Shatner Hopes Abrams’ Trek Movie Will Save His Trek Novels April 8, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Books, Shatner, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
AOL Movies has a new interview with William Shatner covering the new Boston Legal episodes (where he reveals Denny Crane will be running for president) his upcoming autobiography (which he says will have you “laughing out loud”) and of course Trek. Shat talks about how he feels about not being in the new JJ Abrams Star Trek film, but how he hopes the movie will give new life to his Trek novels.
From the interview
AOL: What’s your involvement with J.J. Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ movie?
Shatner: Everybody knows more about it than I. I don’t even know whether they finished shooting or not. I’ve actually had nothing to do with it. It’s a shame, and I would have liked to have been a part of it, but the people doing it, for some reason or other, thought otherwise, and so I’m not.AOL: Your most recent ‘Star Trek’ novel, ‘Collision Course,’ has a young James T. Kirk storyline. Will you be writing more ‘Trek’ novels?
Shatner: I don’t think so. The publishing company was very negligent on this last novel. I think they may have given up on it, so I would think that would be the last novel from me. Whether J.J. Abrams is capable of reigniting the franchise remains to be seen, and if he does, then perchance it won’t be the last.
Goto to AOL for the other 6 questions covering his famous SNL ‘Get a Life’ skit, his new autobiography and chat show and more.
Bill’s Live Chat to be available online
Many people were frustrated with the ‘live chat’ from ShatnerVision last week. There were a number of issues with the audio and so it really wasn’t possible to hear what Bill was saying. But don’t worry you will still be able to see and hear the chat. The people at ShatnerVision tell TrekMovie.com that the show will available in its entirety (split into segments) later this week.
Until then…enjoy this strange clip of Bill shooting his recent World of Warcraft commercial
If you haven’t seen the final Shatner WoW commercial…here it is:
Loading ...
Comments»
No more Shatnerverse?! The Totality series actually wasn’t that bad. At least in THAT universe Janeway survives! Thank you Peter David…..
Of course, Shatner is worried about himself….;)
I’ve always enjoyed the Shatner written Trek novels. I especially liked the one where he had a life with Carol Marcus. It was very enjoyable and cathartic for me to read.
“Hey Shatner, how do I hurl bolts of lightning” Classic :-)
zzzap!
;)
despite everything they say abou Shatner being arrogant and things like that…I feel bad for not seeing him on Abrams’ Star Trek. Okay….It would ruin the canonicity, of course…..but seeing Shatner and Nimoy together again in the silver screen would be just amazing…..a real Trek celebration.
13 months and 1 day yet………..long time….
]]
I hope its not the last! I feel that the Shatner and his writing team have a better feel for the characters of Trek than many other Star Trek writers. I very much enjoy the Shatnerverse novels, and I’ve read all of them but Ashes of Eden.
I’ve read a lot of Trek books and felt that stories such as “Engines of Destiny” and “The Good That Men Do” just didn’t have a firm grasp on the characters.
Also, the Shatnerverse novels have this way of wrapping up loose ends in the Trek universe.
KEEP WRITING, BILL!!!
Still Captain Kirk as far as I’m concerned….
I, more or less, like the Shatnerverse novels; “The Return” being a personal favorite, esp. making the V’ger/Borg/Spock connection. My issues with his Mirror universe novels were that they are basically a series of escapes and rescues, with not much in between. Good moments here and there, but reading the same escapes and last minute rescues gets a little tiresome. He’s best writing Kirk as a man in his twilight years; that is when the novels really find their voice. His settling down with T’Lani; good stuff there. Started reading the Academy book and it was possibly his worst ever. Kirk and Spock do not read or feel like Kirk or Spock! Kirk calling Spock, “Slim?” But those aside, I still love the “Has Been” CD and his Star Trek Memories books (although they are more Chris Kreski than Shatner prose). And of course as Kirk, he was and always will be….THE MAN!
On a side note, we get a new “Boston Legal” tonight! Yay!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
And I almost forgot, “Free Enterprise” is one of the best movies on fandom EVER made; and it gave Shatner another career to excel at; comedian! It was almost an on camera audition for “Boston Legal.” For a man of 77, he shows no signs of slowing down. Good for him!
Mr Shatner Rules!
Good on yaa mate
Come to New Zealand one day, we dont have Star Trek Cons,,*sigh*
Gees I would love a chat with you
Cheers
“I would have liked to have been a part of it, but the people doing it, for some reason or other, thought otherwise, and so I’m not.”
Cause you let your character die 4 movies ago.
I know its not his fault that he keeps getting asked these questions, but come on. Just say “I would have liked to have been a part of it, but I killed my character 14 years ago.”
“I would have liked to have been a part of it, but the people doing it, for some reason or other, thought otherwise, and so I’m not.”
Which probably really means:
“I told them that I’d only be in it if they make me the star with more lines than anyone else, and that the whole story revolves around me… but for some reason, they thought otherwise.”
#6 Gustavo
Well said.
It would have been fun to see Shatner in this film. I wish the creative team nothing but the best, but they really dropped the ball on this one.
Shatner + Nimoy back as Kirk and Spock would have been Star Trek history. Instead we get half of what could have been a great reunion.
I also don’t want to hear all the Kirk is dead excuses. So was Spock and every other major Star Trek character at one point or another. If tptb truly wanted Shatner they would have found a way.
“The film would be better with William Shatner in it”
- Leonard Nimoy.
#14
If you are correct I would be the first to tell Shatner to go to hell.
Here we go again
Kirk himself said in STVI it was time for a new generation to continue their legacy (I’m paraphrasing). Anyway, time to let it go. Bring on the new team.
Perhaps they’ll fit Shatner into the NEXT one. Lord knows he’ll be willing and able.
I thought the plan was to give the Shatner stories a rest for awhile? Guess it’s not my call…
Not going to be sucked any further into this one. I’m tired of the “bad decision-it’s a shame-don’t need him- JJ screwed up” bashing back and forth.
