Shatner Met Quinto and Pine |
jump to navigation

Shatner Met Quinto and Pine March 26, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Shatner,TOS Remastered , trackback

It has already been reported that members of the new Star Trek crew have had a chance to meet their predecessors (Quinto and Nimoy, Saldana and Nichols, Yelchin and Koenig, plus Pegg has met James Doohan’s son, Chris). Now, finally, William Shatner reveals on a new ShatnerVision video that he has met the new Kirk, Chris Pine (and Quinto as well).

In the following ShatnerVision clip he revealed that he has met the new Kirk and Spock, but doesn’t say much more about the film except that he ‘feels badly’ that he doesn’t know anything about the film. Although it is not in the clip, apparently Shatner met Quinto and Pine at the March 5th Sardi’s Alzheimer Benefit (reported on Celeb Watch two weeks ago). Bill also notes that Lisabeth’s husband Andy Clement is doing make-up for the film.

More new Shatnervision
Three more Shat clips shot last week are also online.

Shatner Is Busted WIth Legos In London

Shatner on Shaman Practice

Shatner On The 2008 Wells Fargo Hollywood Charity Horse Show

More info on the charity horse show can be found at

Live Shat Chat Delayed Again
Last bit of Shatner news is that previously announced live chat with Bill has been delayed again due to scheduling conflicts with shooting Boston Legal. A new date has not been set, but when it is we will report on that.


1. cap97 - March 26, 2008

Cool Lego Kirk!

2. nscates - March 26, 2008

Poor Bill, I think it really bugs him to be out of the mix – can’t say as I blame him. I wonder if this will turn into another BBK thread.

3. sean - March 26, 2008

The bust of his head in Legos is hilarious. NIce too that he has, indeed, met a few of the castmembers (and his daughter’s husband is even working on the production).

4. CALQL8 - March 26, 2008

I thought we already knew this (that Pine met Shatner). When James Cawley (sp?) was interviewed by TrekMovie about visiting the movie set, he said that Pine felt fortunate (or something along those lines) to meet both of the other Kirks.
We hadn’t heard it from Shatner yet, though, or that Shatner also met with Quinto.

5. trekofficial - March 26, 2008

I just cant help but think Shatners alienating himself from it all..he doesn’t seem open and is harboring his own selfishness for not being in the movie

6. Go Spock! - March 26, 2008

ooo – Star Trek Legos…

7. hitch1969© - March 26, 2008

movie will be just fine without Shatner.


8. Batts - March 26, 2008

I was one of those that felt that Shatner should get over it. But now I genuinely feel badly that he is not involved at all. His son-in-law is doing make up for the film and that probably really gets him in the heart. I guess we all made decisions at one point that we felt was the best one at that time and later on come to learn that maybe I should have waited.

He probably REGRETS that Generations put Kirk down in the way they did and wishes that he can go back and fix that. Who knows?? Is’nt that what sci-fi is all about, possibilities?? Back in 1994, he thought that he was passing the torch and got burned!!

I read somewhere that if Roddenberry was still alive, he would never have consented for “Kirk” to be killed off. I wonder if this movie will affect him and Nimoy’s friendship, since the cast is sworn to secrecy??

9. steve623 - March 26, 2008

¡Viva Shatner!

10. Bones Thugs & McCoy - March 26, 2008

Pine. That is the biggest X factor of this film.

11. MeMyselfandI - March 26, 2008

How could they not have the Shat on the new movie…grrr

Some kind of involvement was warranted.. perhaps even playing another role…

Whats with paramount? Behind the scene grudges?

12. CmdrR - March 26, 2008

I know Bill has feelings about this whole situation, but the sheer number of times he’s asked to comment only makes things worse.

We ALL wish it had been different. Now, since it’s the way it is, I think we should all just ‘get along’ and wish for a great STXI. (And maybe a Bill cameo in XII.)

Anyway — exactly how many Lego’s does it take to make the Big Giant Head?

13. SPB - March 26, 2008

WHAT? People are talking about Shatner and STAR TREK XI???

Stop derailing this thread! :)

(That’s a little joke…)

14. Joel - March 26, 2008

Shatner just isn’t necessary for this movie. I feel bad that he can’t be involved, but his character is dead and it wouldn’t exactly be prudent of them to simply bring him back. He didn’t want a simple cameo in the film, we all know that and I just don’t see how he could’ve been an integral part of the movie. Hopefully he’ll be a part of the release come next year, but until then, I’m afraid he’s in the dark with the rest of us.

15. THX-1138 - March 26, 2008

I refuse to comment on any more Shatner threads.

Awww crap!!!

16. Mike T. - March 26, 2008

It’s too bad Mr. Shatner didn’t want to do a cameo, he could have showed up on a view screen or some other way that could have fit into the story.

I wish for Mr. Shatner to live a long life but he is 77 years old so who is to say how much time we’ll have to see him in another movie before either he retires or his health gets in the way.

17. diabolk - March 26, 2008

They know better than to tell Bill anything about the new movie because he couldn’t keep it a secret. He should stop acting hurt because he doesn’t know anything, which he couldn’t tell anyway, and just act like he knows and is keeping a secret.

18. Greg2600 - March 26, 2008

Sounds like he’s about done with Boston Legal. If so, I’m actually glad, because I never got the show, and if his Raw Nerve show is anything like Mind Meld, I’ll definitely watch.

19. trekkie1415 - March 26, 2008

Lego + Captain Kirk = Awesome!

Two really cool things mixed in one! It rocks…
I’m glad he got to meet Chris Pine, and Quinto! That really is good news.

20. Darth Ballz - March 26, 2008

Shatners ego is to big for a cameo and the new production team might have asked him to play a role but unless he’s Kirk then no way! It just make sense for him NOT to be in the film. People who want him to be Shoe-horned into the movie are not understanding that if they did then it would be a bigger risk to the future of Trek. Let it go people and enjoy the movie!!!!

