Orci & Kurtzman Talk Why Chose TOS Prequel + Shatner | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci & Kurtzman Talk Why Chose TOS Prequel + Shatner June 16, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek (2009 film),TOS , trackback

The new issue of the official Star Trek Magazine has an extensive interview with Star Trek co-writers and exec. producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The pair talk about their fandom, favorite Trek books and more, but of particular interest was a discussion on why they chose to do a movie in the pre TOS era and also a bit on the Shat.

Excerpts from Star Trek Magazine
(interview conducted in March)

Why not the next Next Generation?
Star Trek magazine asked why the new Trek team chose to do a film in the TOS era instead of following Roddenberry’s example and ‘take things on a generation’ as he did with TNG.

Roberto Orci: We all had to agree that area would interest us, and we’re all fans to varying degrees. Everyone could agree that the original series was something that we all loved dearly. Also there seemed to be the fact that Roddenberry had done exactly as you described, so it would have been doing it again. Thirdly, there seemed to be a genuine gap in what we knew about these characters’ origins. It wasn’t just remaking an origin story, it was telling it for the first time. There seemed to be unexplored territory. We couldn’t believe it when we sat down to think about it.
Alex Kurtzman: It was shocking that after 40 years that there was still a story to tell about the characters that started it all. That alone was a reason to do it.
RO: Creatively that was a reason to do it and on the other side of it, we wanted to introduce Star Trek again to a new generation and the people who had been around who felt that they were never able to jump onto the bandwagon because they felt they’d missed too much. The idea of making an introduction that anyone can come into, and find out what it is that all of us love about Star Trek, without having to know anything about Star Trek, was something we just couldn’t pass up. The two of those together made it inescapable.

Orci and Kurtzman make an interesting point. If you look at the five Trek TV series, all but The Original Series had elaborate pilots that showed how the crews of each show came together. In addition to the pilots there were also prequel episodes like TNG’s “Tapestry” and ENT’s “First Flight,” which TOS never had (although “The Menagerie” did show the old days when Spock shouted a lot). In a way the new Star Trek movie is the ‘origin pilot’ The Original Series never had.

Shatner wanted larger part?
When asked if they thought it likely Shatner could be worked in, Orci said he didn’t think it likely but "never say never," He also gave some background on the whole Shat saga

We went through the same process that we went through with Nimoy: We pitched him what we were thinking early on before we wrote it, and got his blessing as well, which was amazing. We talked in the meeting about the fact that Star Trek had killed Kirk and that was going to be a big stumbling block to an organic introduction of the character, but we would do our best. Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain so we’ve kept him in the back of our minds, and now with another year to go, who knows? .

It appears there may be more to the whole Shatner in the movie saga than just what we have been hearing from Mr. Shatner lately.

UPDATE: Orci clarifies
Shortly after this article went up, Mr. Orci wrote the followg in the comments section below

by the way, when I said that Mr. Shatner subsequently said he wanted a larger role, I was referring to his public statement that he did not do cameos. Nothing more.

The latest issue of Star Trek Magazine has much more from Orci & Kurtzman, as well as other good articles on the film, and much more. Pick it on newsstands now.

 

Comments

1. ME - June 16, 2008

Uh oh here come the shat rumors again…

2. willis - June 16, 2008

the shat wanted a larger part? Wow, that’s not like him. ;)

3. Federali Aundy - June 16, 2008

It’s too bad the interview couldn’t have been done in May instead of March… I just can’t wait for the full trailer!

4. Marvin the Martian - June 16, 2008

I THINK ITS RONG THAT KERK WILL NOT BE IN THE NEW MOVIE I THINK THEY SHOOD PAY HIM WHATEVR HE ASKS FOR I THINK HES A GRATE ACTOR AND THEY SHOOD BRING HIM BACK FROM THE DEAD BECUASE THATS WHAT THE FANS WANT AND THE FANS KNOW WHAT STAR TREK IS ALL ABOUUT AND THE PRODUCERS SHOULD LISEN TO THE FANS I THINK THEY SHOOD HAVE NEVER KILLED KERK WHAT DO YOU THINK

/hee hee

5. Blake Powers - June 16, 2008

I need to renew my star trek mag subscription.

6. Ted - June 16, 2008

I think you should use spell check.

7. Boborci - June 16, 2008

by the way, when I said that Mr. Shatner subsequently said he wanted a larger role, I was referring to his public statement that he did not do cameos. Nothing more.

8. Anthony Pascale - June 16, 2008

Hi Bob,

that was fast…you must have a ‘there is an article about me radar’ hooked up to your iphone

Well Shat said ‘I dont do cameos’ back in October of 07…shortly before filming started. But in May 08 after filming ended he suddenly seemed OK with cameos, even suggesting a voice over. Perhaps he was bluffing

9. Boborci - June 16, 2008

no radar – I just check your site every day!

10. WannaBeatle - June 16, 2008

yes Bob, you were clear on what you meant (just good to be safe, just in case)

But, now that the movie’s release date has been changed…who knows, anything can happen. As someone else has said, “there are always possibilities”

see ya next time!!!

11. WannaBeatle - June 16, 2008

I check this site everyday, too (along with a couple of Beatle and guitar related sites). This has become one of my favorites, for sure.

gracias Anthony Pascale

12. SirMartman - June 16, 2008

From the mouth of Orci and Kurtzman

we’ve kept him in the back of our minds, and now with another year to go, who knows? .

Dam I thought the hole “Is Shatner in the next trek” thing was over,,,
maybe not.

this seems to have more twist and turns than an episode of “Lost”

This has again, given me a faint glimmer of light that Mr Shatner may return once more as,,,,, “Kirk”

*smiles*

13. warptrek - June 16, 2008

I could understand on the one hand having the Shat in it would pretty much make it “The Search for Kirk” but on the other hand, I cannot imagine Spock abandoning his best friend to the fate he ultimately met on Veridian III. At some point in the 24th century, he would’ve learned the truth about his supposed ‘death/disappearance’ from Picard.

14. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 16, 2008

The problem with having Kirk come back from the dead is going all the way out to Veridian III and digging him up from under all those rocks and then hauling his corpse to New England or wherever that Native American burial ground is and reburying him and then having him come back and kill Herman Munster before he does that cousin Vinny movie and then having to put him down again because he just ‘aint right.

So, there’s that.

15. Sebi - June 16, 2008

@ warptrek

I guess it is established that Spock never met Picard again after “Unification”? Don’t get me wrong, I also can’t imagine Spock abandoning Kirk but you know, Picard and Spock aren’t exactly pen pals.

If the Hoff,…äh I mean the Shat would be in the movie…. That’ll be cool.
But if he’s not: Fine by me!

Maybe this is why people don’t ask me things…

16. jon1701 - June 16, 2008

I think it’s obvious that there was no way to put Shatner in this story without devoting a larger portion of the script to how and why we got ol’ kirk off that mountain on veridian III.

Which is not the story TPTB wanted to tell, or would have been what joe public would have wanted to see. By putting him him – they would have had to rewrite the script and could have possibly alienated any new audience by talking about stuff that happened over 4 movies back.

“Who the hells Soran…Whats the nexus?”

Only way in was a cameo and given that Shatner doesn’t do them. Would have been nice, but was not meant to be.

Just my take anyway.

17. SirMartman - June 16, 2008

I agree with 13. warptrek – June 16, 2008

Spock would’ve learned the truth about his supposed ‘death/disappearance’

Just maybe not from Picard.

Spock wouldnt abandon Kirk ,, as Kirk said..
“you would of done the same for me”

18. Schiefy - June 16, 2008

Shatner might have some “spare” time coming up with the final season wrap of Boston Legal….;)

19. Harry Dog - June 16, 2008

To be honest I really think we need the Shat in this film. I think it’d bring things round full circle just for him to appear. And come on let’s admit it – we’d ALL love to see Shatner & Nimoy together again on the big screen. JJ you’ve got to find a way and you know it.

20. Jeff - June 16, 2008

Mr. Orci, I hope that even if you can’t fit Shatner in this movie that you will keep the option open with putting him in the next one. Thanks for reading!

21. SirMartman - June 16, 2008

I little song I like,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsXoUMH13H8

:o )

22. Jeff - June 17, 2008

Mr. Orci, Kurtzman & Abrams…. please ignore all the “advice” directed your way on these posts and just make the best film possible… take some risks, make it interesting, relevant, funny, and authentic, and we’ll all be happy (and so will your bosses ’cause it’ll make some money).

Can you tell us if Mr. Giacchino has begun work on his score? In the past the score album has been released several weeks in advance of the film, something that would seem to be an effective marketing tool. Is that a possibility this time?

How are those effects shots looking??

23. Ice Nine - June 17, 2008

No, please don’t put Shatner in the movie. I for one do not need to see him and Nimoy together again. Leonard is enough for me. It’s time he got to be the big banana. There isn’t room for Shatner in this movie. Please please please don’t put him in it.

24. ScreenRant.com - June 17, 2008

I still don’t buy the whole “Kirk died in Generations” argument. I’ve heard this story may be considered almost an alternate timeline or Trek universe plus they could have timed the future Kirk and Spock to come from a time before Kirk’s death.

There are other factors at work here, but who know if we’ll ever get get the real story…

Vic

25. Jean Prouvaire - June 17, 2008

Spock bloody better be CONSTANTLY SHOUTING in this movie…

26. RuFFeD_UP - June 17, 2008

Bob if you’re still reading would you and the team ever consider a Next Generation film or any other film about one of the other crews?

27. Admiral_Bumblebee - June 17, 2008

So it’s not ruled out yet completely that Shatner won’t be in the movie?

This looks more and more like a publicity stunt. He is in, no, he isn’t, maybe he is in it after all, no no, he isn’t, or is he?

After reading this I believe again that he will be in the movie and that his appearance will be the big surprise of the film.

28. Iowagirl - June 17, 2008

That Shatner thing is over…or not …or maybe it’s only just beginning…or maybe there’s a next round, and a next one, and a next one until May 09, or maybe the Shat and Abrams & Orci are keeping a loophole open …or maybe not…stay tuned for the next cryptic prognosis…;)

As far as I’m concerned, there’s still something LARGE-SCALE going on, and it’s MIND-BLOWING to read that “now with another year to go, who knows?” over and over again, and I’m DYING to see Mr. Shatner as Kirk ONE MORE TIME. :)

29. Jeffrey S. Nelson - June 17, 2008

Adjusted timeline at movie’s end: Old Kirk’s back as a result. No need for Nexus shampoo.

