital.” Although easy on the eyes, I question his relevance as an icon.
Jagger, Lennon & McCartney, Clapton, now there’s some rock iconery(?) for ya there!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Maybe it’s because Oprah had a crush on Springfield when she was younger?
Just caught the Oprah show. The only time I’ve ever willingly watched it. Didn’t know about his hip replacement. And I think it would NOT be in bad taste for him to self that hip bone. I know there would be people who’d pay half a million for that. There are guys my age with more than teacher’s salaries that pay for far more for less important things than that.
#96 Shatner fan sorry for that last comment, I didn’t mean it ,its just that the arguments for and against Shatner are just starting to wear on me a little. It is a fact though movie producers ,Directors and studio executive rarely listen to any of us anyway Look at the fact that most of myself included wanted a Captain Sulu Tv series and Instead of listening to what we wanted, they did want they wanted and gave us Enterprise
Considering how huge Oprah is and how many years she’s been on the air, it’s a bit sad to me that she never did any shows on ST before. It would seem to me that even if she isn’t a fan she would have at least been interested enough to feature ST as the first television show to air an interracial kiss, not to mention the racial and cultural walls Roddenberry was trying to knock down in the ’60’s.
Just watched Oprah..Shatner’s segment anyway. Shat looked terrific. Hope we see him in the film in the alternate timeline as an older “never was killed” Jim Kirk.
After seeing Mike Nesmith rejoin and tour with The Monkees in the 90’s and after seeing Sean Connery returning to the role of Bond in the 80’s, I’ve learned one thing. Never say never.
Coming in late….
The ” Shatner must be in the movie or the world ends” arguments again?
Oh please…. it’s been done to death, examined in every light, commented on and it’s still not going to happen. Not even for the fanboys and girls.
I don’t know… Rick Springfield sold a lot of records in the 80s and 90s, and his music evolved quite a bit from his teeny bopper roots, although his fans abandoned him when he tried singing something other than ear candy. Listen to his songs “State of the Heart” or “Honeymoon in Beirut” to see what I mean.
#110
That may be true, but I still maintain calling Springfield an icon is a bit of a stretch. Elvis is an icon. Cap’n Kirk’s an icon. BB King is an icon. U-2 are iconic. (That woulda been waaaaay cooler for Oprah to have had Bono as the rock icon!)
But Rick Springfield? Feh.
Have a pleasant rest of the evening!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Vulcanista,
I liked the way you spoke up earlier. Brava
I will say it in Vulcan: shaya tonat! (Google it! You’ll be amazed at the results!)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Ooops! Shaya tonat is for Xai!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
well I hope everyone has got it out of their system finally
cause this is likely the last one of these ‘in the movie’ articles
It’s not out of anyone’s system. You can censor it, but it won’t change that this is a cloud over this movie and limiting this board to people who swallow everything Abrams says will not change that.
Nor will it change how poorly Abrams handled this situation. It may have been talked about to death, but that still doesn’t change that a very stupid decision was made, and the movie will suffer as a result.
#116—Shameless. Your continued overestimation of William Shatner’s relevance to this film is making you look silly.
The “cloud” maybe over your house, but it’s not over this movie. It’s not a “stupid” decision just because you and Bill said so. There is nothing “stupid” about moving on. Shatner’s Kirk is dead, and Bill helped to kill him. Take it up with him. That is not Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, or JJ Abrams’ problem.
You can say now that JJ should have told him from the get-go that there was no part for him in the film, but what if he did not actually know? Abrams is not the fan that Orci is. Maybe he had to look at Generations and Orci’s script closely before he and the “Supreme Court” decided that there was absolutely no way to include him in the story and to justify it artisticly. Then again, perhaps JJ knew all along and was trying to be polite and respectful to this man. Get over it. Be a big boy.
Star Trek is not about William Shatner. We have one of the most iconic characters (and the only truly original one there from the beginning) in television history, played by its original actor—-Leonard Nimoy, in the film to satisfy our need for nostalgia. And guess what? HIS presence is relevant to THIS story. What do you not understand? As much as I enjoy a good debate, the cause for Bill to be included in this movie has been so severely beaten over and over again that it’s not even fun anymore to defeat it. I am glad Anthony is putting it to rest here.