Sorry Voodoo but I’m going to disagree. The entire second movie was all about Spock’s return. Bringing Kirk back was not the story they wanted to tell.
I also would have loved to see him in the film but he cashed his Generations check and now it has bounced. It is too bad but these guys have a right to tell the story they want to tell and I give them the credit that they are trying to stay within canon whether they like the events or not.
I look at it this way…
The story is rumored to revolve around something happening to a young Captain Kirk, something that results in older Spock having to travel back in time to correct this wrongdoing. Because of this, older Spock becomes an integral part of the story along with younger Kirk.
Continuity issues aside (i.e. ST: Generations), to place Shatner in the film would only serve as a parody of “his” Kirk. I believe #14 hit the nail on the head, except rather than infer Shatner’s ego, I believe it is an issue of quality. I have to admit, seeing Shatner basically playing a cameo next to Nimoy’s integral Spock would be disheartening and awkward.
So in this case, I agree with JJ when he says shoving Shatner in for the sake of fanboys like me would be a big disaster- and look forced at the same time.
The only practical way to put Shatner in the new film would have been to devote it entirely to explaining that Kirk is not dead. Remember, it took an entire film to resurrect Spock. I, for one, do not want to watch that movie.
Shat’s novels should be canon, his rousing penned adventures on Kirk’s return have been breathing fresh life into the otherwise dark void that has been Trek for the past 14 years.
Shat is Trek’s greatest author this side of DC Fontana!!
He spent all that time with laughs for the commercial and they just decided ‘To hell with the laughs’ when they were done. That tickles me.
Not that it matters and of course it’s not going to be done.
But if there is various time travel moments or flashbacks involved in this film,
how hard would it have been to film a sequence from a time frame prior to Kirks death ? it doesnt mean bringing back Kirk from the dead or having to take an entire movie to explain him being around either.
if the older Spock is indeed retrospecting or reminencing about moments in the past, just a flashback or a time sequence with him and Kirk (before The Enterprise B accident ) would not have been so difficult to create . no one ever said that Kirk had to be brought back to life. LOL :-)
His novel ashes of Eden was not bad, the return I just could not get into.
Ashes of Eden was really good. The Return was very good, too. Then it got really weird and bizarre and convoluted with characters. Then they got into the Mirror Universe, and I don’t know where they are now? But remember, when the first few novels came out, over 10 years ago, many of us were itching for any kind of TOS story, especially a return of Kirk.
Not having Shatner won’t do much either way for the younger fans, or potential new fans. However, for loyalists like me, I have to tell you, I’m really not all that pumped for this one. Particularly having to wait another 13 months from now. I am just not a fan of prequels, and have never seen one work to my satisfaction…..ever. This could be the exception, we’ll see, I think my main problem will be every time I see something that goes against canon or doesn’t jive with the TOS, I will get annoyed, and it will ruin the movie for me. That’s just the way I am. I would much rather if they’d used completely new characters, or admittedly thrown canon somewhat out the window.
NON CANON!!! In 2218.2 Kirk was too young to be a cadet this totally ruins the timeline and me & my bridge crew will totally boycott this movie!!!
Wow, is the internet big enough to hold Shatners ego?
Why not a star trek tv movie explaining how captan kirk was revived by the borg after Generations. Also instead of a new Star Trek series, have monthly 2hr specials revealing different new stories from the various incarnations of Trek .
I really like the shatnerverse books. I hope he keeps writing. The Academy book was interesting.
Agree with Theo - I have advocated an anthology “Tales of Starfleet” TV show as a good way to save the series. Do you know what kind of guest stars would line up to play a starship captain, without having to commit to a series?
Shatner throwing punches on Boston Legal tonight like a man half his age, Like hmmmmm a certain greatest Trek Captain hmmmmmm. Brings a tear to my eye seeing him throw punches.
Kirk can’t live forever even in book form, they say in fiction that no one really dies, but thats not the truth, all things fade away in time. I wonder if trek will fade away as well? I am trying to set off any arguments it’s just a thought that’s all.
FOX NEWS ALERT!!!
someone’s found the Enterprise on Google Maps,
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Starship+Enterprise&sll=32.990236,35.771484&sspn=36.341974,58.535156&ie=UTF8&ll=30.01452,31.105578&spn=0.009253,0.014291&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A
holy crap
28. TREK_OFFICIAL - April 8, 2008
“NON CANON!!! In 2218.2 Kirk was too young to be a cadet this totally ruins the timeline and me & my bridge crew will totally boycott this movie!!!”
Your “non-canon” pronouncements are still old, but at least you finally learned to spell canon.
#34: It’s true that most things do fade away, but every now and then something seems to latch on to something very long-lived. People are still writing (and presumably purchasing) new adventures of Sherlock Holmes, for example, and a large stable of superheroes who are older than Trek is … I think if anything has a shot of at least surviving a century or two, Star Trek does. It may fade in and out now again; these things are often cyclical and generational.
Foggy stuff, the future. I just hope there’s velour and miniskirts.
Shatner was great on Boston Legal again tonight, demonstrating his versatility by switching from the usual comedic schtick (the “tear machine” bit had me LOL) to a moment of real pathos when Denny began breaking down in his office. I wish the writers of BL would give him more dramatic moments like that, so that those who mistakenly think he can “only do comedy now” would realize just how wrong they are. The man is an old-school, classically trained, consummate ACTOR.
- It’s a shame… -
That sums it up perfectly.
- Is retirement out of the question? -
- I don’t know what to retire to. -
Priceless.
34. Garovorkin: S. John Ross speaks true. Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise have entered Americana long ago. They reside shoulder to shoulder with Tarzan, Holmes, Superman, Batman and the like. They will not be doing any fading away.
A question: Can someone explain to me why the Borg had even a remote interest in reanimating a rotten corpse? I read one of Shatner’s novels but after suffering through the mistreatment of every character not Kirk or originated by Shatner (Sarek’s portrayal upset me the most), that was my first and last attempt at what has obviously become a parallel universe in Star Trek novels. I’m serious in asking this question, since everyone else on this board seems to know the reanimation story. Please enlighten me what it’s all about.