30. S. John Ross - June 17, 2008

I put a quarter in my rumor-mill generator and got the following: “The big surprise of the film isn’t that Spock ends up saving Kirk from his on-screen fate in a subtle benefit from thwarting the Romulan plot: Instead, the big surprise is that Romulan plot ends up preserving Kirk’s life in a way that is unavoidably damaging to the time-stream, and Spock has to (with restrained but obvious anguish) pop a phaser-cap in his captain’s ass to save the universe.”

Wow. That thing spits out much cooler stuff when I actually put in the quarter! The needs of the many, bay-bee!

31. Chris Pike - June 17, 2008

24, Yes, thjat’s something I don’t understand about the supposed difficulty of Shat’s Kirk being dead – if this new film is supposed to rewrite Trek history with an alternate timeline or universe/multiverse thing going on, then the alternate 23rd century’s Kirk may have not been involved in the Enterprise B incident. Heck, could this be that we could even flush away all Bermatrek in this new alternate version!!?

32. tony pieta - June 17, 2008

29: Be careful what you ask for. No Nexus = no Guinan. No Guinan = serious problems with large parts of TNG history. Think of the butterfly in the Amazon…

33. Paulaner - June 17, 2008

I don’t want Shatner *forced* in the movie. But if they can find a way to gracefully have him, well, that’s good for me. By the way, all these rumours are building up the theory about Shat in Trek XI.

34. Tom - June 17, 2008

Mr Orci

You guys just don”t quit trying to make this more awesome. You get Shatner , that is the cherry on top. I hope you can make it happen. Anyone who loves the original series would find this a once ina lifetime oppurtunity.

35. Iowagirl - June 17, 2008

#34
– Anyone who loves the original series would find this a once ina lifetime oppurtunity. –

I wholeheartedly agree.

36. Adam Cohen - June 17, 2008

Call me crazy, but Shatner is going to be in this new movie. It’s all a big dog-and-pony show we’re watching here between Shatner and the production. “Oh, we tried our bet to fit him in but there was not way to do it.” This coming from the most creative team currently putting out television and film entertainment.

Okay, gents. I’ll play your game.

37. Tim Handrahan - June 17, 2008

I have had faith all along that he would be in the film and after reading these comments and with the time before the film opens, I am CONFIDENT that we will see Shatner and Nimoy at the end of the film.

38. crazydaystrom - June 17, 2008

Shat in, Shat out…OMG!!! Whatever! All I want is a good Trek film.

And a star to guide her by ;-)

And I’m a Shat fan.

39. Adam from Sydney wants to see an Aussie Trek character! - June 17, 2008

I can’t wait to see how the relationship between the big 3 – Jim, Spock and Bones is tackled. If humorous dialogue between the characters in Transformers is anything to go by then this should make for a very entertaining and engaging story – one that will hoepfully give avid Star Trek fans as well as the movie going public in general a sense of where these characters have come from.

Re Mr Shatner, my feelings are simple – I am a Kirk fan first and foremost. The last thing anyone should want to see is William Shatner doing a parody of himself just to satisfy the whims of fandom.

One ocmment that really stands one where Bill Shatner more or less refers to having him in the movile as “good business”. My point of view is that creativity should come first. One of the biggest failings of Star Trek in recent years is that business appeare to guide many of the decisions to bleed the franchise dry with an oversuppply of the product. In the end the “business” nearly killed all creativity in an effort to keep the franchise alive.

Its so refreshing to here people speak about their goal to make an entertaining movie and simply tell a story.

40. The Underpants Monster - June 17, 2008

It’s a treat to hear from the writers, because that’s the skeleton of the whole thing, the bones on which the rest of the production hangs. Good writing can make a supbar production worth watching, and poor writing can make the biggest blovkbuster into an embarrassment. It sounds like Orci and Kurtzman have their heads screwed on right, and that’s a comfort to know.

41. star trackie - June 17, 2008

I don’t want to talk about Shatner being in the movie any more….

I like surprises :)

42. Marian 'Martyn-El' Ciobanu - June 17, 2008

- I’m a huge fan of the pilot episodes..but i think the worst trek pilot episode was ‘WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE’..but is just a purely objective and atemporal opinion..

43. US Taxpayer Dude - June 17, 2008

Origins stories are boring. Girl gossip and nothing more! I would much rather see a good adventure story. I really don’t care how Kirk and Spock first met and fell in love. Ooops. Given the way things are today, someone might take that seriously. GOOD GRIEF!

Oric & Co: Just tell a rip-roaring adventure story. Leave the gossip stuff for the soap operas and Oprah!

44. US Taxpayer Dude - June 17, 2008

Oh yeah – “Generations” is nothing more than “Who Shot JT (Kirk)???”

IT WAS A BAD DREAM. NOTHING MORE. IT NEVER HAPPENED! I MEAN, WHO COULD BELIEVE IT WAS ‘REAL’???? LOL!

45. US Taxpayer Dude - June 17, 2008

^39 Adam from Sydney

The last few Trek spinoffs and series were certainly poor business decisions. I’m not sure why good entertainment is said to be “a creative decision” while poor enterntainment is said to be “a business decision”!

Everyone here is in business, even if you simply sell your time for money as a wage earner. Also, there is much more to business than “the money”. Ever hear of “investment” and “growth”? Please read about “maximizing shareholder value”, “net present value” and portfolio theory, to start.

You’ll see that efforts like Enterprise and “whatever that last TNG movie was but I never saw it so I don’t know its name” went against sound business decision making. How do I know that? Because they were failures, even by artistic standards let alone in terms of market acceptance. And let me remind you, that YOU and I ARE the MARKET, lol!

(I will also remind everyone that William Shakespeare was a shrewd businessman who wrote his plays to bring subscribers to the Globe theatre. So too were Mozart and Beethoven who wrote on commission. Gene Roddenberry for that matter, whose only reason for creating Trek was to earn a living.)

Money makes the world go ’round. It does not force it to be juvenile, dull, boring, or anything else. That friends, is up to you!

46. Green-Blooded-Bastard - June 17, 2008

I quite frankly am getting tired of all the “Shat” talk. I love the guy and what he did for Star Trek, but if he can’t be put in the movie that ads to the fluidity and plot of the story then don’t bother. I don’t want him thrown in simply because the fans demand it, that’s not a good enough reason (sorry guys). Kowtowing to fans is usually a good way to kill a film to be completely honest. that’s why writers and directors do things their way and throw in an occasional nod or easter egg instead.

And if I might say so now, it might have occurred to Spock in the future that were he to go rescue Kirk from his fate, he would still be relatively young and useful to the Federation. Just a thought.

47. The Underpants Monster - June 17, 2008

Interestingly enough, I think one of the mistakes made in “Enterprise” is that it was TOO MUCH of an origins story. They set themselves the unenviable task of either exploring familiar territory too deeply (If so much was already known about Vulcan culture, why did so much of it come as a surprise to Spock’s friends?**) or exploring new territory that wouldn’t play much of a part in series set later along the timeline. They had to constantly walk that fine line, and I’m not sure ANYONE could have done that successfully.

That kind of

**This is also one of my beefs with DS9 – if so much about the Trill was already old news and common knowledge, it retroactively paints Picard and his staff as uninformed dimwits. Whatever Picard’s faults were, a lack of anthropological knowledge wasn’t one of them.

48. That One Guy - June 17, 2008

Mister Orci,

Years ago, you served our country in the creation of the Transformer, now we beg you to help us in our struggle against the mainstream thought of Trek. I regret that I am unable to bring you my personal thoughts and feelings in person, but my ship has come under attack and my mission to bring the plans to Alderan has failed. So I have placed what I can into this text box. You should know how to retrieve it. This is our most desperate hour.

Help us Robert Orci, you’re our only hope.

49. Chris Doohan - June 17, 2008

With or without Shat, this is going to be an incredible movie. Orci, Kurtzman and J.J. have outdone themselves….. again! CAN’T WAIT!!!!

Chris

50. That One Guy - June 17, 2008

Chris, you honestly make me feel better every time. It’s good to know that you and Orci all keep track of this site. It really does help to bring the public into creation of this movie.

51. That One Guy - June 17, 2008

Correction:

It really does helpt to bring the public into *the* creation of this movie.

52. AdamTrek - June 17, 2008

I’m sorry, but if the movie un-kills Kirk somehow in a very good way that makes sense in the story, I think Shatner would do it if his only dialogue were “Hi”. But I think he knows that this is his only shot at being Kirk again. It’s a new set of actors now. Forever and ever.

53. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 17, 2008

#28 “I’m DYING to see Mr. Shatner as Kirk ONE MORE TIME.”

And I’m dead already!!

54. Petey - June 17, 2008

Anthony, kudos to you for making this site relevant not only to rabid Trek fans across the globe, but also to people who are very much part of Trek like Bob Orci and Chris Doohan. You have our utmost respect and appreciation for all the work you have done and will continue to do.

55. Chris M - June 17, 2008

Whether or not Shatner is in the movie is not a massive issue for me. While I would love to see him in there I am simply looking forward to what promises to be an awesome Star Trek movie! :)

56. lwr - June 17, 2008

I still have a funny feeling that Shatner IS the twist at the end of the Movie.
to much he said – she said. plausable deniability and all that stuff.

if we are truly to believe that this movie, and any sequel to follow would create a new “B” universe path..then old Spock would be returned to that new future, which could have a Kirk that survived the Meridian mess, only to greet the returning Spock.

This is JJ Abrams after all.

there has to be a twist.

57. Montreal Paul - June 17, 2008

I agree with what someone said… i just want a good Star Trek movie like Wrath of Khan was. And I think that is what bob & the gang will be doing. It would have been nice to have Shatner in it – but it will be just fine without him.
I would love to see some of Shatner’s Trek books turned into movies or made for TV movies… I like the way he revives Kirk from the dead. Interetesting idea and a great serious of books. Someone should think about those in the future!

58. capt mike - June 17, 2008

As a huge trek fan i just want to say thank you to Bob and Alex and JJ for makeing a new trek movie and reviving startrek. Rick berman almost killed startrek but im glad you guys came along and acting like dr mccoy revived startrek and now i see so much all over the web of people talking about star trek. People like chris doohan and Bob and alex and jj and Others like tim russ who did of gods and men and People like james cawley of phase 2 have all kept gene roddenberrys vision alive and kicking. As all star trek fans truly appreciate all the hard work you men and women are doing and We all hope you can continue to make great star trek shows. weather it be fan made or big box office movies and maybe one day a new series on net work tv. Ah=gain thank you to everone one of you for keeping star trek alive and may all of you live long and prosper.