Darth “Shatastic” Ballz

21. Hat Rick - March 26, 2008

I wish the best for Bill. Trek and Shatner have been like two peas in pod, and each has been extremely important for the other. Even today, Bill writes a neat part of the larger Trek universe, with his fine books of fiction. Long may they both live and prosper.

22. the king in shreds and tatters - March 26, 2008

Does makeup mean prosthetics in this case? Is Westmore not involved?

23. Elvis Gump - March 26, 2008

If the new movie’s a success, I think they ought to bring back Shatner as Emperor Tiberius from the alternate Universe.

That way he can ham it up, crush the ‘new’ Kirk a little and still have fun and get paid.

24. Phil123 - March 26, 2008

won’t call till his book is coming out? i love the shat but thats a bit greedy

25. Hat Rick - March 26, 2008

23, what do you mean “if”? :-) I certainly have every confidence that it WILL be a success. (Knocking wood and crossing fingers.)

26. Bones Thugs & McCoy - March 26, 2008

Mirror Universe – hadn’t thought of that – In Star Trek XII (or will it be Star Trek II?) Mr. Pine can run afoul of Mirror or alternate Universe Kirk – still kicking at (by then) 80.

I’m down.

But I’m down either way.

27. Hat Rick - March 26, 2008

The other thing is that because time has no meaning in the Nexus, James T. Kirk — the original — is still there, tending to his wood-chopping, wife, and horses — not necessarily in that order.

I think that this idea was even raised some time ago as a way for Kirk to return.

28. krikzil - March 26, 2008

I’m curious why so many comment on Shatner turning down a cameo. Nimoy and Kelley both turned down the cameos offered to them in Generations. The Kirk character deserves more than a cameo as does the actor playing him.

I do wish they could have incorporated a live Kirk in one of the alternate timelines that apparently make up the movie. That could have made it interesting for the Spock character. Going back to save Kirk could have saved him in more ways than one…..

29. US Taxpayer Dude - March 26, 2008

“Lego my Ego” (If you will pardon a pun on two 1970’s commerical favorites!!!)

30. Dennis - March 26, 2008

I said it before, and I will say it again. Shatner should be the voice that opens the movie. “Space [dramatic Shat Pause] The final [pasue] frontier….”

31. VOODOO - March 26, 2008

It’s a disgrace that Shatner isn’t in this film.

32. indranee - March 26, 2008

aww… I feel bad for the Shatman… I still want him to be in the movie!! :(

33. Garovorkin - March 26, 2008

I like Shatner and i liked him as Kirk, but he’s not going to be in the movie and that is that. Look, if its the whole passing the torch issue, Nimoy will be ther to do that, they don’t need him nd Shatner both.

34. TK - March 26, 2008

I have to say, looks like he’s in really good shape…………. I LOVE the way they dress him in Boston Legal.

35. Xai - March 26, 2008

The real disgrace is that some people can’t let it go. This is not an all-important thing to the world… it’s a movie. Lives will go on if Shatner isn’t in the cast… and that’s what’s been reported.

Maybe we all need to step back and realize that our favorite is coming back… with some changes. The alternative is NO Trek.

I’ll take the former.

36. MikeG - March 26, 2008

Considering the number of people who want to see William Shatner in the film, considering the fact that this is science-fiction, considering this, considering that, I see no reason at all (other than politics) why Mr. Shatner is not being allowed to assume the role of Capt. Kirk once again. I think he should produce his own “indie” feature and make it available via “ShatnerVision.” If “New Voyages” and “Gods And Men” can do it, why shouldn’t he? That being said, I realize what a pain in the ass it would probably be for a guy who seems to work 24/7/365…

37. Battletrek - March 26, 2008

I love Shatner, hate his sycophants.

38. Garovorkin - March 26, 2008

#36 can you give me one good reason other then a nostalgia why we need kirk in the movie? They killed him off in generations and that is how it should be left. Time to movie on old jim Kirk has left the building.

39. Garovorkin - March 26, 2008

correction typo I ment to say Shatner. I don’t think Politics has anything to do with Him not being in the film.

40. Xai - March 26, 2008

36. MikeG – March 26, 2008
While many people want him back in the chair, you are likely overestimating the number.
Based on what’s been reported he’s not in… because he wanted a big part and the story written does not include an older Kirk. It’s not politics or hate toward the actor or character.

41. krikzil - March 26, 2008

Personally I think we all are overestimating the number of people — beyond us Trek fans — who even care about this movie.

TNG moved beyond the core fandom for a bit but it didn’t sustain the momentum as people lost interest and moved on to something else. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise never got beyond core fandom. Classic Trek did well with the movies but I think that was because of the rabid fandom it enjoyed AND the nostalgic feeling it engendered in people who wouldn’t classify themselves as Trek fans. But even those films were spotty success-wise.

I will always feel that this movie would have been better if Shatner/older Kirk made an appearance simply because the Kirk & SPock characters are iconic and beyond our core fandom. And the fact that Shatner is so very visible now could only help. I’ve encountered so many people who only know him as Denny Crane or for his Priceline commercials. They have absolutely NO interest in Trek..

42. Hat Rick - March 26, 2008

Oh, I don’t know, 41. It’s hardly beyond the realm of possiblity that young people will find Trek “cool” again. Just need to make those excellent toys that helped make Star Wars so much of a franchise, and that require the planning and money necessary to coordinate a marketing campaign.

Besides, there’s really little harm in being optimistic, particularly when there’s so much to be optimistic and hopeful about.

43. Gigastazio - March 26, 2008

That Lego thing looks more like Data than Kirk.

44. Buzz Cagney - March 26, 2008

They could have found a way to put him in, If they wanted to though. Bill not wanting to do a cameo probably didn’t help. He should have done it- as an apology for allowing them to kill Kirk off!

45. Buzz Cagney - March 26, 2008

one other observation- Pine is a good looking guy. In a bland sort of way. But classic Bill was properly handsome. Plus of course that on-screen magnetism that he has. It was a killer combo.
Wonder if Chris can up his game to that level. It will be, er, fascinating to see if he can.