#40
Exactly. And because Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk and Nimoy’s portrayal of Spock made sure that those characters went up into that league and became archetypes, the actors’ relevance won’t fade away either.
TrekOfficial
the not canon this has been warned before as trolling and just plain old and annoying. Next one = ban
The Borg re-animating Kirk is simply ridiculous. What’s the point?
There are so many “Trek” ways to do so. I’d rather have Q snap his fingers. It would take one second, and we wouldn’t have the Borg as a silly subplot.
Or simply have old Spock tell young Spock to plant a suggestion in Kirk’s mind to avoid the ENT-B’s shakedown.
The problem is that Kirk died in a half-assed way in a mediocre movie. For JJ to reference “Generations” gives that film it far more cred than it deserves.
I still don’t understand the reason, why Shatner can’t be in the movie.
JJ Abrams said that the only reason Shatner is not in the movie is, because Kirk died in Generations.
This means that the movie is set after those events, in the TNG-era. But Kirk would be dead in this era nonetheless, even if the events in Generations never happened. He would have died by old age long ago. So the reason JJ Abrams states for Shatner not being in the movie cannot be the true reason. There is something else behing all this.
#45–There is no reason Shatner can’t be in the movie. Just a weak excuse that holds no water except to people that would buy anything Abrams says anyway.
Kirk died in Generations and that’s pretty much reason enough. I know there are still some trek fans out there who just can’t accept that Shatner is not going to be in the movie, well he isn’t and that it. I’ve heard some say that he should be there to pass the torch, and my answer to that is , that he did that in Generations. Abams is not making this film soley to please a few trek fans.
#25:
>>”how hard would it have been to film a sequence from a time frame prior to Kirks death ?”
Not hard at all, assuming a reason existed for such a scene.
The problem is this: Shatner is beyond the point of being able to play a credible Kirk. (Unless Kirk fans want to see their hero played as a paunchy elderly retirement village resident.) Nimoy is able to play a credible Spock because he has not gained weight and because his character developed and aged over the years, more or less in keeping with Nimoy’s own aging. For whatver reason, the character of Kirk was not allowed to do this in any serious fashion.
Frankly, my own guess is that Kirk is not in the film because Shatner’s demands, financial and otherwise, couldn’t be met.
Also, most importantly, because a movie involving Kirk’s resurrection could not relaunch the franchise. You can’t do sequels with a new Kirk, et al, when the original one is running around alive.
Dave # 25
Is 100% correct. If this film is about time travel, flashbacks and alternate universes there was only one reason why Shatner was not in this film. That reason is that they simply didn’t want him.
Jake #14
You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps they did offer him a cameo and he turned it down. If (and if it’s a big if) Shatner turned that cameo down I would not feel as sorry for him as I do now.
I do think that Shatner not being in the film is a mistake on the film makers part. What reason would they have to not include him in a film that deals in time travel/alt universes?
#47–Kirk’s death in Generations is NOT reason enough. This is Star Trek, where anything can happen, and from what we know of the plot, there is time travel involved. Generations happened in 1994. Abrams knew about it years before he took on the project. Yet he was allegedly trying to get him into the movie, and when it was botched, he used that movie as a weak excuse. Generations has nothing to do with it. The whole movie seems to be about time travelling to save Kirk’s life. If that’s the case, then there is no excuse not to ensure Kirk survives to have at least one Shatner/Nimoy scene.
#49 is right–they didn’t want him. But instead of simply saying that from the beginning, they gave Shatner fans a false hope when they never had any intention of even negotiating with him. Shatner has never even seen the script. He was never offered anything. Hell, Shatner wasn’t even given the courtesy of a phonecall by Abrams telling him he wasn’t in the movie. Nimoy had to tell him.
All Abrams accomplished by the mishandling of the Shatner situation was to cause a bitterness in ,many Shatner fans that were actually looking forward to this movie as a chance to finally get some justice for a character that Berman butchered.
#50 If as a writer you follow the anything goes approach to writing , it simply means your not very good at your craft and you be doing something else for living other then writing . Kirk is dead and thats it. You can’t keep bringing a Character back because you miss him.
The lion’s share of remakes/reboots/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them put out these days are TOTAL…CRAP.
I truly hope this one is not part of the lion’s share.
#51–if you can’t figure out a way to save a character in a universe WHERE anything goes, you are not good at your craft. Death is not permanent in Star Trek, especially in time travel situations. By your logic, the whole plot of the movie, at least what we know of it, is flawed. Bad guy travels back in time to kill Kirk. Spock tries to stop him. Without Spock’s interference therefore, it is safe to assume that James T. Kirk first, will never be born, or killed at a different age. Either way, this movie is more likely than not about saving the life of James T. Kirk. There is no difference between saving Kirk from one time travel related death, or another.
And again, Generations was ALWAYS there. But Abrams publicly said he was trying to get Shatner in the film, and did NOT mention Generations until long after the Shatner debacle came to a head. If Generations were his legit reasoning, he would have said so at the very beginning and not led everyone on for a year. And worse, well after Shatner announced he wasn’t in the movie, Abrams STILL said he was “desperately trying to get Shatner in the film.” He was so desperate that he never bothered to show Shatner a script or call him aside from a couple of early on meetings.
Generations has absolutely NOTHING to do with Shatner’s absence from this movie. Abrams just didn’t want him.
I used to think having Shatner in the film would be a good thing, but I really think any opportunities to play Kirk are behind him. For a lot of reasons…
We are all only assuming that the new film involves a time travelling Spock. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. We just know it involves Nimoy’s Spock.
As I’ve said, I don’t think Shatner can play a Kirk that I want to watch. Others may disagree.
From the point of view of CBS and Paramount, who hope this film launches a series of sequels, bringing Kirk back to life would open up a can of worms that would need to be resolved in the sequels, and that would constrain their ability to make the kind of movies they want. I.e., movies about a young Enterprise crew.
Resurrecting Kirk is simply too big of an albatross to hang around the script writers necks. If he’s resurrected in this movie, then the next movie must either include him again or explain his absence. And, so on.