59. veronica - June 17, 2008

#46 said it right – don’t ruin a good story or plot just to shove Shatner in there. I love the characters – not necessarily only the original actors in those roles. We are getting Kirk back except it will be a young, vibrant Pine playing him. Kirk is meant to be a physical energetic guy. At 77 Shatner can’t do the role justice anymore.

I think they should have done a prequel YEARS ago. TOS had the best characters and format of all the incarnations yet it had a short run on the tube. There is still so much to explore about these guys and their universe.

I hate it when people say that ST franchise “ran out of ideas”. There is no limit to human ingenuity or creativity. You just got to get some good creative talented people willing to work hard and create good scripts and ideas. With the TOS great format and great characters a prequel has great potential. I’d love to see the Academy years and explore the characters backgrounds. There is so much to write about.

60. capt mike - June 17, 2008

Oh i also want to thank you Anthoney pascale for this great site so we all can post comments and even have some of the writers and producers from the movie to james cawley who come on here and interact with us crazy fans. This is a first class site and i so enjoy reading all the crazy comments and of corse posting my own. Again Thank you for a great site.

61. Dalek - June 17, 2008

Mr Orci, to arrange anything with Shatner you actually have to talk with the man.

You said many things in the press too about wanting to include him in the film, even after you didnt write a part from him.

So why dont you pick up the phone and call the man.

Otherwise everything said is, as has always been, just press speil.

62. Wrath - June 17, 2008

ADAM COHEN –

Agreed. I look at /Lindelof’sAbram’s penchant for plot twists and secrecy, Shatner’s playfulness, and the 11 months till release and I can’t help but think Shatner will be in this thing.

63. Adam - June 17, 2008

Get Shatner in the movie. Spock is time traveling and NOT saving his friend? The one who risked everything for him when he died? Ridiculous. Go into orbit around Veridian, don’t hit the nexus, beam him up at the right moment, perform some sickbay magic. Take him back to whence Spock came so as not to change the timeline. Period. The movie closes with the two of them smoking cigars and having a scotch.

64. Kirk, James T. - June 17, 2008

something interesting i read elsewhere was that Shatner is indeed in the movie with more than a cameo appearance and that Patrick Stewart would also make a brief appearance within the 24th century period of this movie…

Is there any truth to that outlandish rumor?

65. Viking - June 17, 2008

Like the man said – The Shat’s backed off his initial request, and there’s still a year to go, so who knows? The biggest stumbling block is that little issue with ‘Generations’………

66. John May - June 17, 2008

I don’t think it would be THAT difficult to arrange for ole Kirkerino to make an appearance. Afterall, this is sci-fi,, and perhaps the Kirk that died in the Nexus was just one ‘version’ of Kirk, not the real deal who is still stuck there trying to get out and let the world know he’s alive! Perhaps the version that we saw stuck in the Nexus was a split ego – he seemed to passive to be the Kirk we know and love – riding around, cooking – blissfully unaware of the real world outside the Nexus. Not like Kirk at all……

It would be AWSOME for Spock to suddenly ‘bump’ into Kirk… and stoically raise an eyebrow and declare, “aren’t you dead?” ala reversal of Kirk in Wrath of Khan… this would be a subtle wink to the audience too ;)

Come on – get him in here – it will be THE BIGGEST Star Trek event ever! Perhaps make the movie a two-parter like The Menagerie…. leave it on a cliff-hanger!

67. John May - June 17, 2008

P.S. The Nexus wa always a badly defined and vague ‘element of Generations – never probably explained or realised. Let THAT work to the new films advantage. Let this film ‘improve’ Generations by better explaining away The Nexus, AND get Kirk back.

Pretty please Mr Orci…. with a glass of Tranya on top :)

– J

68. The Underpants Monster - June 17, 2008

Maybe a statue of Kirk in the Academy quadrangle could come to life and sing “Don Giovanni! A cenar teco m’invitasti.”

69. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

The OrcSter™ certainly is one handsome young son of a buck. Who cares about Shatner being in dis movie, yo? I still think that Chris Pine should have been cast as Chris Pike. That’s my only complaint about dis new trek movie dot com backsplash Orcster.

AIIIIGHT??

=h=

70. Irishtrekkie - June 17, 2008

324 days 7 hours 25 mins to star trek…………..324 days 7 hours 24 mins to star trek…………..324 days 7 hours 23 mins to star trek. ( yes this is the best way i can think of , of passing the time. i Just cant wait anymore

71. Quatlo - June 17, 2008

It is possible that The Shat was not included because of BOSTON LEGAL. A good percentage of paying customers shouting DENNY CRANE wouldn’t exactly help the film experience.

72. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

Look, and here’s the final word on this Shatner thing. I’m serious, after this final clarification we do not talk about it anymore like the first rule of fight club. Old h69 is the greatest Shatnerist® out there. Trust in me. But also trust in me when I tell you. Shatner chose to kill this character 15 (it will be 15 or so when the movie comes out) years ago. Now he’s Denny Crane, the priceline guy, the buffoon, the interwebwhore, the paintball guy…. anything to me these days other than Captain James T. Kirk.

Not only do we not want him in this movie, but having him in this movie would ruin it. I dont care what you think you want. A heroin addict wants a fix when what he needs is rehab. It’s a best interest kind of thing I am talking about here.

The bottom line is that like Nimoy, he should have passed on Generations. He didn’t, that check is cashed, and James T Kirk is dead. Now lettuce not speak of this again. I’m serious. No more Shatner in the new trek movie dot com talk.

BEST!!

=h=

73. Admiral Stedman - June 17, 2008

Just have Spock overshoot the timeline, swing into a vinyl record store, and buy a copy of The Transformed Man by the Shat. He can raise an eyebrow and leave. Nuff Said.

74. Danpaine - June 17, 2008

I think I missed the rule which states that hitch1969 will speak for all of us (#72).

75. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

“… he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”

This is what I’ve been saying all along…It would have been alot easier to fit Shatner’s Kirk into the existing story in the form of a cameo. “I don’t do cameos” may have indeed been a bluff on Shatner’s part, but it appears to have had an effect on their decision nonetheless. It is easy to see why.

76. Alex Rosenzweig - June 17, 2008

#31 – I think the point is that it’s *not* supposed to “rewrite Trek history”, which of course is the right decision, but it does create a quandary for Kirk’s survival past 2294.

Much as I enjoy Mr. Shatner’s work, and *I’d* sometimes like to time-travel back to 1993, slap him up side o’ the head and yell, “Look, when they ask you about playing Kirk’s death…just say no!!”, what’s done is done.

It’s time to explore this previously-unseen part of the Trekverse, and see where the story takes us. :)

77. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

re 74. Dogpile®

The cold hard fact of the matter is that Shatner does not respect his character. Not like Nimoy does. He never had the integrity of the character in that respect. Generations, while being my fave of the TNG movies (and yes, I do like the Shat in it) should have never had Shatner in it.

As much as we love Shatner, I think that we all know the “Get A Life” version of Shatner is the real Shatner. Oh sure, he wants our adoration, and obviously from looking at his website he wants our money. And the dude had major child support in the 70s and lived in a truck camper for chrissake so I totally get it and no disrespect to the Shat intended.

Even when speaking about not being in the new movie, what does Shat say? Does he say, “I feel bad for the fans because they will never see these two great characters together on screen again?” NOPE. Shat simply calls it a “bad business decision” and states that they wont make the same amount of box office on it. Yeah, he really respects the story and the character in the way that we do. There’s a real caring happening there.

I’m glad that Sir JJ™ and the Orster® told him to go F himself, basically. But don’t get me wrong, I still love the Shat. That’s just what he gets for agreeing to kill his character so senselessly oh so long ago. Nimoy cared about his character. Nimoy respected the body of work. Nimoy wouldn’t touch Generations with a 10 foot pole and neither should have Shatner.

BEST!!

=h=

78. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 17, 2008

#72 “having him in this movie would ruin it”

There are loads of things that could ruin a Star Trek movie, and we’ve seen many of them. One thing that’ll never make that list is the inclusion of Bill Shatner as Kirk.

That said, I take this latest ‘movie’s still a year away’ talk very very lightly. Why even bring that up again, Orci? We won’t be seeing Shatner. A mistake, IMO, but it’s too late to do anything about it now.

79. Not for the Fans « Life as a Tea Pot - June 17, 2008

[…] Trekmovie blog has posted a snippet of the interview Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman gave to the Star Trek Magazine recently where there is a somewhat worrying quote from Orci: […]

80. lostrod - June 17, 2008

hitch1969 stated:

“As much as we love Shatner, I think that we all know the “Get A Life” version of Shatner is the real Shatner. ”

If you’re going to state YOUR opinion, Hitch1969, why don’t use the term “I” rather than “we all”?

You certainly don’t speak for me or everyone in this discussion.

Regards.

81. CanuckLou - June 17, 2008

If Nimoy’s Spock’s trip back is one way – is that crashed ship we saw in the video posted on this site a couple of months back -Spock’s perchance? – then working Kirk in will be real tough.

…the adventure continues…

82. Nelson - June 17, 2008

In regards to the this film being a TOS “pilot”, I guess from a logic point of view and artistic direction for this film, I can accept that kind of reasoning for this film. It is true they never filmed a pilot for how these characters met or how they got the Enterprise to start their adventures.

I’d be curious what the others think and Mr. Orci too if he choses to respond, that I always felt the first few episodes of TOS filmed had that “feel” already of how these characters got to know each other and became what they became. Look at Corbomite Maneuver and how McCoy and Kirk go at each other; “I warned you about Bailey!”. Balance of Terror was a terrific study of most of the characters and their traits. As was The Naked Time, revealing a lot about what make Kirk and Spock tick. Even The Man Trap has this developing of the characters; McCoy thinking with his glands, Vulcan has no Moon, etc. We got it back then.

So this new film will be interesting to see how the new creative team go about this. I’ll be in line opening day to find out!

83. Gary the Gorn - June 17, 2008

I want to see Kirk do something exciting in this new movie like “make eggs”.

That was great in “Generations” that we got to see Captain Kirk cook eggs. I’m so glad they cut out the part where he was skydiving and showed him cooking eggs.

And another thing, why didn’t they have the classic fight music when Kirk and Picard were fighting Billy Idol in Generations.