46. Buzz Cagney - March 26, 2008

oh, and another observation (sorry!) the top rated breakfast show radio presenter here in the UK, Sir Terry Wogan on BBC Radio2 recently described Shatner as ‘the greatest TV actor we have’ for his Boston Legal work. Now Tel isn’t easily impressed as a rule, so that was a real compliment.
Damned right he is Sir Terry!

47. Jamie - March 27, 2008

You Americans and your “feeling badly”! :D Presumably, it’s “feeling good” that you do badly? Then again, you probably “could care less” what English people think of your phrases :)

48. Irishtrekkie - March 27, 2008

well there seems to be a lot of kinda buzz around the movie that there will be more on the way , so maybe JJ and team will get shatner in the next one

49. MikeG - March 27, 2008

#38, #40
With all due respect, I don’t think I’m overestimating the numbers of fans who who wanted to see Mr. Shatner in the film… in fact, I think there was a Trekmovie poll which showed an overwhelming percentage of fans in these very forums in favor of Mr. Shatner’s appearing in the film. And yes, I already know he won’t be in the film. (This doesn’t mean I am being negative about the film, itself, and have stated in other posts that I am looking forward to it, and I think very highly of Mr. Abrams and Co.) I also feel that Star Trek has ALWAYS been made primarily for Trek fans, with hopes that something about it might appeal to a wider audience. So, I am not presuming that a non-Trek fan has any preference about Mr, Shatner’s appearance one way or the other. We, here, are Trek fans, and that is who we are all talking to, isn’t it?
Yes, Capt. Kirk was killed off in “Generations.” My response is: so what? For example, Spock was killed off in TWOK, Scotty was killed off in the TOS episode “The Changeling.” Both were restored to life. In science-fiction, ANYTHING is possible, and can even be made to seem plausible. Mr. Shatner did a terrific job of bringing Kirk back to life in his Trek novel. What’s behind the attitude that “Kirk is dead, just leave him there?”
And since anything is possible in sci-fi, I think one can logically conclude there are reasons other than story why Mr. Shatner won’t be in the film, reasons I think would fall under the category of politics. I’m not saying he isn’t in the film because anyone hates him. If Mr. Shatner wanted a “meaty” part, who can blame him? He’s an Emmy-winning actor who has survived the Hollywood grinder for 50-ish years, and I, personally, think he deserves it. When we consider the fact that Paramount refused to let Mr. Shatner “re-visit” STV – even after he offered to foot half the bill – I think one could question Paramount’s attitude toward him. I would call this “politics.” As for the new film’s storyline (which I only know from what I’ve read here) not allowing for “older Kirk,” even I, with limited imagination, could conjure up a number of scenarios which would have allowed for it, at least for the film in my head…
William Shatner has taken a lot of criticism over the years about his career as Capt. Kirk. The fact was (and is) Gene Roddenberry wrote Capt. Kirk as THE central character of Star Trek. Mr. Shatner took his role seriously, and, considering that Capt. Kirk became one of tv/film’s most iconic figures, I’d say he did a fabulous job (and, yes, the entire cast was awesome because you simply cannot think of Star Trek without any of them). Now, neither Mr. Roddenberry nor Mr. Shatner ever said, “No one else can ever portray Capt. Kirk,” and the fact that Mr. Shatner met with Chris Pine indicates a level of support. But William Shatner will go down in history as the man who played Capt. Kirk. Sure, there are non-Trek, non-sci-fi people who may not be familiar with this, but what does that matter to Star Trek fans? As much as Star Trek has always been about great storytelling, vast ideas, etc., it has also been about the fans, and Gene Roddenberry knew this… which is why he fought Paramount over allowing fans to make their own Treks.
So, I think if we keep things in perspective – that Star Trek is primarily aimed at Star Trek fans, and that most people who post here are Star Trek fans, and that most Star Trek fans are also Shatner/Kirk fans -, it seems reasonable to want to see Mr. Shatner as Capt, Kirk again.
Whew, have I left anything out???

50. Clifford Ransom - March 27, 2008


I think you hit the nail pretty much right on the head with your post. I agree with most of your points. Maybe they should have put Shatner in it, just for the sake of the fans and the fact that it was probably Shatner’s last chance to play Kirk.

With that said, I don’t think that anyone should feel bad for Shatner. Not only has he has a pretty decent career outside of Trek, he’s also part of a very successful and relevant series right now, not to mention and Emmy winner twice over.

The idea that Shatner could have done the opening monologue/voiceover for the movie is something I hadn’t considered. This would have been even more fitting than having him resume his role as Kirk. It never sat right with me that it was Nimoy’s voice on the teaser. I’m willing to bet that Shatner would be willing to do this if they approached him.

So listen up, JJ and company. Give Shatner $1,000,000 and have him do the voiceover, got it????

51. star trackie - March 27, 2008

Anyone notice the AMAZING level of secrecy surrounding this movie? Don’t count Shatner out just because no one ever said he was in.

52. Jamie - March 27, 2008

#51 What a cool thought!

53. Crewman Darnell - March 27, 2008

“Who cares if Shatner is in the new movie?”

From the point of someone who as a kid was so inspired by Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk’s character, I must defend the necessity of him retaining his on-going role in any capacity. Hell, I’m required to. He’s my Captain for cryin’ out loud.

54. Ivory - March 27, 2008

It will be very upsetting to many people if William Shatner is not included in the film.

On the other hand. If Mr Shatner was offered a cameo and he turned it down I have little sympathy for him.

55. New Horizon - March 27, 2008

#49 -Yes, Capt. Kirk was killed off in “Generations.” My response is: so what? For example, Spock was killed off in TWOK, Scotty was killed off in the TOS episode “The Changeling.” Both were restored to life. In science-fiction, ANYTHING is possible, and can even be made to seem plausible. Mr. Shatner did a terrific job of bringing Kirk back to life in his Trek novel. What’s behind the attitude that “Kirk is dead, just leave him there?”