#47: “Abams is not making this film soley to please a few trek fans”
Who do you think sees these movies??? Who do you think buys the DVDs??? Read the novels??? Post on this site??? Yeah, I do WANT to be pleased by Star Trek, as I had been in it’s better days!
#56: Yes, we all want to be “pleased.” But, there aren’t enough of us around to ensure the financial success of any new Trek film. Time to move on.
#57: “there aren’t enough of us around to ensure the financial success of any new Trek film. Time to move on”
The new movie has two things going against it, one it’s ST and people who aren’t fans aren’t being pulled in, never have & never will. Second with the film’s release pushed back 13 months, even the most fanboyed of us will be bored with the subject long before then!
It’s time for fresh concepts, not grave robbing—-let Trek RIP & lets move on. I mean, geez, can’t anyone in Hollywood be original anymore???
If Kirk had not died in Generations, and lived in until the era from which “old” Spock will be sent, he’d be so old and haggard that the scenes would be anti-climactic to say the least. He’d be worse than McCoy in Farpoint, and would simply weigh down the film.
He would have to be Kirk-from-the-late-23rd-century, who somehow managed to show up with 24th century Spock during his own academy days. How did he do it? Why? How much time do we need to spend figuring it out?
For the story, as it is now, it just creates a bogus sub-plot. They could, however, give him the opening narration, and after 167 takes, he may just get it right.
I have enjoyed the Shatner novels if only to have a reason for Kirk to continue beyond Generations–not meaning that they were always the greatest plot-wise but they were fun.
As for Generations and the new Trek movie: I think Abrams and others have indicated that they would have loved to include Shatner but that the story they chose to tell would not allow them to include him without additional “exposition” to explain his being alive or telling another story altogether.
Think about it: how many episodes of the various Trek series were able to include every character in a meaningful way? The new movie has the same dilemma in that they worked out a story but recognized that in order to be true to that story and not just the whim of the fans (or their own desire to include Shatner), they needed to make some decisions that will make this a great movie and not just a fan film. I think we need to wait and see the final product before we make a judgment on the wisdom of not casting Shatner.
Just be glad there is going to be a new Trek movie and enjoy the teasing for the next year!
I Love My Moogie: Star Trek films have achieved financial success in the past due to the non-core audience who want to catch a flick with the kiddies on the weekend. IV was extremely sucessful, and spawned the re-emergence of Trek as episodic television. TNG episodes cost $1 million dollars per hour to produce all those years ago, and it wasn’t just the fans watching. If so, they would have pulled it.
The fans are the minority in terms of viewership of these films. Sure, we’ll see them 10 times, buy all versions of the DVD, etc., but the general population has more of an impact on success than we (the fans) do.
Actually, if Kirk had not died in Generations, he would have still been thrust into the 24th century via the nexus and been the same age Shatner is now. Regarding Abrams “loving to include Shatner in the movie,” he didn’t even show him the script, and didn’t get beyond preliminary meetings. He used Generations as an excuse. And it really wouldn’t involve much exposition. A 30 second clip could accomplish everything. One line. Either could establish that yes, Kirk died in Generations. And realistically, by using Nimoy’s Spock, does anyone believe there is NO mention of Generations?
#55–you’re right about one thing–we don’t know 100 percent that it involves a time travelling Spock, but we do know that there are scenes throughout Kirk’s life, in several time periods. We know that Nimoy’s Spock has a significant role, and does have scenes with younger versions of the characters. I’m also pretty sure time travel has been confirmed, but not 100 percent sure.
Whether Spock physically time travels or not, the bottom line is that future Spock will be in contact with past versions of the characters and interacting with them. It’s not just Nimoy flashing back to his days as a Quinto.
People love nostalgia. Shatner’s absence from this movie was actually national news. He still can pack them in. Do we want Shatner doing classic young Kirk moves? No. But that’s what Pine is for.
Kirk’s return isn’t the albatross. His death is. In a movie where the main plot is to save Kirk’s life, to do so at every point EXCEPT Generations is a huge mistake. And the box office will be hurt.
#53 But he died in generations, granted some of your points have merrit. The problem is that in any good drama death is often the consequence of choices made by the character, In kirks case he died saving lives. If you just go back in time and save him, then what was the point of his heroism, it becomes meaningless. Death as a pregnant pause is biggest crutches in scif, that and finding a convent alien artifact that can magically bring back the character poof no consequences, bad writing. There always has to cost and consequence for actions you can’t negate it because you didn’t like the outcome of the story. Im not singling out trek because alot of scif commits this sin.
If we would be just glad to have a new Trek-movie, then we would willingly accept everything TPTB do. And I am not willing to do that. If there is something that I don’t like about the movie, I am not watching it. Period. I am not watching a movie just because it is Star Trek.
#61:”Star Trek films have achieved financial success in the past due to the non-core audience who want to catch a flick with the kiddies on the weekend”
WHAT????? First, STIV was 22 years ago, if that’s the most recent audience crossover example you can offer, it’s truly time to call Trek films a wrap!
ST films have been busts at the box office for a VERY long time, even the beloved TWOK never made the money of TMP, only the much lower budget made it profitable. TSFS made less than Khan, TFF, TUC & GEN made less than Voyage Home and INS & NEM were complete bombs. FC was the last Trek film to create any box office buzz & that was 12 years ago.
Also, since when have Trek films been ‘kiddie’ films? The Klingon bloodbath in TUC? The PG-13 rated FC & NEM? TWOK (along with Superman II & Raiders of )the Lost Ark) was as one of the films used as an example for creating a PG-13 rating! Or do you think blood soaked eels crawling out of ears is family friendly?
We here are the core audience, we are all fanboys & fangals and it’s foolish to believe Trek has ever been mainstream.