84. Scott Xavier - June 17, 2008

Wouldnt he have to die in the past so the writers done have an excuse for making it a really bad plot detail of time line destruction?

ALSO: I would love to see a shat cameo like Hastlehoff in the new Night Rider, an homage of sorts.

85. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

Goin’ back ta’ tha’ beginning is business as usual
Settin’ it in TOS is, of course purely logical
Goin’ on about Shatner seems a’ pursuit just ta’ fail
We come up wit’ Kirk scenes that be so paradoxical

Spockie, McCoy, izzit Scotty or O’Brien?
Cry out what WE want from our own inner fandom
Who arrrr dese people and what be they doin’?
Tha’ public at large needs dunna know them from Adam

Soooooo… Mays I suggest….

Give them all organic web shooters right in thar’ wristies
Make sure Alfred tha’ Butler was tha’ “Alfie” from tha’ old sixties
Check off that green-bloodied Bana has Nick Nolte for a daddy
Throw in two or three (or more!) of publicly well-known a’baddies
Toss up Steve Carell right there so ya’ don’t get dumb
Make sure that the Enterprise looks just like J-Lo’s bum
Mugato strolls on in and cries out “You damn dirty humans!”
Maybe Missy Rand be grandchild of yon Capote, Truman
Time travel gets them jiggy ta’ tha’ wild, wild west
Tempting Haley just shows up to show off her catty chest
Midi-chlorians now provide tha’ power ta’ make them stable warpy fields
And tha’ computer is now a’voiced by tha’ still spunky Sally Field.

Geez… I’m getting’ worse at writin’ these ditties…

Arrrrrr…

86. Splurch - June 17, 2008

Just show us the damn ship!!!

87. Trek Nerd Central - June 17, 2008

#36 et al:

Dudes and Dudettes, I’ve been saying for months now that Shatnericus the Great is in this thing. I just don’t buy this “Oh, Poor Shatner Is On the Outs with the new Trek, He Didn’t Even Get to Visit the Set” bidness. C’mon. He’s in it. It isn’t even worth debating it a t this point.

I’ll even predict where he appears in the film: In an easter egg after the credits. On opening night, I’ll be the one yelling “I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO!” sometime after the Panvision credit scrolls past.

88. CmdrR - June 17, 2008

BND —
Midi-chlorians, JLo’s bum and Truman Capote all in one movie? Our heads will explode!

Bob, just remember — Trek started all this. You don’t need to follow anybody.

89. Trek Nerd Central - June 17, 2008

#87 spelling self-correction: PANAVISION. “Panvision” might involve bacchanalian peep-hole.

90. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

Speaking of the orbital skydiving scene…. they should use it in the new movie just to piss off Shatner. You have Spock save Kirk and then he goes orbital skydiving and the chute doesn’t open and SPLAT. you CGI in some Shatner using the “oh … my.” scene as Spock watches him die. Fade to effing black.

Pay Shatner nothing for it. Everyone’s happy.

BEST!!

=h=

91. Horatio - June 17, 2008

I still think that Everything in the Trek Universe from ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ forward is corrupted timeline. So this movie isn’t really a reboot, its a RESTORATION.

Therefore, Kirk doesn’t die a weasely death in Generations.

Hey, it makes sense to me anyway…

92. CmdrR - June 17, 2008

HITCH —
That was already in “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” That was Shat saying “Not again…”

93. Joe - June 17, 2008

Doesn’t the Shat have enough dough from all those Priceline ads? and they look like cameos to me.

Mr. Orci, please find a way to get those Shat dimples in there. The poor guy needs a better ending than dying because he was too overweight.

94. Ryan T. Riddle - June 17, 2008

To Shat or not to Shat.

95. Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente - June 17, 2008

“44. US Taxpayer Dude – June 17, 2008

Oh yeah – “Generations” is nothing more than “Who Shot JT (Kirk)???”

IT WAS A BAD DREAM. NOTHING MORE. IT NEVER HAPPENED! I MEAN, WHO COULD BELIEVE IT WAS ‘REAL’???? LOL!”

US Taxpayer Dude,

Okay, who had that bad dream, Picard, 24th Century Spock, or 24th Century Kirk (Kirk would be about 120 years old)?

Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

96. Thorny - June 17, 2008

They added the “Spock’s Burial Tube on Genesis” coda to Star Trek II very late in the game (after showings for test audiences and even without Nicholas Meyer’s participation). There is still plenty of time to work in a Shatner appearance. If Spock is time travelling in this movie (and all indications are that he is) why can’t he, at the end of the movie, make a quick stop the day before the launching of the Enterprise-B to pay Kirk one last visit? Make a little joke about each of them looking older than they should, and end with Spock saying something to warn Kirk about the Nexus, and fade out from there, leaving it to audiences to contemplate what follows.

97. Arch - June 17, 2008

We only need the SHAT for 5 min scene… Next GEN Spock jumps back through the guardian of forever at end of movie and Kirk is there to greet him. “hello, old friend…where have you been?” Don’t need to explain how it happened, somehow Spock fixed the mess in Generations.

With Kirk alive we can hope for something with Kirk and Spock set in the next generation in the future…

However, as much as I love the Kirk character, this movie will be better if it does not turn into the Search for Kirk….

98. Dr. Image - June 17, 2008

#86 YEAH!
ps I still think Shat’s in the movie.

99. SPB - June 17, 2008

WHEN EXACTLY WOULD ALL THE CAMEOS END?

I’ve always been on the fence where a Shatner appearance in TREK XI is concerned (would be happy if he’s in it; wouldn’t bother me if he’s not), but the more vocal proponents for a Shatner cameo make me wonder…

…how long before calls are made to stick Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig, Grace Lee Whitney and Majel Barret into future TREK movies (“My God, people, they’re getting too old! They need one more shot of glory!”)? Or, if STAR TREK XIII turns out to be the last film from Abrams & Co., will we hear cries of, “It’s imperative that footage of DeForest Kelly and James Doohan be CGI’d into the movie… for one last goodbye!”

Best to leave the last of the appearances with Nimoy and move on.

100. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - June 17, 2008

I definately want Shatner in but I am regardless quite excited about the project. Now we need more pics and or spoliers. I want to see the damn uniforms and not the Imperial Waffen SS and Bionic man academy jumpsuits. I think we are entitled to that hopefully by comic con

101. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

Mr. Bob- Methinks you love coming here and dropping the Shat’s name just to stir the fanboy pot – the guys here will be arguing about that one comment from now until the next subtle hint you drop!

102. Boborci - June 17, 2008

101

No, but every body always asks. I hate saying, “no comment…”

103. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

Adam at #63 wrote: “The movie closes with the two of them smoking cigars and having a scotch.”

Denny Kirk & Alan Spock? LOL!! LUV it!

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

104. BritishStyleGalactica - June 17, 2008

Kirk, Schmirk I say!
The Shat talk has just about bored me to death. Will he, wont he?
Well, if he does get in it,ll be good, if he doesn’t it’ll be good.

Not sure if i’m the only one who’s slightly nervous of the Orci/Kurtzman writing thing though. I’ve seen Transformers and wasn’t majorly impressed. Dont get me wrong- I couldn’t do it!
JJ on board will work the magic though…hopefully…

Someone tell me Orci/Kurtzman will do better.

Maybe I’m just being “terribly British” and pessimistic…

Fingers crossed!

105. Robert April - June 17, 2008

“and now with another year to go, who knows?”

Looks like I might have a reason to start posting here again. Thanks Boborci.

106. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

#102: Instead of “No comment,” how about something like: “Pay your ten bucks and see the movie, dammit!!”?

Just an idea. I have zillions of them. Sometimes they’re actually good.

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

107. Ken Hoyas jr - June 17, 2008

Mr Orci

Please put William Shatner in this film. It wouldn’t be the same without him.

108. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

Hey, at the end of the movie have Spock return to his own time, have him turn around when he sees a shadow and when he raises an eyebrow in surprise at who he’s looking at…..FREEZE….end of movie!

There, I just saved the producers millions of dollars in conveying the same punchline without having to give in to Shatner’s likely outrageous demands!

109. D. McCoy - June 17, 2008

More and more films are taking advantage of that fun space at the end of the credits—where cool clips that are not entirely related to the main story can be added. If Spock has a time ship and has survived the story, it would perfectly logical to add a Spock saves Kirk gig there.

110. Viking - June 17, 2008

Bob, I’m in the pro-Shat camp, myself, but maybe if you’d just put in a non-CGI tribble made out of one of Shatner’s rugs, everyone would finally STFU. LOL

111. Sular - June 17, 2008

I still have a feeling Shatner will be in the movie. It’s just like JJ to surprise us and keep things secret. It would be great marketing!! Orci’s comments, “and now with another year to go, who knows?:, leave the door WIDE OPEN!!!

112. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

88 regarding 85

Good point, CmdrR- So let’s toss in TNG’s Commander Remmick ta’ make sure someone’s head do go a’explodie!

Arrrrrr

113. c0MmODoRe g0oFbAlL - June 17, 2008

VULCANISTA
We miss you in 69 Forward baby! Come back and Chat with us some time.

the g0oFbAlL formerly known as Lurker.

114. weeharry - June 17, 2008

a wee bit off topic here, but this is for bob orci…

i get the empire magazine e-newsletter, and the most recent edition mentioned yours and alex’s name in conjunction with an upcoming production that has apparently just signed up robert downey jr. to star in and goes by the wonderfully ambiguous title of ….

‘cowboys vs. aliens’.

really?
no, really?
nah, you’re joking…….really?

115. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

108

Grrrreat idear, Harry… but may I add that tha’ last shot be of this humble sailor, drying hisself off after a hot shower?

Spock raises eyebrow- fans gasp thinkin’ it could be Kirk… cut ta’ BND all starkers and moist, then I growl like Chewin’tabacco at tha’ end of’ Star Wars growled… or I says ‘Rosebud.”
Spock say “So THIS is goodbye?”

Me boopy-awkk butt shall give it an “Arrrrrrr” rating fur sure!

Arrrrrrr….

116. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

#113

LOL!! So that’s what the chat’s called now! Apt. Very apt!

Still playing catch-up over in the newsy sections. I’ll see y’all there, my pretties, very soon, and your little dog too, Harry!

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

117. Tom - June 17, 2008

#102 Bob Orci

No comment does stink. Your comment this time was perfect and true. You have a year. I have all the confidence it will all work out. This is a wonderful oppurtunity to make Trek history.

118. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

not bein’ one ta’ get mixed in wit’ tha’ Shat spat, but bonny well be a lesson herein fur ye’ all:

The twelvemonth and a day being up,
The dead began to speak:
“Oh who sits weeping on my grave,
And will not let me sleep?”

‘Tis I, my love, sits on rock grave,
And will not let ya’ sleep;
For I crave one more kiss of yer space-cold lips,
And that is all I seek.

“You crave one kiss of my space-cold lips;
But my breath smells earthly strong;
If you have one kiss of my space-cold lips,
Your time will not be long.

“ Tis down in yonder starfield sheen,
Love, where we used to walk,
The finest flower that ere was seen
Is withered to a stalk.

“The stalk is withered dry, my love,
So will our hearts decay;
So make yourself content, my love,
Till God calls you away.”

Arrrrr… so bonny it makes me wanna tear up, move me bowels and all…

HEY- isn’t Pine playin’ Kirk?
What tha’ hell then, mates?! Got me so weepy fur nought.

Arrrrr….

119. don_sturdy - June 17, 2008

The climax can be one of Shat’s rugs in a tribble duel with one of Koenig’s. Betcha The Shat one would win.

120. Chris Doohan - June 17, 2008

104

Dear British Pessimist,

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself. FDR

You gotta have faith..faith..faith. GM

121. snake - June 17, 2008

said it here before…i’ll say it again – dont bother will having shatner as James Kirk and all that would entail (referenceing one of the worst Trek films and the silly nexus….anyway even if they did bring him back somehow how the heck would he be alive in old spocks time? hed be about 200 years old!)

instead have Shatner as Jim Kirks GRANDfather..like a scene like something out of the 1978 Superman with Shatner as grandpa Kirk ..his arm around the young Jim (Pine) telling him something similar to ‘you are here for..a..reason..’ as they walk in the farmland of Iowa…or the scene where Clark says goodbye to his Ma in the wheatfield – real Norman Rockwell imagry – actually there was a similar scene to that with jim and his brother in the opening pages of DCs Star Trek Annual from 1991 which was about Kirks academy years

maybe something similar to FIELD OF DREAMS too (which was set in Iowa)…vast open cornfields..the Kirks in jeans and shirts etc…no futuristic stuff – looking like it could be in 1960s (homaging TOS)…then at the end have a spacecraft decend in a cornfield (like a UFO) to pick Jim up to go to starfleet academy

Itd be quite logical – showing the Kirk gene pool (shatner has previously played Jim Kirks dead brother Sam in ‘Operation Annihilate’), hes about the right age to portray George Kirks father (whos probably supposed to be about 30 in the film) and most of all the Shatner of today has changed noticably from the Shatner of 1994 and before..therefore you wouldnt have him looking like he did when he was James Kirk which would be confusing..

volia..fan pleasing Shatner cameo.

Even if this hasnt happened and shatner changes his mind there would be loads of time to film it as it dosnt come out for another year..

122. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

Dear The OrcSter™,

I fully support you and Sir JJ® in the Shatner choices that had to be made. But you guys really need to definitively say at this point that Shatner is not in this movie and will not be in this movie.

It’s time. Call Sir JJ® on your iPhones. I stand at the ready at my exclusive private email ,only given to your team and JC, along with BIG DAWG AP supermodeldoug@aol.com

Please let me know how I can assist in this venture.

BEST!!

=h=

123. Green-Blooded-Bastard - June 17, 2008

Mr. Orci…

In reference to 117.
Don’t make history, just make a great movie. I’d much rather go see a great Star Trek movie without Shatner, then a convoluted Trek movie with him stuffed into it like an egg-salad sandwich all sloppy falling out the sides.

Don’t get me wrong, I like egg-salad sandwiches, but I don’t pay for them in restaurants.

124. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

Mr. Bob#102- But the fanboys so love to grab this bone, gnawing and biting it to pieces… Are you sure you do not enjoy throwing this bone just a little, only because you know how much they enjoy it, of course…

Vulcanista- Shame on you for deserting us in 69 Forward. Just for that you will have to write a short story the next time you visit us. Subject matter: Spock’s first time.

BND#118- LOL!

125. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 17, 2008

See, the problem with the whole “dead Kirk” thing is that once you get him brought back from the dead and all, he’ll just want to eat the flesh of the living and walk around the country-side in a zombie-like trance eventually trapping some thrown together folks in an old country house and exposing all the weaknesses of humanity. That and he wouldn’t be able to do the “Space, the final frontier….” thingy because all he can say is “Ngong hommn augghh”.

126. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

Dear Denise de Arman™

What is 69 Forward, and why is it still missing some hitch? call a supermodel post haste!

BEST!!

=h=

127. Thomas - June 17, 2008

108. Harry Ballz, that’s the best suggestion I’ve heard so far. A great sense of ambiguity and a great setup for the next movie.

128. veronica - June 17, 2008

I just hope they aren’t going to kill off any of the main characters again. This weakens the franchise – not strengthens. Killing off these timeless characters won’t make me start to like the characters in the spin-offs more. Later spin-offs of ST tried to feed off its popularity by weakening the TOS characters hoping that we would then embrace the newer characters – but it doesn’t work like that.

129. Iowagirl - June 17, 2008

#123
– Don’t make history, just make a great movie. –

I think you just (unintentionally) nailed it down – no Shatner, no chance to make history with XI. :)

Well, Mr Orci, I think if you can have both, go for it!

130. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

is it “Orca, tha’ killer whale” or truly “Orci, tha’ fill-in a tale” ????

I sometimes impersonate Geo Lucas on threads claimin’ I be “quick on gin” when I pen me modern stories…

People catch on quick when I mistake Ewanks fur Teddy Ruxpins or that buggery-boo in A.I. … “how come they didda not take out thar’ batteries?” oh… which reminds me… time fur I ta’ pretend ta’ be Speel’a’berg somehwar…

Arrrrrr…

131. Ted Salad - June 17, 2008

Can’t we just pretend that ‘Generations’ doesn’t exist? Or perhaps Spock could spend a few minutes hunting down the ribbon and get the ‘echo’ of Kirk? I suppose that may take too long to setup and work with the current script.

132. K. M. Kirby - June 17, 2008

Shat could easily show up in the time of the elder spock, in some sort of holographic memorial display or a statue or something.

IMO, there’s still a story to tell for the TOS crew & Shat, back in their own orignal timeline.

Chekov, Sulu, Spock, Uhura; all could have a role in a continuation of what happens after the Nexus encounter. Did they really just assume that Kirk’s disappearance implied his demise? His body was never discovered, and all reports indicated that the Nexus kept people alive in some sort of suspended state.

In the novelization of Generations, they even go so far as to have Chekov learn from Guinan that “his friend” was still quite alive…

133. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

I’ve seen this before back in the late aaaayties all the grate Van Halenists kept saying “bring back David Lee™”. They really thought that was what they wanted.

This went on through the nineties, and into the 2000s. Finally in 2007, it happened. AND BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

It was OK, I suppose. But it didn’t bring back 1984, nor was the 2007 Dave anything as cool as the 1984 Dave. In fact, it all seemed a rather perfunctory cash n grab.

Kind of like the new Indiana Jones movie. Don’t do this to our beloved franchise. Shatner’s too old and too fat, too buffoonish. He died in Generations. Lettuce leave him there.

BEST!!

=h=

134. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

THX#125- LOL! Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of The Shatner Zombie…

135. The Underpants Monster - June 17, 2008

WELSHIE!!!

136. Thomas - June 17, 2008

The “echo” of Kirk, or anyone else for that matter, would be just that, an echo, a brief reflection of the true self, not the same as the real thing.
I honestly hope we don’t have to revisit GEN in this movie, that’s not the movie that’s going to bring in mainstream audiences

137. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - June 17, 2008

Orci can we please find a way to get Bruno Ganz in the film??? I just watched Downfall again last night and I’d love to see him in the movie shouting and people in German or at least a thick German accent. Besides the man is haunting truly haunting.

138. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

… Zombie Kirk wants Spock’s brain… brilliant story thar! Somehow chuck in tha’ space hippies, a were-tribble, and deformed Pike in his roller-wheelie and we’s got it…

Star Freaks…. disgrace, tha’ banal frontier… these are the horrifyings of tha’ harm-ship Slasherprize…

Arrrrrrr….

139. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 17, 2008

Check out post #14 for my other take on a similar theme.

140. star trackie - June 17, 2008

#131 “Can’t we just pretend that ‘Generations’ doesn’t exist? ”

You mean it DOES exist??

………nah.

141. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

BND#138- LMAO!! “…the Harmship Slasherprize”!!

142. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”

That tells me two things. First, that Shatner’s “I don’t do cameos” comment was indeed influential in the “Supreme Court’s” decision not to cast Bill Shatner in the film. Secondly, it is obvious that writing Bill’s character (the one who was killed in Generations) into a major role would not be beneficial to the resolution of the story, and therefore put the story’s integrity in jeopardy. It’s very simple. They didn’t write a story about Shatner’s Kirk. This is a TOS prequel, tied into the post-Nemesis era. That has absolutely nothing to do with Shatner’s Kirk. He’s gone (“moldering for quite some time”, as Nimoy said). William Shatner has had his farewell as Kirk (STVI), and then even a bad curtain call (Generations). It’s over. Kaput. Finished.
Who knows if he might have been offered a cameo appearance (like a flashback scene, depicting a pre-Enterprise-B conversation between Spock and Kirk) which might have been beneficial to the story? Saying things like, “I don’t do cameos”, and calling their choice not to grant him a more significant role a “bad business decision” and even more arrogantly, a “bad box-office decision”, is certainly inhibitive behavior, IMO.

The bottom line is, we are going to be treated to an adventure which features the iconic characters of the Original Series. I, for one, am very thankful for that. I’ll extend a personal “thank you” to everyone involved just for the effort. If this were another TNG movie, I would not be planning on paying to see it in the theater, and I certainly wouldn’t be perusing this site daily for any news.

It’s all about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, etc. . Not that I don’t care who’s playing those characters, but to assume that only Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, etc. have (or sadly, had) the talent to do so is ridiculously narrow-minded. Furthermore, making the judgement now that this film would be any better with Bill Shatner in it is equally absurd, given the fact that no one on these boards has even seen it.

143. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

THX#14- You and BND should collaborate on an ST/Horror crossover. How is this for a title – Star Trek: The Final Decapitation.

144. Sean4000 - June 17, 2008

Although I am one who absolutely, positively wants to see Shatner return as post-Genrations Kirk, I don’t think Star Trek XI will be crippled if he’s not in it.