Because, they’re trying to give this new cast a chance to stand on their own. They didn’t want to make ‘The Search For Kirk’. Yes, anything is possible in Sci-Fi….but movies are made in the real world…and in the real world, I firmly believe it would take an entire move unto itself to plausibly bring Kirk back from the dead in any way that didn’t simply reek of fanboy’ism.

You think a lot of people simply wanted Kirk in the movie for the sake of having him in one last time? Well…my response to that is ‘so what?’. Fans get so obsessed with a single detail, that they can completely miss the good in anything else. Leave Kirk where he is and let this new cast breathe. Show them some respect.

I’m sorry…but your reasoning lacks any reason. It’s just do it because we can stretch any truth we want in Sci-Fi. Blah

56. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 27, 2008

#8—“He probably REGRETS that Generations put Kirk down in the way they did and wishes that he can go back and fix that. Who knows??”

I’m sure that is true. However, that is hardly the responsibility of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. They have put a great deal of work into writing a story that Paramount felt could revive the franchise in the hands of Mr. Abrams. Requiring them to find a way to resurrect Shatner’s Kirk and still preserve the integrity of the story would only be a handicap. I didn’t like Generations either, but it is done. Who is to say that resoving the issue of Kirk’s death on Veridian III, and making it relevant to the story they want to tell, would not be too much of a stretch? I want to give this team every opprotunity to tell their own story and succeed or fail on their own. If, after it is done, the story would have been better off having resolved this issue, I will be the first to say so. At this point, it is difficult for me to believe that such an approach would not be seen as hokey, corny, and reaching.

William Shatner is doing just fine without Star Trek, and we do not always get to correct our mistakes. Sometimes, it just does not work out that way. He has a successful TV series, endorsement deals, and of course, Shatnervision.

He is looking at this film the wrong way. It is a great tribute (to the character he helped make into an icon) to have such a hot Hollywood name as JJ Abrams involved in a project focused on revisiting these characters over 40 years after Bill Shatner first read lines as James T. (or “R”) Kirk. As I have said many times before, may we all be so well-respected for our work 40 years from now.

I know there are those who post here who feel that there cannot be good Star Trek without William Shatner. That is a ridiculously narrow-minded opinion. What if TPTB had felt that way about Superman? Christopher Reeve may never have put on the Kryptonian Pimp suit and thrilled us all in the late 70’s. I am not, by any means, saying that Chris Pine will make a better young Jim Kirk than Bill did, but he doesn’t have to.

The bottom line is, that there is no way of knowing if or how William Shatner having a major role in this film would have made it better—at least not now, anyway. Until it is released to the public, there is no legitimate substantive argument which points to that—not from Bill or anyone else. So, let’s give it a rest…and give the new team the support worthy of people who are working hard and actively seeking a revival of the wonderful characters we all know and love—-at least until there is a real reason not to (in other words, watch the movie first!).

57. Garovorkin - March 27, 2008

#49 Mike in any good drama characters live and die and thats the way it is. The problem is that if you keep bring back characters from the dead on a whim it kind of undermines the story. Death in a story drama sometimes results from actions choices that a character has made during he story. Death as a consequence to those choices and actions, by bringing back the character, your rendering the whole story meaningless. thats justbad story telling. Kirk died as a consequence of his heroic actions on Veridan 3 trying to save lives, death was he price he had to pay, bring him back cheapens that drama. In the case Spock, yes they brought him back but at a cost. Kirks lost his son David and the Enterprise He wanted to bring his friend back but it wasn’t for free. As for Scotty that one was a kind of a death is a pregnant pause and nothing more weak story no cosequence for your actions drama, of course having an seemingly all powerful plot device like Nomad helps . Im not singling Star trek out on this issue alot of shows and movies cave into this story telling mistake.The anything is possible approach to storytelling is bad storytelling. As for polls of fans favoring Shatner in the movie,I think you will be surprised at How quick that consensus disappears as soon as the movie begins showing in the theaters.
The film is just for the fans its for a much wider audience then that, and as to all the secrecy being a sign that Shatner will be in the movie, I would’nt hold my breath on that one

58. vorta34343403434234 - March 27, 2008

Why hasn’t anybody considered the possibility that the next Star Trek movie with this crew might involve Shatner?

Perhaps it would be going to the old-meets-new well too many times but wouldn’t it be amazing to revisit the “Nexus” idea to have young kirk save old Kirk in some way, allowing for Kirk to live again in the 24th Century?

I would pay to see that, and I’m sure it would have commercial viability too just having Shatner back, even as an old man. I would love to see Grumpy Old Starfleet if they could manage it.

Perhaps too fan wanky, I guess.

59. The Vulcanista - March 27, 2008

#47: Actually, we “couldn’t care less” (that one drives me nuts too!) And if one feels “badly,” converserly, shouldn’t one feel “goodly”? Or perhaps their sense of touch is inoperative. ;-D