#62—Shatner’s last ST movies did not do well enough for you to definitively say that he can “still pack them in”. What you mean to say is obviously that “he can still pack you in”. Paramount did not wish to make a new ST film about Shatner’s return. If Paramount believed that the box office would be hurt by Shatner’s absence, then they would obviously made signing him to a deal a prerequisite for their script, production, and budget approval. They did not. They did, however, approve Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman’s script, along with the premise that JJ Abrams would direct a new Star Trek film aimed at steering new audiences toward the franchise.
There is nothing to indicate that a Shatner’s Kirk resurrection would benefit the story, and if it does not, its presence would not likely fit within the story’s continuity. His return should not be shoehorned in just to placate those fans who are still upset over what Shatner and another production team did to the character in Generations. This is not a problem which should have been laid at the feet of Mr. Abrams or the film’s writers.
As for misleading statements by the Abrams camp, I am sure JJ thought he was being polite by appearing open to the possibility. Who has not experienced the feeling of starting out with good intentions, only to find they have offended? The bottom line is, JJ’s statements do not make the real issues with Shatner’s return go away.
Bad Robot should not be handicapped with the Shatner issue, and I am glad that they protected the artistic integrity of the writers on said issue. I love Shatner as Kirk from 1966-1986. The reality is, it hasn’t been good to me since. I will always remember William Shatner as James T. Kirk. I would rather forget James T. Kirk as William Shatner…It is time to move on… The film has… so should you.
No use crying over spilt tranya, everyone. It’s over. Filming has wrapped. Shat ain’t in it. I’ll always feel that he should have been, but there’s nothing that can be done at this point.
All I’m waiting for now is the eventual making of book/article that’ll shed light on why it didn’t happen. Should be interesting.
Shatner has left the building it’s time to move on better and bigger trek related arguments.
I agree with Garovorkin, time for a new subject—-anyone notice how cruel time has been to Denise Crosby?
I still think he’s gonna be in it. I think Shatner is putting on an act. He is the only one really saying anything about it over and over.
As I have said here before, if the plan was to have Shatner all along (and I believe it was) then there was NO way they were going to tell anyone. Spock is central to the story in an active way. Kirk in a passive way. So Bill won’t have a large part. So he is the ace in the hole. He will be part of the hype when the movie is set to debut and will be the big surprise.
And *I* will be surprised if this ends up being wrong. LOL
But until I see or know diff, thats my two cents.
Just seems to match the M.0.’s of all concerned.
But regardless my point is if he is in it, theres no way any one is telling us that.
Classic Trek always was about an intriguing friendship that went with us for almost four decades, impressively portrayed by two wonderful actors. XI surely will provide the audience with adventure and exploration, and maybe even the new actors will be able to portray some sort of “pre-historic” relationship, the beginnings of the friendship that has become so famous. But by sparking the Shatner controversy and by making that decision, the makers of XI have made it impossible to once again re-capture the full magic that is the cornerstone to Classic Trek’s uniqueness.
But then, that magic is actually unique to Classic Trek.
#45
Good point.
I Love My Moogie:
I remember, I think it was Dennis Bailey almost a year ago, said that the Trek core fanbase in the USA is about 2 million people (Dennis, please correct if I am wrong or mis-remembered).
I am not sure, of the current $10 ticket, how the revenues are split
amongst the cinemas and the studios. But at $150m budgeted, JJ better pull in a lot more than that or else he’ll be flipping burgers in 2010.
Yes, IV was 22 years ago, and there was no Trek on the air. Now there is no Trek on the air as well. There has to be some reason why Paramount would go for this, and we are not it.
Our blessing is necessary, because in this viral age, we will be “ambassadors” (free word-of-mouth advertisers) to friends and family who may ask us if it’s worth seeing because we’re the “experts” on things Trek. But our contribution to revenue will be small.
Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff followed by an anvil, which we hear land on top of him, is more violent than a Ceti eel or purple gobs of Klingon blood.
Kids used to watch this stuff all the time. And Trek is not Reservoir Dogs. With proper parental guidance, the good message of a Trek film can be conveyed beyond the cartoon violence within. The young’uns will be key to the merchandising effort of ST11, and to its continued longevity.
.
#71 sez: Classic Trek always was about an intriguing friendship that went with us for almost four decades, impressively portrayed by two wonderful actors.
I agree. It’s a shame one of them isn’t with us anymore :(
#73 Well then John Ross, to the future a new era in trek is about to dawn for all of us and that is something to look forward to. Ill tell it has quite the big shoes to fill. Now if only Paramount could be good enough to give us a peek at our late Christmas present.
Garovorkin, there is no new era awaiting, no dawn to greet the rising sun. Please remember what Spock said in Amok Time, having is not always as pleasing a thing as wanting! In your eager anticipation for this film, you may find out next May you’ve been had!
Shater is a legend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#61:
>>”TNG episodes cost $1 million dollars per hour to produce all those years ago, and it wasn’t just the fans watching…”
Absolutely. My mother, definitely not a Trek fan, enjoyed watching TNG because of the characters. She was interested in what happened to them, not about science fiction trappings. That’s fundamental to the success of any TV or film series.
#62:
>>”Kirk’s return isn’t the albatross.”
Yes, it certainly would be.
The people making this film cannot assume that any viewers will actually have seen any previous Trek films or TV shows. That means they just can’t slp in a 30-second throwaway clip resurrecting Kirk with some fast talk about Generations. They can’t assume the audience knows Kirk died in Generations.
That, in turns, means they’d need to lumber through a lot of exposition explaining the circumstances of Kirk’s demise, giving it enough time and significance that Kirk’s revival carries a dramatic impact for evertyone, not just for the fanboy minority.
Then, having done that, they’d need to figure out what to do with Shatner-as-Kirk in the sequel films.
None of that would appeal to me if I was gambliing on reviving the franchise.
Besides, why would Paramount risk having a continuing dependency on the availability of 77-year old actors?
This movie is intended to be a broad mainstream hit, not just a narrowcast targeting us fanboys. They’re going after the same audience that bought tickets for any other Abrams film.
#75—” In your eager anticipation for this film, you may find out next May you’ve been had!”