Star Trek XI’s mission is to bring Star Trek back. Star Trek XII should bring Kirk back. Shat isn’t going to be around forever you know.

145. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

141
Indeedy-do.
Arrrrrrr… why’s yer space suit a’comin’ wit’ a goalie mask… and yer so taciturn yet bonky about sawin’ up tha’ enlisted?
Cuz’ Bob wrote me that way… now, whar’s tha’ horny young crewman fur me ta’ filet…

Uh, oh… Sub Rosa territory mates…

Arrrrrr…

146. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

14

Tasha Yar be thar! Dead again and again!

Arrrrr….

147. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

#145

And we could call it “Something Wacky This Way Comes”?

#124: Denise, I’m workin’ on that story for ya, girl!

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

148. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

Parrrrdon me here…

But i feel tha’ fabric of dis thread has shifted from scratchy rough courdoroy ta’ softer sheepskin…

Still unsettlin’ thou…

So, what have we learned from dis thread?

1. Many folk would dismember their own sweet, dear mum just ta’ see Billy boy in tha’ new flick.

2. Bob Orci spies on us… knows when we tinkle.

3. In the universe thar’s a million things ye’ can have and a million things ye’ canna have.

4. Chris Doohan pops in here and there… now, I’m sure he doesn’t care when we tinkle but he may know how we eat those frozen chicken nuggets straight from tha’ box, only just defrosting in tha’ fridge.

5. TOS and an origins story are business as usual fur Hollywood ta’ let people know who the frak these folk are on-screen and what they be doin’ … yet still have some pop-culture idea who they be… “Kirk? Yeah… wuz on Growin’ Pains… now he’s so holy he makes tha’ Pope look like a pile o’ puke cathedral torcher.”

and…

6. “The Underpants Monster” would be a good addition to the beginnings of a Horror Trek we is developing here.

ta, me lovelies…

arrrrrr

149. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#144—“Star Trek XII should bring Kirk back. Shat isn’t going to be around forever you know.”

While I otherwise appreciate your point of view, I can’t agree with that statement. Kirk died in the incident aboard the Enterprise-B. I fully expect any sequel to STXI to be a continuation of adventures featuring the younger versions of those characters, and set aboard the original NCC-1701. I certainly hope that future films are not a series of time-travelling adventures. There are plenty of 23rd Century gaps to fill, like the years between TOS and TMP (prior to the refit) and the those between TMP and TWOK (prior to the assignment of the Enterprise to training duty). I would rather see future stories told within those gaps, which total about a decade or so (given the assertion in TWOK by Jim Kirk that he hasn’t seen Khan in 15 years).

I think the point of the time-travel element in STXI is, as you said, to bring ST back, but also to involve Leonard Nimoy and tie it in to the post-Nemesis era. I hope that is the extent of it.

150. Captain Otter - June 17, 2008

#32- you need to polish up your time-travel theory.

Once Spock goes back in time, he is creating a new time-line. The TNG universe still “exists” unchanged in one sense, and yet a new timeline is spawned in which major changes are inevitable- perhaps even one where the Nexus situation is handled very differently. Yet this variance does not “undo” any TNG history as the post Trek XI timeline is in its own contained universe.

Google “John Titor” for a look at a modern-day hoax in which the hoax creator explains time travel.

151. Pr011 - June 17, 2008

*groan*

152. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#150—“you need to polish up your time-travel theory”

LOL!!!!

Yes, let’s “polish up” on theories which operate (at the very least) on the far most fringes of scientific credibility before we comment on how they might be applied to a Star Trek movie. Whatever was #32 thinking?

153. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

BND#148- Eating those uncooked chicken nuggets may cause Salmonella, which in turn can cause hallucinations and certainty that one is a Mugatu in pon farr… For the sake of female Mugatus everywhere, lay off the uncooked chicken nuggets.

154. British Naval Dude - June 17, 2008

Arrrrrr…

Denise,
Got it. Save tha’ Mugatus… so they can bite and kill our future generations….

Aye, aye

Arrrrrrr….

155. Mr. Bob Dobalina - June 17, 2008

Hmm…a year to go. SHat looks “Shattastic”…..and like the good vulcan says, there are always possibilities.

here’s hoping!

PS Bob Orci, I love surprise parties!

156. Spockanella - June 17, 2008

153: Oh, for a minute there I thought you said eating uncooked chicken nuggets could cause SPOCKANELLA…never mind.

Vulcanista! You live!

Mr. R. Orci: Do whatever you want. Really. Feel free. I’m going to see the movie no matter what.

Here’s what this thread sounds like to me:
Kirk’s going to be in the movie.
No he’s not.
Kirk IS Star Trek.
No he’s not.
This is all a plot to get us to go see the movie in case Kirk’s in it.
No it’s not.
Anything you can do I can do better.
No you can’t.
My opinion’s better than yours.
No it’s not.

In summary, and as others have said more eloquently than I, if Shatner’s in the movie, fine. If he’s not, fine. But if people in my movie theatre jump up and start screaming “I told you so!”, retaliation involving buttered popcorn and Pepsi in uncomfortable places will be in order. :)

157. Mr. Bob Dobalina - June 17, 2008

#142 “Furthermore, making the judgement now that this film would be any better with Bill Shatner in it is equally absurd, given the fact that no one on these boards has even seen it.”

Sorry CLoset Trekker, I know you don’t like Bill Shatner but in my opinion, any TOS film that has Leonard Nimoy as Spock can only benefit from the presence of Bill Shatner AS Captain James T. Kirk. HOW it happens isn’t an issue. These guys are good writers AND Trek fans…HOW it’s done isn’t a problem, they can make it happen.

The bottom line is, the originator of the Kirk role, an incerdibly popular actor, participaing and reuniting with his costar of 40 years, in a TOS themed movie can only create buzz and excitement and, ultimately, benefit the film and the franchise.

Personally I dig Shatner…he never stole my candy, kicked my dog or short changed me at the drive through. I hope he’s in.

158. Darryl - June 17, 2008

Shatner is in the movie.

I am not fooled by all the doublespeak.

When the movie is finally released my statement will be vindicated.

I mean, c’mon, does anyone honestly believe that the guys behind Lost are worried about confusing an audience.

Don’t believe the dog and pony show.

159. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - June 17, 2008

There Bringing Shatner Back,
Is it because Chris Pine Don’t know how to act?
He hasn’t lost it he’s still got the knack,
It doesnt matter that he’s gotten fat!

DRAMATIC PAUSES!!

*Boogies as he craws back into his hole singing to himself*

160. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

DB#157- Shat helped kill his character in a poorly-written, lazily-conceptualized, stupidly-directed movie over 10 years ago. I say he is out.

161. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

Jay#159- Did you see the guy doing the Justin Timberlake spoof on Shat on YouTube – that sounds a little like his song!

162. Anthony Thompson - June 17, 2008

Bob Orci: Why did you open up that can of warms again? I mean, really!!! You are an intelligent guy, so why did you say “and now with another year to go, who knows?”. Are you just toying with the Shatner fanatics? I don’t know why you would do that, but I can’t believe your statement was serious. Help me understand.

163. Rick - June 17, 2008

I am cracking up about now. Man I love message boards these daze! I still can’t wait to see what type of film this STAR TREK turns out to be. Can’t wait…
oh yes Kirk is in it I believe…;)

164. Greg2600 - June 17, 2008

To say that Shatner alone would ruin the movie, or that Shatner should be kept out because he “helped” kill off the character, or has no respect for Star Trek or the fans, or has become a Priceline goof……etc., are not sufficient reasons for the producers/writers to keep him out. The only rational reason is that his character does not fit in the script, either in believability, stature, or simply lines on the page. He’s not in it because the character is dead is not a valid reason. However, he’s not in it because the character is dead, and we don’t have enough room in the film or relevance to retell the story of his return, at the expense of the film, is. That isn’t what Abrams said, which is unfortunate, but I think he was trying to be respectful of Shatner, and not just say “We don’t have room in the Star Trek movie for William Shatner.”

Whether Kirk was still alive or dead, they simply could not have Shatner as a cameo. That wouldn’t be fair to him or the fans. I myself just can’t imagine watching a Star Trek feature with only Nimoy, no Shatner. Generations and most of Search for Spock were icky enough. It’s no more Fanboy to have both than just the one.

I would still be nice if somehow they got Shatner to do the “Space…The Final Frontier” though.

165. Boborci - June 17, 2008

Anthony Thompson – June 17, 2008
Bob Orci: Why did you open up that can of warms again? I mean, really!!! You are an intelligent guy, so why did you say “and now with another year to go, who knows?”. Are you just toying with the Shatner fanatics? I don’t know why you would do that, but I can’t believe your statement was serious. Help me understand.

A: Interview back in march. I was asked usual questions. Movie had just been moved. And I figured, “who knows?”

166. Viking - June 17, 2008

The queen of diamonds, Bob…..the queen of diamonds………..

167. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

#158 “Shatner is in the movie….don’t believe the dog and pony show”

Darryl, if that’s the case, is Shatner the “dog” or “pony”?

(and don’t say pony just because he likes horses)

168. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 17, 2008

It’s all too predictable.
Yes Shatner WILL be in the final 5.

How’s that for a Sci-Fi tie in?

169. 324 more to go - June 17, 2008

Hey, why not have that multicolored rain cloud thingy from Generations make a return trip and drop off the Shat man on the captain’s chair of the new E?

Stranger things have happened in the Start Trek universe.

There, I solved your writing dilemma. Make the check payable to “324”, unless you send it tomorrow in which case it should be “323” and so forth.

170. Viking - June 17, 2008

#63 – “Get Shatner in the movie. Spock is time traveling and NOT saving his friend? The one who risked everything for him when he died? Ridiculous. Go into orbit around Veridian, don’t hit the nexus, beam him up at the right moment, perform some sickbay magic. Take him back to whence Spock came so as not to change the timeline. Period. The movie closes with the two of them smoking cigars and having a scotch.”

A number of us have written out that basic scenario in various threads. It shouldn’t take too much to make The Shat look 14 or 15 years younger. And if the wardrobe department needs a triple-hook girdle to squeeze his ass into, I think my mother-in-law has a few she’d part with. *MOO-O-O-O*
LOL :-)

171. Sean - June 17, 2008

Jeez, so many people jumping down Mr. Orci’s throat on the Shatner issue. Just leave it alone. I don’t care who is in the next Star Trek movie as long as it’s a great movie.