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

60. MikeG - March 27, 2008

#55, #57
You both make good points, and I’m not trying to dismiss or dilute your opinions. Again, I’m looking forward to seeing the new movie with or without Mr. Shatner. I, personally, would like to see him in it, just as I’m happy to see Mr. Nimoy in it, that’s all. I’m not saying Shatner should be in the film “just to put him in,” or “just because it’s sci-fi.” Nor do I think the new movie can’t make it without Mr. Shatner. No, I think you are missing my point, but I don’t want to bang on the drum all day. As none of us really knows what the new story will be beat for beat, we can only speculate as to whether or not a part for Shatner would have been doable, or even appropriate… but as Star Trek is sci-fi, I made the observation that anything was possible. I was not demanding that Mr. Shatner should be in the film just because of that.
If you recall, when news of the new film first came out, there was quite a hullaballoo about “Shatner and Nimoy In Talks,” and “Shatner and Nimoy Sign New Contracts With Paramount,” and so forth, so there was quite a bit of expectation that both actors were going to be in it. Obviously, it’s not working out that way. Obviously, Mr. Shatner is disappointed that he won’t be in it, but, at the same time, it’s not like he’s hurting for work.
Now, I have been a Trek fan since ’68, but I wouldn’t call it an obssession. Nor do I consider myself a “canon-freak,” if that’s what you mean by fan-boy. I am just a guy who loves TOS (more than other versions of Trek), and would have loved to see Mr. Shatner in the film, and so I stated my case on that basis. I’m not losing any sleep over it, nor am I bashing the new film or it’s makers. I am hoping the new film will be a major blockbuster, because I want Star Trek to be legitimate again, as it once was. I am VERY impressed with the choices made for the new cast, so I do feel respectful, and I hope they go on to be remembered as the “keepers of the flame.” But, for me, the bottom line is that Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, Takei, Nichols and Koenig will ALWAYS be those characters, and that’s how it is for me.

61. Garovorkin - March 27, 2008

#60 then Mike I would have to say to each his own.

62. Shatner_Fan_2000 - March 27, 2008

#56 … We can debate the issue ’til the Sun burns out. Point/counterpoint, ad infinitum. And we have. The problem with that is that the Shatner issue is not a question of logic. Not really. It’s one of EMOTION.

Those who love Shatner (and many do) would love to see him back in Trek.

Those who merely like him, or simply like the character of Kirk, or don’t like him at all, do not care.

Two different camps created by two different feelings. Period.

63. Garovorkin - March 27, 2008

#62 Shatner fan your right there may never be consensus on this or all the other issues with regard to the film . Of course the sun will burn out in about 5 Billion years so that means that in that time frame maybe just maybe we will all have reached an consensus on this topic at least. The other topics will probably take even more time then that to resolve

64. Ivory - March 27, 2008

Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk + Spock are like Lennon + McCartney.

While it’s cool to see Paul McCartney in concert. It would be about a million times cooler to see The Beatles in concert.

Why have just Nimoy when Shatner wants to be involved?

While I will have a smile on my face the instant Leonard Nimoy walks on screen as Spock. I can’t help to think that the film will not be complete w/out the two of them.

ST XI will be like going to see Paul McCartney in concert when I could have been in the front row for the Beatles reunion.

What a waste of what could have been a very special moment.

Roberto: Please try and find a way

65. Trek Nerd Central - March 27, 2008

These points can be argued until everyone’s blue in the face (or bleeding at the fingertips), but it seems to me there are only two possibilities:

1) Shatner’s definitively not in the movie. . . and there’s nothing we can do about it; or:

2) Shatner’s actually is in the movie but is putting in a highly stylized Kabuki theater imitation of NOT being in the movie.. . and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Either way, there’s no point arguing any longer. I’m excited about Abrams’ re-imagining of Trek no matter what happens, though of course I ‘d love to see the Shat make an appearance after all. (I’m not sure I believe him when he says he knows nothing at all about the film, what with his son-in-law is on the set every day.)

66. Captain Robert April - March 27, 2008

I’m still in shock over the news that Terry Wogan got knighted.

67. Dennis - March 27, 2008

I would be happy just to have him do the opener. No need for a plotline to bring him back to life. The character died a heroes death. That does not mean his voice couldn’t open the move.

68. Irish Trekki - March 27, 2008

Terry…… Wogan……….. Knighted…….?
He is quite the hero! I remember when he did a technology thing for Discovery….. He was hilarious!

69. NTH - March 27, 2008

#56 I simply believe that the single, ligitimate and substantive reason why an appearance by William Shatner in this movie would make it better is because of the nostalgic / sentimental value it would have for his Star Trek fans.This value would be further increased if the Veridian III fiasco was corrected.There has been ample evidence in previous threads of how this could be achieved without involving major storylines .The view that this would simply be pandering to fanboys appears to me to show a lack of understanding or perhaps a disregard for the depth of sentiment that exists as again evidenced by previous threads on this matter.To the best of my knowledge it has never been positively verified that William Shatner insisted on having a major role or for that matter that he was looking for a large sum of money.I agree that there is no obligation on J.J. Abrams et al to involve Shatner or for that matter to deal with the Kirk issue and ,as I have previously said ,I am really looking forward to the new movie however a unique opportunity is being lost here.Star Trek doesn’t need William Shatner to be great

#55 If Shatners absence is to allow the new cast to stand on their own then why involve Leonard Nimoy?We have a new Kirk in Chris Pine and we also have an opportunity to unseal the fate of his character through Shatners involvement.

70. NTH - March 27, 2008

correction to #69 Star trek doesn’t need Shatner to be great but his involvement in this movie would be greatly appreciated by a lot of fans out here.

71. Garovorkin - March 27, 2008

They killed off kirk, they didn’t kill of Spock remember? and thus from a story point it makes more sense to have Nimoy reprising his role then it does Shatner reprising Kirks role. Abrams is doing a movie not to satisfy a few peoples whims of nostalgia.

72. NTH - March 27, 2008

#71 The “anything is possible” approach to story telling has served Star Trek well over the years and far from being weak it has been very entertaining,it is after all science fiction.If a more rigid approach was in place in which a linear development of stories reflected real life including the one way passage of time and death then not only would a new canon be evident but it would also place limitations on the types of stories that could be told.Of course you are right when you point out that Abrams is not making the movie to”satisy a few people’s whims of nostalgia”,he wants to relaunch the franchise,make a box office successful movie and I guess offer his own particular revisioning of the original Star Trek. Kirk was killed off, you are right but remember it was J.J Abrams himself who originally suggested his interested having Shatners involvement in the movie in a hitherto unknown capacity which again opened up the “anything is possible “approach.By the way how do you know that there are only a “few” people among the fans who have a “whim of nostalgia” on this matter? I guess we will have to suffer the long wait to the movies release before we eventually discover if the consensus regarding Shatner’s involvement dissapears .