That makes no sense. Right now, there is zero Trek going. Even if JJ makes a bad ST movie, there is really nothing to lose. We don’t have anything new anyway! There is no way to be “had”, as you say. It is only going to cost me $10 and a couple of hours. I’ll either have good new Trek, or I’ll have exactly what I had going in—the same old dvd’s and reruns. They cannot take that away from me either way. I don’t see the problem…
A lot of the complaints about Shatner’s non-presence in XI echo, to me, the stuff I heard back in 1986 and early 1987 how TNG couldn’t possibly work because it didn’t star the original actors. Those folks were proven wrong. I’m a big fan of TNG, but whether you are or not, I think those arguments are long disproven. Whether or not STXI achieves that success remains to be seen, but I, for one, will not base my enjoyment of XI solely on whether or not Shatner is in it. If XI is good Star Trek then it will work for me. If it isn’t, it won’t. It’s really just that simple.
James T. Kirk died in Generations. While I do definitely have some gripes with that movie (mainly the lame way in which they pointlessly destroyed the Enterprise-D and paved the way for the godawful Enterprise-E), I always felt Kirk’s death in that movie was final. No katra, no “Remember”, no Genesis Effect, no Fal-Tor-Pan, nada. Kirk died making a difference, let him RIP.
I remember reading Star Trek Movie Memories, and I remember how hard it was for Shatner to kill Kirk. But I also remember how tough it was for him to sit there next to Patrick Stewart on horseback and publicly refer to Jean-Luc Picard as “the captain of the Enterprise”. I just can’t imagine Shatner agreeing to anything less than a major role in XI, and I don’t think that’s the movie Abrams wants to tell. I don’t know how big of a role Leonard Nimoy is playing, but I think Mr. Nimoy’s relationship with Spock is mature enough to allow him to play in a movie with Zachary Quinto as Spock too, without his ego getting in the way of things. As much as I respect WIlliam Shatner, I just can’t see that with him.
Star Trek is not William Shatner, and William Shatner is not Star Trek. William Shatner’s contribution to Star Trek is momumental and should never, ever be forgotten. But Star Trek has moved on. As fans, we should too. We will always have TOS, and no one can ever take that away. Let XI stand or fall on its own merits, not whether or not Shatner’s name appears in the closing credits.
It amazes me that people still complain about him not being in the movie. There couldn’t possibly be a worse way to ruin a movie than by shoehorning Shatner into a script just for nostalgia! Give Abrams a chance, he may surprise you.
I can’t believe that this is still going on. Each Shatner thread is the same.
Ensign Newbie:
“Captain, we’re caught in a feedback loop. We’ve been saying the same things over and over for months…”
Captain Ego:
“Ridiculous, Ensign. We just left Starbase 9 a few hours ago.”
Sheesh.
kg
kg
kg
oops. Feedback loop…
Lyle:
Nimoy is retired as an actor, and I think it’s quite significant to see that he’s donning the ears one last time for JJ Abrams. He brings in fewer mainstream viewers than Shatner would.
Shatner is active on Boston Legal, and doing ads for Priceline and Blizzard.
Nimoy is a professional photographer coming out of retirement as an actor for this role.
Nimoy is doing the role out of a perceived reverence by JJ for a character he portrayed many years ago. He’s not looking for his next acting gig, or even a big paycheck. But he cares for Spock, and, with a good script, will pass the torch to the next generation.
And as you mentioned, JTK is actually dead. Fell off a bridge and died. He could only come back big, and this film will not allow him to do so.
#83 It will be fun to see him don the ears one last time and somehow a little bit sad, the passing of the torch and the end of Era, that will be the last time any of the original cast members are likely to be seen in any trek film, but i could be wrong.
#82
Captain James the Great during a leap in time, reading one of those threads:
“We humans are full of unpredictable emotions that logic alone cannot solve.”
#70 “But regardless my point is if he is in it, theres no way any one is telling us that.”
Exactly. If Shat is in this film….which I think is very likely…the powers that be, including Shatner, are NOT going to tell us.
Remember we have NEVER ever heard “SHATNER IS NOT IN THIS MOVIE” from anyone other than Shatner.
Neither JJ, the writers or the studio have ever categorically denied, flat out that Shat is not in this movie. It’s always…”we’d like to put him in, if we can find a way…but he died, so it’s difficult. ”
Don’t count him out just because youhaven’t been told he’s in.
75. I Love My Moogie: Ah, Moogie, as positive and cheery as usual. How can anyone who uses Love in his nick be such a Hata? ;)
78. justcorbly: Nimoy and Shatner nor anyone else from the orgiginal cast will be in any future movies past Star Trek 0 I am sure. (Unless they do easter egg cameos as other characters of course.) This movie is the torch passing ceremony. Which is all the more reason I believe Shatner will be in it. A touching scene with his old friend Nimoy near or at the end.
79. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker): Perhaps 10 bucks is to Moogie like it would be to Jack Benny. Heh.
82. Katie G.: It no big deal, KG. Chill out. :) Just think of it as a running debate…okay….a marathon debate. :).
81. Dansk &
83. AJ: The bringing him back big thing IS already in the movie. The story revolves around protecting Kirk. It would be easy as pie to give one last goodbye to the older Shatner Kirk with this type of story. You can do it without any baggage. The mainstream fans don’t know about it, the Trek fans don’t need to be spoon fed or knocked over the head. So you just shoot a scene with Nimoy and Shatner that folds into the story how it needs to and voila. The guys making this movie eat and drink this stuff for breakfast. If its there it will be great.
86. star trackie: My fellow genre fans are really bad about jumping to conclusions in a Chicken Little sort of way sometimes, bless their hearts. :)
Re: #87 Morgie
Nothin’ to chill. I’m just amazed that these people are so indefatigable.
kg
FOr what it’s worth, I believe JJ wanted Shatner in the film but Shatner said “I don’t do cameos”. I think it is very unlikely Bill balked for financial reasons. The story that Abrams and Co. wanted to tell likely included a moment with the original Kirk and Spock, but Shatner doesn’t do cameos. I was very dissapointed when I saw him say that on one of his Shatner-vision video blogs. I can understand having that additude if your once-great career had wound down to joke status, but honestly, I’m not sure what Shatner would stand to lose. I’d love to be wrong, but my gut feeling is that he’s not in this film. I will definately see it anyway.