BTW, I think Mr. Orci uses Google Reader or some other kind of RSS feed gatherer to keep an eye on TrekMovie.com. I know I do!

172. Viking - June 17, 2008

I’ll even throw her in as part of the deal.

“Take my mother-in-law – PLEASE!”

*rimshot*

173. Darryl - June 17, 2008

#167 “Darryl, if that’s the case, is Shatner the “dog” or “pony”?

(and don’t say pony just because he likes horses)”

Okay Harry, then I’ll say pony ’cause Shatner is hung like a horse.

174. dalek - June 17, 2008

#165

Mr Orci, this was after JJ said on 20th January : “The only reason Mr. Shatner is not in the movie and Mr. Nimoy is, is that his character died on screen.”

Are you saying you have more time to figure out how to do this and its on the cards? Or just playing? Some fans feel we were messed about before. As Anthony pointed out the Shatner “Don’t do cameos” comment was from October but we were led to believe it was still on the cards all the to JJ’s interview end of January…

There’s loads of inconsistencies, but I refuse to hope its still a possibilty, as my hopes were shattered a few months back by JJ Abrams.

175. The Quickening - June 17, 2008

Read somewhere that Doctor Who, which has been around longer, has a younger fan base than STAR TREK. This Shatner business is a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. TREK is dead unless it can renew it’s fan base with younger fans. THAT is the Prime Directive. Shatner being in the film or not being in the film, is of secondary importance–unless his appearance damages the film. Only older fans can be the beneficiaries of his appearance, so why put him in since he is of little importance to the story which is already written and filmed? Why risk it? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

What concerns me is the studio which has the last word in this matter, and can surely see this controversy, may force the producers hands–irregardless of the damage it does to the film and shove Shatner in. That’s why it is imperative for Abrams and co. to put out this fire once and for all. They need to make a concrete, public statement, one way or the other, and be done with it. If they in any way think this matter is healthy for the project, then I question their sensibilities. The fanatical Trekkie label and image has already helped to damage TREK in the eyes of the mainstream, which just happens to be the very audience they want, correction, need for the film to succeed. What a pity they don’t seem to see that.

This time, it’s possible that Abrams’ penchant for secrecy could turn and bite him and everybody concerned in the ass.

176. Eric Cheung - June 17, 2008

I have a question: Are there any other gaps you’d like to fill besides the origin story of the Enterprise and crew?

Personally, if the story of the Romulan War was told on screen then I think that plus this series of movies would make the Star Trek story complete for me (until new questions are posed of course!).

177. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

#173

Darryl, I’d yell at you, but I have a colt and I’m a little horse! *rimshot*

178. Darryl - June 17, 2008

#177

Nay, I say, let’s take a gallop poll about this so we can ride it out to a stable solution.

(yeah, that wasn’t great, I know)

179. asc1138 - June 17, 2008

“Not only do we not want him in this movie, but having him in this movie would ruin it. I dont care what you think you want. A heroin addict wants a fix when what he needs is rehab. It’s a best interest kind of thing I am talking about here. ”

Speak for yourself dude. “We” have nothing to do with your opinion. “We” want him in the movie so please stop trying to tell people you have absolute knowledge on something when you don’t. “We” make up a considerable portion of the fanbase and “We” (not to be mis-represented by your wishfullness for everybody to agree with you), don’t care how old he is or what priceline commercials he’s done. You need to except that “We” is just you and the handful of people who want an excuse to hate Shatner. Period!

180. VOODOO - June 17, 2008

Bob Orci:

Bob are you willing to go on record and confirm Shatner’s story that he was never offered any type of cameo role?

I understand if you can’t say one way or the other, but it seems likely to me (if you read between the lines) that Shatner was offered some type of cameo and he turned it down because he wanted a bigger role/more money.

His daily statements about not being in the film seem more like a public negotiation than someone who genuinely is upset (I’m sure he is to some degree) about not being included.

I find it odd funny how his stance has changed from “I don’t do cameos” and “I’m worth the salary” before the shoot started to “I’d be happy to do a voice over” after the film has wrapped and only pick up’s remain. Is it that Shatner understands the only way he can be in this film now is to put his ego aside and take the cameo that was offered to him?

Besides, I don’t for a second believe that “The Price Line Negotiator” and the guy who makes paint ball videos is to high and mighty to make a cameo in one of the biggest films of 2009. It just doesn’t add up.

J.J. Abrams is on record as saying that he wants Shatner. William Shatner pops up on tv every day saying that he wants to be in the film. What is the issue?

I may sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that there is more hear than meets the eye.

I

181. VOODOO - June 17, 2008

Oops I meant to say here not hear.

I wish I could type

182. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

#178

Darryl, the mane thing is…….you tried!

183. Denise de Arman - June 17, 2008

Mr. Bob- (sighs) So sorry about my comment at 101 now – I had forgotten how seriously strung-out some of the carbon units become over this subject…

184. The Gatchaman - June 17, 2008

SHAT’S IN! SHAT’S IN!! BANK ON IT!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

185. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#157—-It’s unfair to say I don’t like Shatner simply because I trust the filmmakers’ apparent conclusion that his presence would not benefit the story they are trying to tell (at least in anything more than a “cameo”). I love Shatner as Kirk, and I regularly enjoy rewatching his performances on dvd.

Your conclusion that Nimoy+Shatner is better no matter what is totally unsupported. In fact, STV: The Great Trek Turd should be evidence enough that this is not necessarily the case…At least my conclusion that his presence would not benefit the story is supported by their ultimate decision to leave him out.

A good story without Shatner’s Kirk is a much better prospect to me than a mediocre one, which was handicapped by the forced resolution of someone else’s mistake…I don’t buy that Kirk’s death in Generations is Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman’s problem, nor the problem of anyone else on the creative team involved with STXI (a story which has nothing to do with Shatner’s Kirk). The story they wish to tell does not require, nor is it benefitted by (at least in their minds), the resolution of a poor decision on the part of the TNG-era moviemakers (and Shatner himself) to kill the character at that point.

#164— “The only rational reason is that his character does not fit the script”.

I believe that is the case, and I think Mr. Orci inferred as much when he said that Shatner “…required a slightly larger part than maybe the movie could sustain”.

They were apparently prepared to consider a “cameo”, perhaps like the flashback scene I have often suggested they could get away with (a conversation between Spock and Kirk taking place prior to his boarding the Enterprise-B, and obviously with some relevance to the plot or what is in Spock’s mind at that particular point).

“I don’t do cameos” was a “bad business decision” on the part of Bill Shatner, especially since he was recently on The View unveiling a revisionist outlook on his absence in the film, and since we know that he is not really opposed to doing cameos (otherwise he would not appear in Horrorween).

My guess is (and this is speculation, of course), that he simply overplayed his hand in an attempt to convince Abrams and company to create a major role for his character (the one who’s dead) in STXI, and he ended up with nothing. Well, when you gamble, sometimes you lose.

186. Boborci - June 17, 2008

Eric Cheung – June 17, 2008
I have a question: Are there any other gaps you’d like to fill besides the origin story of the Enterprise and crew?

Personally, if the story of the Romulan War was told on screen then I think that plus this series of movies would make the Star Trek story complete for me (until new questions are posed of course!).

A: Agree that Romulan War would be cool subject.

187. Boborci - June 17, 2008

Sean – June 17, 2008
Jeez, so many people jumping down Mr. Orci’s throat on the Shatner issue. Just leave it alone. I don’t care who is in the next Star Trek movie as long as it’s a great movie.

BTW, I think Mr. Orci uses Google Reader or some other kind of RSS feed gatherer to keep an eye on TrekMovie.com. I know I do!

nope. Check it everyday.

188. hitch1969© - June 17, 2008

I think we all now understand and accept, just as Shatner himself does, just as the OrcSter and Sir JJ have pretty much stated that Shatner is not going to be in this new movie.

Hopefully we are now all in agreement that while we may want it, it is not in our best interest to have it.

And finally, there’s no need to discuss it further. SO we shan’t talk the shat anymore.

BEST!!

=h=

189. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#186—Bob Orci: Now we’re talking Bob.
What about filling in the gaps between TOS/TAS and TMP, or the gap between TMP and TWOK? There has never been a definitive answer to exactly when the events of TMP take place (only that Kirk has been Chief Of Starfleet Operations for 2.5 years), so it seems plausible that the NCC-1701 could have had another 5 year mission. Also, it is difficult to imagine the newly refit Enterprise having nothing interesting take place aboard her between the V’Ger incident and her assignment to training duty under Captain Spock. I don’t expect you to give anything away, but I hope you guys consider something like that if/when you write the sequel. There are 15 years between the events of “Space Seed” and TWOK, yet only one documented 5 year mission. That seems like alot of Kirk/Spock/McCoy left on the table.

190. Boborci - June 17, 2008

189. Closettrekker – June 17, 2008

Agreed. Much territory. It’s why I liked so many of the books — you could imagine them happening between the movies…

191. eagle219406 - June 17, 2008

Something that I have been wondering. People say that it is a prequal, but they also say that there is time travel involved. Is it about the future people coming to the past, or does it start in the past and have them meet their future selves. I don’t know if I am clear on what I just said. If anybody understands maybe they can answer.

192. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#190–Bob Orci: My thoughts exactly…Alot of territory.

I know you have talked about it before in brief, but how far along are you in your ideas about STXII? Do you have anything specific in mind yet?

I like the idea of using that time period to perhaps introduce some new characters. Checkov is promoted and assigned to Reliant, so there is the need at some point for a new navigator, for example. I always saw Checkov as having been aboard Reliant long enough to have developed a familiar relationship with Captain Terrell, so introducing a new bridge officer in between TMP and TWOK would seem to make sense to me.

An since you brought it up, which of the novels is your favorite?

193. Number 3 - June 17, 2008

187.Boborci
I realize everything is so “no comment” and “hush-hush” concerning this project, but can you please ask JJ to tell us how much long before we can see the Enterprise…..and please don’t say 5-9-09.
we know it doesn’t look like a potato.
and thanks for just reading our posts…#3

194. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

Bob Orci

Tough question I hope you can answer……….in watching the Big Three roles be performed by other actors, was there a moment where you felt one of the thespians was almost “channeling” the essence of the original? Not an imitation, of course, but more the persona or spirit of what we enjoyed about the original characters from TOS?

195. Kirk's Girdle - June 17, 2008

Chris Doohan said “with or without Shatner this movie will rock!”