73. Garovorkin - March 27, 2008

#72 the best type writing doesn’t ignore the rules when they become inconvenient to the over all story. If as a writer you follow the anything goes approach to story telling It means that your not very good at your craft and should seek another occupation. No it has not always served trek well as you seem to believe. Im not singling out trek in all this other scifi series fall into this rather bad mode of story telling. its possible that some technology,in the story should bring a character back from the brink that is in the realm of scif no, but it’s become a crutch in so many stories and has become a problem
Kirk is dead and for the sake of the story should be left so. Good drama needs to reflect certain realities in life and By drama I include all genres.

74. Xai - March 27, 2008

I’d forgotten what FUN these “gotta have Shatner” threads are.

Roberto doesn’t have to “find a way” Principle photog is wrapped.

The director has clearly stated… he’s not in it.

IMO, I’d root for him in this if Kirk hadn’t been killed by Shatner and Berman. I am tired of the “bring ’em back alive” Trek eps and movie. Overdone! Death must have a sting.. a loss, for drama to work. There is no price to be paid by the character if he/she knows they will conveniently be ought back again and again.
“Back from the dead” should be reserved for one guy every couple of thousand years. Ask the man born in Bethlehem.

75. Xai - March 27, 2008

72. NTH – March 27, 2008
“I guess we will have to suffer the long wait to the movies release before we eventually discover if the consensus regarding Shatner’s involvement dissapears .”

What consensus?

Polls Archive
Shatner In Star Trek 2008?

Must Have (33%)
Would Prefer (33%)
Don’t Care (24%)
Don’t Want (10%)

This is not a consensus.

76. Harry Ballz - March 27, 2008

Shatner, being an equestrian, wouldn’t appreciate how most of you are beating this particular horse, even though it’s long since dead!

77. Buzz Cagney - March 27, 2008

#68, oh yes, he is Sir Terry now! He took British nationality so that he could legitimately use it as well! Goda love him.

78. NTH - March 28, 2008

#75 must have+would prefer=66% as opposed to indifference+not wanting=34%,to some this would represent a consensus.

#73 What are “the rules” that apply in the context of Star Trek writing?

79. Garovorkin - March 28, 2008

#78 you might want a few books on story writing Might I suggest Creating Short Fiction by Damon Knight? and if memory serves me Orson Scott card wrote a book or two on how to write good sound science fiction. writing without any constraints or limitations as you seem to like , is just plain poor writing.

80. NTH - March 28, 2008

#79 thank you for your recent comments Garovorkin.I agree that good drama needs to reflect the realities in life in fact my favourite Star Trek movie is Star Trek 3 as it was so dramatic and emotionally engaging.The themes of life,death ,family,revenge ,loss and starting over again were well represented.The resurection of Spock proved to be no obstacle to the dramatic flare that was exihibited.

81. Garovorkin - March 28, 2008

#81 In the search for Spock there was no poof and he was suddenly back from the dead unchanged unaffected, that in one of gripes with scif television, you plugg in some piece of alien technology or some omnicent being comes along and poof the person is back no consequences, reset to zero. In the cast of Spock as i pointed out the resurrection was not with out either cost or consequence to kirk and company, Also in the voyage home Spock was still recovering from his recent resurrection. the way they handled here tthey didn’t up and imvent things spur of the monet writing. Babalon5 Lurine resrrected sheridan but noly gave him part of his life back. Limitations constraints of story

82. Robofuzz - March 28, 2008

Look. We seem to know that time travel is involved. All that is necessary to bring Kirk ‘back’ to life is to somehow alter the timeline just enough that he never dies in the first place. It won’t take a whole movie as some have said. Think about the end of the original Back to the Future (maybe a bad example, but you get the drift). Future events were altered simply by the characters interacting with the past.

83. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 28, 2008

#82—-We also know that the film begins in the post Nemesis 24th Century. A great deal of time has passed and a lot of things have happened since Veridian III. Imagine how altering that timeline in a permanent manner would affect subsequent events and people. Such an event would have to be accidental, or the result of a villainous effort, and not the efforts of someone like the character of Spock, whom you could never convince me would take such unethical action for personal gain or even the life of a friend.

Beyond that, it is imprudent to handicap the writing team with making such a plotline fit within their story. The bottom line is, this is the story which Paramount approved for the revival of Star Trek—-not a Shatner’s Kirk revival. That has already been pitched and rejected.

It is not happening. Principle photograohy is wrapped. Let’s move on.

84. Garovorkin - March 28, 2008

#82 Robofuzz Shatner has left the building he’s not going be in the movie, Kirk died in Generations that was his final bow in the Star trek universe why should that be spoiled by resurrecting him when it really isn’t necessary and it wont serve the story or benefit the move in any way.

#80 NTH one further point I suggested the Damon Knight book not out of Sarcasm but that he could explain what good story telling is far better then I can. Anything goes to me is not good writing. Constant resurrections of beloved characters for no good reason involving a convenient plot device suddenly appearing out of nowhere or just dreamed up by the writer is not acceptable.

85. Shatner_Fan_2000 - March 28, 2008

#83 “it is imprudent to handicap the writing team with making such a plotline fit within their story”

#84 “why should that be spoiled by resurrecting him when it really isn’t necessary and it wont serve the story or benefit the move in any way.”

Like I said before, guys there are 2 completely different schools of thought at work here. I for one have never thought “shoehorning” Shatner into a pre-existing story would be a good idea either (that didn’t exactly work for Generations). Rather, I and the rest of us who love Shatner as Kirk think he SHOULD have been part of the story from day 1. There’d be no need for shoehorning then, would there?

Now that filming is done, the debate really should end. But I still feel that in a few years, when Bill is truly forced to give in to old age and stop performing, or when he dies, this moment in time is going to be viewed by many as a missed opportunity/what might have been scenario.

86. NTH - March 28, 2008

#80 garovorkin,point taken and again thanks.

87. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 28, 2008

#85—“…this moment in time is going to be viewed by many as a missed opportunity/what might have been scenario.”

I think that depends on the level of success this film has on its own, as well as the future (if any) the franchise has in theaters when JJ and co. are done with the planned 3 films.

30 years of performing as one specific character is a long time for any actor, and over 40 years of being the face of that character in the minds of most people is equally significant. Shatner’s work has been honored again and again by Star Trek, and TPTB.

His argument against recasting for the original film series was heeded, and the original cast was allowed to continue making films into the early 90’s.

He was allowed to direct a Star Trek feature film.

He was given not one, but two, opprotunities to take a final bow as James T. Kirk.

I know you are very fond of Mr. Shatner, and it’s probably fair to say that you really can’t get enough of the man’s work, but someone obviously thought that a Shatner’s Kirk revival was NOT the best storyline for a Star Trek film that would bring newer, younger audiences to the franchise, and let’s face it—-bring it back to life.

What you wanted was a movie for existing fans of original Trek. You wanted a movie that shined the light on William Shatner one more time. The truth is, we are the only people who would have paid to see it (and honestly, I never paid to see Generations, and I am a huge fan of original Trek).

When the time does come for Shatner to retire from performing, he will be no less admired for playing James Kirk. Going down the road of Shat again in Star Trek would not alter his legacy. If anything, another Generations-like performance would be embarrassing, and possibly even as detrimental to that legacy as STV (that is my opinion, of course).

It is time for Kirk to, once again, be the action hero Captain and ladies’ man. We have seen Grumpy Old Kirk already. There is nothing left for him to prove. He is doing fine (even after a hip replacement).

I know you disagree, but another Shatner Trek movie would, IMO, remind alot of those general moviegoers why they fell OUT of love with Star Trek movies to begin with.

I am a big sports fan, so I can liken it best to this. It is alot like the old fighter who has had a great career and was adored by millions, and yet you have to watch being embarassed by Larry Holmes, simply because he didn’t know when to move on. I don’t want to pity Shatner on screen again. He was a childhood hero of mine as Jim Kirk. I don’t need that.

It is time to move on for him, and for fans who will not accept that he is just not good as Kirk anymore, regardless of whether his character is dead or not. Shatner as Kirk will not do anything to bring new fans to the franchise. Paramount knows that, the writers know it, JJ knows it, and I (as a longtime fan) know it too.

It was a huge relief to me to know that they did not give in to the handicap of carrying Shatner along for the ride for the sake of old fans, sacrificing their own artistic integrity in doing so.

88. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 28, 2008

#78—I would venture to say that, as much as I have come to love posting here and participating in the polls, there are a lot of people like me (who only stumbled upon this site because they heard something about a new Star Trek movie) who never participated in that poll and many like it. I don’t think that poll is at all reflective of what the general public thinks (or if they even care). It is going to take a lot more than Shatner fans to make this movie a success, and one could even argue that his presence might actually hurt an attempt by the filmmakers to break the mold here.

They obviously want to break some of the general moviegoers preconceptions about Star Trek, in order to get them in to see the movie. I think that Shatner’s participation would be counterproductive to that, as there are as many people who do not like him, as there are those of us who have enjoyed his past work on Trek. Personally, I thought his performances as Kirk from 1966-1986 were great. After that, well…he stopped being William Shatner as James T. Kirk, and started playing James T. Kirk as William Shatner.

I know I sound like a broken record with that, but so does this entire argument.

89. Shatner_Fan_2000 - March 28, 2008

#87 Closet, the endless loop *could* continue by me saying that your “another Shatner Trek movie would remind alot of those general moviegoers why they fell OUT of love with Star Trek movies to begin with” comment does not ring true to me, because I am not asking for a “Shatner Trek movie”, per se. I’ve explained that many times. I was asking for a Trek movie in which Shatner would appear.

Think of it in terms of this simple formula:

-Pine & Quinto STAR. They get the most screentime, they get the fight & action scenes, they get the babes, etc.

-Shatner & Nimoy make FINAL APPEARANCES (in roles larger than cameos, but not as large as those of the stars – which is exactly what Nimoy appears to have gotten), and they exit the saga in happy endings that would very likely be the emotional high point of the film, and place the perfect cap on the first era of Star Trek.

-Pine & Quinto remain to carry the franchise forward from that point on as THE Kirk and Spock of the modern era.

And EVERYONE would be happy. You’d have the 2 main TOS icons in supporting roles, and still have the sexy new cast and big budget effects that are supposed to attract teenagers. Capiche? Bill alongside Leonard in a handful of scenes would in no way at all hurt the new beginning of the franchise, any moreso than elderly actors in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings did (they often turned in the best performances in those 2 sagas!).

Yes … the endless loop *could* continue … or we can just agree with what I’ve said twice in this thread already: we have 2 completely different schools of thought, and leave it at that. I think we oughta let it go. :-)

90. Garovorkin - March 28, 2008

can we all agree not to agree on the Shatner thing? what will further debate and argument serve, Shatner is moving on to other things, including more of those hilarious commercials has been doing. There will always be alot of non trek work to keep the man busy, So he’s not in the film, he’ll solider on and so should the rest of us

91. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 28, 2008

#89—-I’m all for letting it go (with a few parting words, of course).

I have nothing against older actors in appropriate roles, and I agree that a few scenes with Leonard wouldn’t hurt anything, really.


—-Shatner has made it clear that he will not grace you with a cameo role, and even one of those still requires an explanation. So, you may be happy with such a thing, but I think that it handicaps the story.

Unless you are talking about an end of The Godfather II-like flashback scene (which amounts to a cameo), something in the story has to be devoted to explaining why he is there. That, to me, would be a perfect fit for a gratuitous Shat sighting—which IMO, would not hurt the story at all. But for that to happen, Mr. Ego has to lighten up and do a cameo for his hardcore fans. Such a scene could still be filmed, but it won’t happen.