@#55 - “Resurrecting Kirk is simply too big of an albatross to hang around the script writers necks. If he’s resurrected in this movie, then the next movie must either include him again or explain his absence. And, so on”
I think that’s flawed reasoning. I seriously doubt JJ is planning on including Nimoy’s Spock in ST12 (or are you suggesting he’ll be killed in this picture?) Nor do I see any reason why ST 12 would have to explain anything about what the characters were doing in their old age - let alone take place in that time period. If that was the intention, why bother recasting all the parts in the first place? No, I’m pretty sure that this is the last hurrah for Star Trek of the 1960s and we’ll see the new cast from here on out if we see the 23rd century again.
I just hope it’s a great story.
#74: I hope that’s true. I think its way too early to say for certain, but I sure do have my hopes :)
I wish people wouldn’t Judge the movie unitl they SEE IT! Also Trek movies do appeal to more then just the fan base….there are “Normal People” who like trek but not to the extreme that most hardcore fans love trek. I for one have seen people who in public never admit they like trek but they look foward to the Next movie or TV series,ect.
#78
Then why include Nimoy? Why make this film fit with canon? Why no true reimagining?
You can’t deny that many people still recognize Shatner as Kirk and Nimoy as Spock.
My father grew up with TOS. I remember watching with him the TOS movies in the cinema. He didn’t like TNG or any other series, this wasn’t his Trek. I grew up with both. Thus I believe a movie with the old actors, with Shatner and Nimoy would lure not only the nowadays Trekkies into the cinema but the older generations as well, because they remember Shatner and Nimoy and want to see them together again. I, who grew up with TNG and TOS, would love to see them together again. Plus the new actors, the new designs, the new adventures would lure a new audience to the franchise, too.
So you would have three generations of viewers for one movie.
And I also believe that the only group of those three caring about the fact that Kirk died in Generations and cannot be brought back due to some Trekkie-reason is the nowadays Trekkies. The others simply wouldn’t care. So why should TPTB do without Shatner in the movie just to please one of those three groups or better some people of this one group as there are many in this group wanting to see Shatner, too?
Is this Star Trek or Shatner Trek? If its the latter I think I’ll pass.
#92: The Powers That Be would do without Shatner, or anyone else, if they believed it would decrease the film’s commercial appeal.
If you take them at their word that they intend to be faithful to Trek, then including Shatner in the film would simply eat up too much time. It would be either the primary plot or a rather large secondary plot.
Failing that, they could just toss in a few “Kirk isn’t dead” lines and move one. But, that would be shoddy and irresponsible.
Kirk was not, and is not, the centerpiece of the Trek universe, much to Shatner’s dismay. He allowed his character to be killed off because he did not want to play Kirk any more. Whimpering about it today is tacky.
#94 “He allowed his character to be killed off because he did not want to play Kirk any more.”
Totally false. Bill has always loved playing Kirk. He allowed him to be killed off because Paramount made it very clear they were done with TOS movies. He also had an idea for Kirk’s resurrection in case they changed their minds.
And there is a difference between “whimpering” and stating an opinion. I think all the “whimpering” is going on here.
#95—I think he pitched that idea, and Paramount was uninterested. I, for one, am glad. The original cast was great, but time marches on. I think it is great that the new film has a rather centric role for Nimoy’s Spock, and it is likely to be a memorable final bow, in transition to what will hopefully be a new generation of 23rd Century ST movies. There was already the opprotunity for Shatner’s Kirk to make such a grand exit, and TPTB (including Bill) blew it.
#92—His days as James T. Kirk will likely end on Veridian III. Resurrecting the character would be hokey and pointless, IMO. Whatever is done to explain such a thing would likely only detract from the story that won over JJ and Paramount to begin with.
And really, who is Shatner going to attract that isn’t already in line to see this thing? No one that I know. Most of the older casual fans I know became disillusioned with the quality films made with the original cast in the late 80’s and very early 90’s, and Generations went virtually unnoticed in many such circles. Bringing back a 76 year old Shatner would not instill confidence in that group. It would likely only remind them of how bad he was in his last 3 ST films (especially TFF and GEN), and why they stopped paying to see these movies in the first place. The original Spock is quite enough nostalgia, IMO.
Instead, the marketing dept. will be able to tell them that their heroes are alive and well in the 23rd Century. Here they are, once again, in their youth and splendor. You and I may never look at these actors the way we once looked at the originals, but that is to be expected. They have the opprotunity to get younger people involved in these characters and to have them become thrilled at the adventures to come from the new generation of Star Trek actors.
Older fans do not need to be reminded that Shatner played the original Kirk, and if kids were to see this guy today in a Starfleet uniform, it might actually reduce their ability to take the “heroic” aspect of Jim Kirk very seriously.
Enough already. They are not making the movie you wanted. They are, however, making the movie I have wanted since the first time I wished that the original characters had warped off with dignity into “the sunset” at the end of TVY (the last time I felt they made a good movie)—old characters, new actors…finally!!!
I have heard people say that the Shatner debate in not going to end till the sun burns out , that’s nolonger.true. The debate on Shatner is going to end billions of years from now when the universe dies and collapses in on it self.But even then after the next big bang and new universe comes into being I entirely possible that this debate will probably still be going on.
For me, the debate whether Shatner should be in the movie IS over. That became kinda logical when filming wrapped. For me. The rest of you, keep at it!
I’m just clearing up the misconception that “he did not want to play Kirk any more.” I mean come on … if Paramount were willing to continue paying Shatner millions to play Kirk, does anyone truly believe he would’ve agreed to a death scene? Hell no. He believed Generations would be his last chance to play the character, and he had every reason to.