Spare your dignity and call it a day. You are not the Captain, therefore there is no honor in going down with the sinking ship. Star Trek is moving on. Bill is doing just fine, even after a hip replacement. But it’s over. The young Bill Shatner will always be Captain Kirk, but the old one is Denny Crane. I hope you find peace with this, because what is sad is not the lack of Shatner in this movie, but such a lack of imagination on your part that you cannot see past him in the Trek Universe. Good grief. Get a life.
116. Shatner4TrekXI - February 27, 2008
Old news, over-stated and a pointless argument. Hopefully you’ll get over it.
I don’t think accusing the site owner of censorship helped you any… but that’s between you and him.
Re: #98 Denise and #103 Vulcanista
Vulcanista, you’ll have to forgive Denise. She was on Risa in the late 70’s for a number of years.
Re: #107 Denise
Maybe she wasn’t sure of her position in stardom and his larger-than-life persona was intimidating. Who knows. You do raise an interesting question.
Goodnight, ladies. (You too, Denise and Vulcanista!) Hah!
kg
Crap. That didn’t come out the way it sounded in my head. I was calling all the other posters “ladies” (like Don Johnson did to his male co-workers as “Crockett” on “Miami Vice”). It was DEFINITELY NOT intimating that Denise and Vulcanista are not ladies.
Whew. Glad I caught that. Sorry you two. Vulcanista, can I come with you on your vaca? Think I need one too…
Night.
kg
120 arrrr…
well, I am wearing a dress….
#120
LOL!!!
I thought the possible misinterpretation of your goodnight to us was pretty damn funny, considering the “discussion” in the thread below!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Re: #121. B.N.D.
Okay, that’s too much information…
Re: #122. The Vulcanista
You are very kind. (Are you sure I can’t come with you on your vacation?)
:-)
kg
So, Vulcanista, do tell…….are you going to Cancun with a friend to party or is this more of an intimate vacation*? I won’t tell…..promise!
*lucky guy!
Harry, See my reply in Chat folder.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
#123
There is *always* room for one more, especially one who can talk Trek!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
OK, I’m going to respond to two of you so bare with me here:
FIRST UP:
#117 - “I hope you find peace with this, because what is sad is not the lack of Shatner in this movie, but such a lack of imagination on your part that you cannot see past him in the Trek Universe. Good grief. Get a life.”
I cant believe that you are actually telling that guy to ‘Get a Life’.
Why dont you follow your own advice?
You’ve argued with him and ANYONE else who even mentions their problem with WS not being in the movie, even if its “Damn, I wish Shatner was in it oh well.”
Come to grips that to most of the WORLD that could care less about Star Trek, TOS and those characters and actors who played them are TREK. Kirk (Shatner) being the top one with Spock (Nimoy) not far behind. As much as you want to push for the fact that he isn’t ‘Trek’ *at this point* to people who haven’t seen more than a few shows or movies and could care less about canon.
Now with that said, will the NEW actors change that and become the NEW face of the franchise and replace somewhat the original cast? Possibly….. But they very well could end up screwing it all up and it all being a big stinker. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.
But speaking from experience (since I work in Hollywood) to say that bringing Shatner in the movie would’ve made the picture too convoluted for non-fans is not very accurate since, in the end, non-fans will likely skip this movie anyway unless it gets really great reviews.
If the script is good and the director knows what he is doing, then the picture will flourish regardless of any mumbo-jumbo.
Now to #116: “Nor will it change how poorly Abrams handled this situation. It may have been talked about to death, but that still doesn’t change that a very stupid decision was made, and the movie will suffer as a result.”
In the end, like Mr. Abrams said awhile back, one of the reasons they are not including Shatner in *this* movie is simply because that is not the story they are trying to tell. As I stated before, it is not a wise decision to exclude Shatner (for $$$ reasons) but in the same breathe I must say that it isn’t a show stopper either. Give the new cast a chance as maybe one day down the line the ‘timeline’ gets altered and ‘Kirk’ doesn’t die in ‘Generations’ and we shall see Pine act that out. That *is* what you want right? Or is it all about ‘Shatner’ and not the character of Kirk????
The *most* important thing here is that the new actors/writters/director/producers get it *right* ESPECIALLY this first time in bringing us a GREAT MOVIE regardless of who’s in it, and what the story is or else this franchise is doomed for new material for long while.
Edward
star trek is just the best television show ever…. what other shows have had 5 different series, a cartoon series and 12 movies with another on the way… none.. star treck’s the best baby…