Furthermore, his resurrection must have a purpose. I know you feel like the story should have been written around Shatner’s return, but what if that really isn’t the best Star Trek story that could have been written for this project?

Would you really sacrifice quality for a gratuitous Shat appearance?

Believe me, I am well aware of the possibility that their story may not be as great as I hope it is, but in my eyes—-that is a judgement for May of 2009. Until then, all of this makes perfect sense to me.

I’ll let you have the last word, my friend.

92. NTH - March 28, 2008

#87 Closet,I guess it is fair to say that Shatner’s non involvement is simply a fact now that the principal photography has been completed. Some Trek fans will be happy with this and others won’t. It seems a along time now since .J.J.Abrams first mentioned the possibility of Shatner’s involvement.This has proven to be a divisive subject amongst the Star Trek community.I can’t help but wonder has Mr.Abrams ever regretted speaking publically on the matter.The general public may be unconcerned but the general media has given much publicity to it . Personally I feel let down and I am simply grateful for the opportunity to be able to express this here.

93. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 28, 2008

They say Shat is dead but they have never EVER said, point blank, that Shatman IS NOT in the super, we want to surprise you, armed guards on the set, snipers in the tower super secret Star Trek movie.

Shat does says he’s not in the movie. He’s trimming up and changing his hair color….but he’s sad. He wishes he was in the film. He’s so serious, what he says just HAS to be true. It just HAS to be!!


94. Xai - March 28, 2008

93. Mr. Bob Dobalina – March 28, 2008
“They say Shat is dead…”

What? You mean Kirk? Who said Shatner’s dead?… There is a difference between the actor and the character.

95. Garovorkin - March 28, 2008

#92 Nth with regard to Shatner oh yeah this issue is a very divisive topic that sets everyone going ,my self included. I think with principle filming done it will die down but it’s not going away anytime soon.

96. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 29, 2008

#92—-“I can’t help but wonder has Mr.Abrams ever regretted speaking publically on the matter.”

Probably. I’m sure he thought that he was being polite in not publicly ruling it out from the beginning, but we all end up in situations sometimes where our good intentions actually backfire. That is part of life. You never know how someone else will interpret your actions, and before you know it, you’ve said or done something you wish you could take back. It is really sad that this has become divisive. By allowing it to be such an emotional issue for some fans, it is really clouding the fact that we actually have a new Star Trek movie to look forward to. It is a shame that people are not united, in some cases, in rejoicing about that. Instead, there are those who will find any excuse to hate it, simply because of the Shatner issue (which never should have been laid at the doorstep of JJ Abrams at all). Anyway, outside of places like this, I don’t think anyone really cares, and I wish that everyone would just put this into rational perspective and move on.

97. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 29, 2008

94 “There is a difference between the actor and the character.”

Oh really?? Thanks so much!! I had no idea! Wow.

What about Santa, is he real?

98. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker) - March 29, 2008

Yeah, Xai… is Santa real? The carbon units that infest need this information.

A little touchy there, Mr. Bob.

99. The Vulcanista - March 29, 2008

Of course, Santa is real!! My brother’s credit card statements says so!

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

100. Xai - March 29, 2008

97. Mr. Bob Dobalina – March 29, 2008
94 “There is a difference between the actor and the character.”

Oh really?? Thanks so much!! I had no idea! Wow.

What about Santa, is he real?

Calm down… you are the one talking about Shatner being dead. For all I know you are confused. Need me to give you your quote again?
And what’s a “super”? And is it “they” or “we”?

101. Xai - March 29, 2008

#98 And Santa comes every year…

We gotta get you some soap, man… bad poopey, ick

102. Shatner_Fan_2000 - March 29, 2008


Thank you. All I’ll say in summation is that I now consider this to be a closed issue. I do not believe Shatner is going to be in the movie. But he should’ve been. (Yes, it could’ve been done, without devoting an entire film to explaining it. I’d have even settled for a pre-Kirk death flashback, perhaps Spock recalling their final meeting.) And it irks the hell out of me that J.J. made comments early on insinuating that Shatner might be in it. To say that it got A LOT of hopes up that the 14 year old bad taste of Generations would finally be wiped away from fandom would be a serious understatement. There was an opportunity for a REAL torch passing here – one that Bond fans, Batman fans, and even Superman fans have never had, since those stories usually don’t deal with time travel. A poster showing Shatner and Nimoy’s faces in the background against a starfield, with the young new cast standing front and center, would’ve been awesome, and aroused more interest in theaters than the somewhat bland posters produced thus far. Nimoy will get that chance, but Shatner won’t. Oh f*cking well.

All that remains now is for us to eventually find out why Shatner wasn’t in the movie. Awhile back, Roberto Orci made some VERY intriguing statements on this very site to the effect that he remembers exactly what happened when the new movie team pitched its idea to Shatner, and that he (Orci) might even write about it one day. As I said, pretty intriguing stuff, and it seems highly likely that we fans know little at this point of what went on behind the scenes. But it’ll all come out eventually. Then and only then can we decide for ourselves who (if anyone) was in the wrong.

Yes, I am still looking forward to the movie. Yes, I still want it to be good and be a success. Contrary to opinion, I’ve never been a ‘Shatner or nothing’ fan, but I have a preference. And judging by the passionate reaction and the polls here, yes – Shatner appearing in the movie WAS preferred by about 2 to 1. But I’ll stil be there next May. I love Leonard Nimoy. I love Star Trek. And I was even a big J.J. Abrams fan before his association with this was even announced. Just like you, I’ve got my fingers crossed.

103. Xai - March 29, 2008

At least we all want the same thing… A great Trek.

104. Harry Ballz - March 29, 2008

It will be interesting to see what is, finally, unveiled to us come May 2009!

105. Redjac - March 30, 2008

Why belabor the point of Shatner being in the movie…ain’t gonna happen.

It’s over.

I wish he had been in the film. It would’ve been nice for him to have one last shot at playing the character. But, The Undiscovered Country should have been the last film with Kirk…IMHO. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.