Nimoy is a different story. He WAS, by his own admission, tired of playing Spock and wanted his character killed off at a time when the franchise was reaching new heights (the feature film era). Lucky for him TPTB accomodated him when he changed his mind and wanted to return.
#98—Interesting that you brought that last bit up. I believe that everything you said is true. The difference is, that at the time of Nimoy’s Spock death scene, the Star Trek film franchise WAS at its greatest height, so Paramount had every reason to want Nimoy’s return. I think that if the circumstances were similar, they would be more receptive to Shatner’s return. But the circumstances are not similar in any way except that each character died at some point. The similarity really ends right there.
The franchise is where it is, and Paramount understandably wants to go in an entirely different direction with casting. It just so happens that Spock is alive and well in the 24th Century (where the story begins, post-NEM), has a significant role in the story that lured the director and was approved by the studio, and Leonard Nimoy is willing to come out of retirement for one final bow as our beloved Spock. To me, this is a perfect convergence of circumstances. 23rd Century Star Trek has a pulse…
Can I buy my ticket now????
Shatner keeps saying that he does not do cameos.
My question is was Shatner asked to do a cameo and turned it down because he wanted a bigger role?
91. Bill Peters: Indeed, there was a poll that former VP Quayle quouted on the 25th Anniversary Star Trek TV special in 1991. It stated that just about half of the population of the USA consider themselves Star Trek fans. Not Trekkers, or Trekkies. Not fanzine writers or con goers, or model makers or collectors or fan film makers or anything like that, although all of the above fit under that umbrella as well. But just Star Trek fans. Meaning they just like the show and the characters. Just like I Love Lucy. Thats a LOT of people. Its these people who helped Kirk kick Picards but in that TV poll. Its these people who when Trek reaches a mainstream level help make it succeed. Like TMP and TVH , syndication and certain merchandising. THAT is the silent majority that JJ hopes to reach with this movie as well as the hardcore fans like us.
96. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker):
“And really, who is Shatner going to attract that isn’t already in line to see this thing?”
How about all of those who have become Shatner fans because of his successful career the last few years and thereby may become Star Trek fans? Or non disillusioned older fans?
But I guess the final statement would be, It couldn’t hurt.
You and I agree on a Lion’s share of topics, not the least of which is TNG. But your Shatner thing speaks to something personal with you I suspect. I can’t help but be curious about it.
102 Speaks the truth…we hear his words! There are many MANY new fans of Shatner who have never laid eyes on Star Trek…and you know what, in May 2009, some movie goers just might end up choosing Star Trek over Cabin Fever 5 if they know Shatner is in it just because they like him.
One thing is certain. Despite his detractors, (who really are far and few between), the man IS immensly likable and popular with mainstream America and Trek fans alike. His inclusion wouldn’t hurt a thing.
#102—It’s really not personal at all. I loved William Shatner as Captain Kirk from 1966-1986. That is how I prefer to remember his portrayal, however. You have probably seen me post this before, but I’ll do it again. Of course, this is my own opinion, and nothing else.
TOS–TVY= William Shatner as James Kirk=great
TFF–GEN=James Kirk as William Shatner=not so great
That is the best way I can describe my feelings about Shatner playing James Kirk in the first 20 years vs his portrayal of that character in later years. I think he began to pander to the satirists a bit and tried to much to be comedic. Part of this is knowing how his influence on the development of the character grew out of the hands of the writers and directors and more into his own hands in later years. I didn’t care for where he took the character. It just was not the same.
I also agree that it “couldn’t hurt”, if his character were as alive and well in the 24th Century as Nimoy’s is. However, given the circumstances, I do not see the benefit of devoting story/plot time to explaining his reappearance and then having to fit it in with the story they have in mind.
I would not mind at all seeing Shatner as Kirk in a GFII-like flashback scene, set sometime before Kirk’s disappearance and death. But then we are back to “cameos” vs. “major roles”. I think that if JJ ever thought they could find a place for him in this film, it would have been something along those lines. It is quite possible that upon hearing of Shatner’s aversion to a much lesser role, such a possibility became a moot point. That is, of course, just speculation on my part.
And yes, I have noticed your posts and that we share many opinions about Star Trek. I also wish you to know that my opinions of Shatner are not born out of a personal dislike. As Captain Kirk, he is still one of my childhood heroes. I still find him entertaining. However, thoughts of him once again donning the Starfleet uniform do give me unpleasant pause. I cannot help it.
104. Mr. Poopey face(formerly known as Closettrekker): Fair enough I suppose and thanks for the lowdown. I do have to disagree as I have the utmost confidence in Shatner and his talents. I guess it remains to be seen if he will be in the movie or not and if he is how well he will do.
But as for the cameo thing. I have stated before I don’t think Mr. Shatner is being entirely up front about everything, I smell smoke screen.:)
#105 I would be very surprised if he had a Cameo in the film. Then again you could be right on this one.
At this point I would be shocked if Shatner shows up in a cameo. BUT….if they did want to keep it a secret his constant denials would be a great smoke screen.
It would be upsetting if they didn’t ask him back on any level. Especially when you consider they are handing out cameos like candy and all the other TOS actors have been brought in on some level or another.
so is the enterprise going to be a cannon balls to the wall warship, the way that all of its predecessors were in the united states’ naval armada?
the one in the teaser reel looks real u.s. space command badass; will the navy be the driving force behind the new star trek, or will it be the u.s. airforce again, the way that it has been for stargate sg-1…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1
Stargate and the military
The USAF cooperates closely with the producers of the program. Two successive Chiefs of Staff of the USAF, Generals Michael E. Ryan and John P. Jumper, have appeared in the show, playing themselves. Ryan appeared in the episode “Prodigy” because of his fascination with science fiction, especially space exploration. Jumper made a cameo appearance in “Lost City”, the episode that was originally slated to be the show’s last. The Air Force Association recognized Richard Dean Anderson at its 57th annual dinner on September 14, 2004 for his work as actor and executive producer of the show, and “for the show’s continuous positive depiction of the Air Force”.[27] Many of the extras portraying US Air Force personnel are in fact real US Air Force personnel.[27]