Damn it, can’t anybody be definitive on this subject?

SADISTS, I SAY!!

196. Steve Short - June 17, 2008

Old Spock has changed time some how. And old Kirk makes a cameo at the end of the movie when old Spock returns to his own time. No need to explain about “Generations” the Star Trek fans will know what has happened. The new fans at the movie will think Kirk has just survived death from the Romulans in the past. But Old Kirk has also survived death from “Generations”.

197. lostrod - June 17, 2008

# 188 – hitch1969 stated:

“Hopefully we are now all in agreement that while we may want it, it is not in our best interest to have it.

And finally, there’s no need to discuss it further. SO we shan’t talk the shat anymore.”

Once again, you are incorrect in assuming that everyone agrees with you. And if folks choose to discuss it further, folks will.

Regards.

You have tendency to use the term “we” as if you speak for everyone. Obviously not the case.

198. Dave - June 17, 2008

How about the ending described numerous times with a replay of “Amok Time” where Spock thought Kirk was dead …

Spock Returns to the present, sees Shatner and says “JIM!” and whirls him around with a big ass grin on his face. “I am pleased to see you alive, captain, although I”m at a loss to explain why.”

PERFECT flasback to the old Star Trek!

199. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

Hitch shall be forever immortalized for coining the phrase, “we shan’t talk the shat anymore”

(sung to the tune “Don’t Get Around Much Anymore”)

200. Dr. Image - June 17, 2008

“…unexplored territory.”
Wow. They really did think it out.
Very encouraging. In fact, more so with every bit of news.

201. Eric Cheung - June 17, 2008

“195. Kirk’s Girdle – June 17, 2008
Chris Doohan said “with or without Shatner this movie will rock!”

Damn it, can’t anybody be definitive on this subject?”
__________________________

Sounds pretty definitive to me: “The movie will rock!”

Mr. Orci thanks for the reply! Here’s hoping you get to fill in more gaps in the chronology!

202. veronica - June 17, 2008

I don’t think the future of the TOS’s characters has to be determined by what the spin-offs like TNG did with them. I’d diverge the continuence.

203. 7 of 5 - June 17, 2008

What was it Guinan said in ‘Generations’? Something like part of me always remains in the Nexus?

What did Kirk leave behind in the Nexus?

That door remains open as long as Shat can still suit up.

204. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

#203

Shat’s been playing the buffoon for so long now, would that be a clown’s suit?

Once someone has lampooned their own image, there’s no going back.

205. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 17, 2008

#185 … Do you just copy/paste your replies from a clipboard at this point?

206. Sogh Ho'neH jorDe' taI-VamPyr - June 17, 2008

nuqneH’
William Shatner is a Great actor. If Kirk can be back with a good story, Great. If not, I want a good story, nothing else. Except for there to be MORE KLINGONS!!! The Klingon story around the war that almost happened between Terra and The Klingon Empire is not told. I see a great story there as well as the ones stated here.

207. Closettrekker - June 17, 2008

#198—That’s assuming Spock (Nimoy’s version) survives the film. Who knows? This may REALLY be his last hurah.

#205—The response was not directed at you. I was speaking to another poster who may not have read the same thing from me before. But no, I do not copy/paste them. If I take the time to respond in post, it is tailored to the poster’s comments to which I am responding to. If it bothers you, you are free to refrain from reading it. Otherwise, know that if I feel someone needs a dose of common sense and “logic”–if you will, then I am happy to provide it for them. I will continue to defend the creative integrity of the writers and the story they have chosen to tell. Only THEY know what is going to work, and what will not…I will also continue to respond to those who unfairly blame JJ Abrams for things which Shatner has had a big part in himself. Plus, I have nothing better to do…

208. Makky - June 17, 2008

Am personally looking forward to the scene when old and young Spock come face to face and shout out “….I’M OLD/YOUNG!!!!!!!!!!!!” and then Doc Brown runs on screen dressed in a Commander Kruge outfit and simply states “Great Scott!” at the impending paradox, and then runs back to the Delorean….

It’ll be an easter egg on the dvd…

209. Xai (remembering the Boy Scouts & Flood Victims of Iowa) - June 17, 2008

I really don’t think this is any new news or an issue that has not been argued ad nauseum here before.

I believe…
Shat’s not in it… nor is there a grassy knoll conspiracy hiding the “real” reasons he’s not.
Shat’s not needed in it. Too many of the fanboy reasons why include references to “the last chance to see Shatner and Nimoy again as Kirk and Spock” rather than a chance to produce and view a truly good movie based on the script Orci and Kurtzman.
I LIKE JJ’s secrecy. I like to be surprised. This is truly the next generation of TOS and I want to know just a little… not a lot.

210. Xai (remembering the Boy Scouts & Flood Victims of Iowa) - June 17, 2008

Someone called William Shatner a great actor. I can’t agree. I believe he’s a good TV actor. I’ve seen several of his non-Kirk roles and so many are variations of the same man. I believe a great actor can become a believable character and hide those elements of themselves that don’t fit the part. If he’s done that, I’ve not seen it.

And that’s NOT bashing. That’s an honest evaluation.

IMO

211. Steve Short - June 17, 2008

Shatner in the movie and time travel in the movie what more can we talk about???

212. Kirok Fan - June 17, 2008

I haven’t posted in many months. I thought this issue was settled. Shatner wouldn’t be in it. But Orci’s comment that there is still a year left, and who knows, makes me think something might be in the works.

And the level of attention and discussion that Shatner inspires is, I think, more evidence that he should indeed be in the movie. And if you think it would ruin the movie, you’re just being silly, because obviously the film is going to star younger actors, and his participation would rather small.

213. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

Kirok Fan, I’ve enjoyed your posts in the past and am not disagreeing with you now, but I have found that even a small abberation in an otherwise good film can reduce it from “recommendable” to “m’yeh”.

Two minutes of Shatner “shoved in” to accomodate a small fanbase could possibly hurt an otherwise “refreshing restart” to the Trek franchise! Like adding one spice too many to an otherwise delicious meal!

214. OR Coast Trekkie - June 17, 2008

Mr. Orci, I have to say, this might be the spoiler you need to release: Is Shatner in the film or not? Look, this is FILLED with people that have hope that Shatner is in the film. If he isn’t, they are going to feel personally lied to, and will not like your movie.

215. Xai (remembering the Boy Scouts & Flood Victims of Iowa) - June 17, 2008

214. OR Coast Trekkie – June 17, 2008
“Mr. Orci, I have to say, this might be the spoiler you need to release: Is Shatner in the film or not? Look, this is FILLED with people that have hope that Shatner is in the film. If he isn’t, they are going to feel personally lied to, and will not like your movie.”

_I realize that you are not directing this post to me, but I feel I need to point out the fact that this thread is not FILLED with anything. There are posts for, against, undecided and uncaring regarding this subject.
And if Orci says nothing concrete about Shatner’s participation, how could anyone interpret that as lying? If I was Bob Orci, I’d almost consider your last two sentences a threat.

IMO

216. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 17, 2008

214.

C’mon 214. Take it from one who now knows better.
Watch the L word.

Personally, I still think this Shatner talk should be a non issue for now.
I think they made an offer but there was not much cash in it.

Let Shatner sweat it out for another 10 months.
Then make him a final offer to participate. After seeing the
close-to-final cut, I think his big head will really want to be in it.

217. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2008

Great, his big head can play one of the moons circling Vulcan!

218. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 17, 2008

I still love his style and his contribution to TREK throughout the years.

Was it really Shatner who came up with the “Get a Life” line.
Brilliant for the time. I think we all needed that.

219. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 17, 2008

This is from the crew of the USS Destiny : ) …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihsSmJNsDX8

220. OM - June 17, 2008

…Shatner wanted a larger part? Hell, as much weight as he’s put on since Generations, even a cameo would be a large part :-) :-) ;-)

221. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

#218: “Was it really Shatner who came up with the “Get a Life” line.”

More likely a writer for “Saturday Night Live.” And agreed; brilliant, nonetheless.

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

222. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 17, 2008

See, the problem with trying to bring Kirk back from the dead is that eventually his ghost/spirit will want to get all of the interlopers off of his bridge so he’ll resort to running around in a sheet and trying to scare them away and when that fails he will say some name like “Keaton” or “Batman” or the like and a little buggy fellow will give ‘em all a good scare but it will cost Kirk a high price and he’ll end up losing his ghosty rule book into the hands of the living and Spock’s mom will have to end up marrying the beetley little guy.

Is what I’m thinking.

223. The Vulcanista - June 17, 2008

#222
And that would be “Something Goofy This Way Comes.” }:-)

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

224. Tango - June 17, 2008

Wow–this is a long thread. If anyone is stil reading this…My two sense–Instead of relying on heresay write the part for shatner and show it to him. Ask him if he will do the part. I would hate to see an opportunity for Shatner not be in the film due to a lack of communication.

225. SirMartman - June 17, 2008

I saidit once,,and I’ll sya it again…

If Shatner “IS” in the next trek,,it will be the biggest scifi event since Star Wars came out in 1977.

:o)

226. SirMartman - June 17, 2008

I said it once,,and I’ll say it again…

If Shatner “IS” in the next trek,,it will be the biggest scifi event since Star Wars came out in 1977.

:oD

227. Iowagirl - June 18, 2008

Oh my, all those posts on one sentence (well, sort of a sentence…) and on Bob Orci’s cryptic comments we’ve come to appreciate and cherish that much. :)

And I think there were even 2 or 3 posts commenting the extensive excerpt *not* dealing with Shatner. ;-)

Well, however this story about the Men of Gotham will turn out, it’s pretty clear that most folk here are still chasing that gaseous cloud with that sweeeet odor – GOOD..:)

228. Adam from Sydney wants to see an Aussie Trek character! - June 18, 2008

Re: 45. US Taxpayer Dude

Not sure if really understood my point – Unless the movie works on both a creative level and as pure entertainment then it isdoomed to fail as a busines venture.

Which is why I believe that shoving Shatner in the movie merely as a device to make more money will de-rail any efforts to reignite this franchise if itdoes not work creatively.

I hope this move makes lots and lots of money so that we can see more trek beyond this movie. Therefore I support the notion of “maximizing shareholder value” !!!

229. The Underpants Monster - June 18, 2008

#218, 221 – I’m pretty sure it was Robert Smigel.

230. The Underpants Monster - June 18, 2008

#206 – YES! More Klingons! We need someone to do for Klingons what Johnny Depp did for pirates!

231. star trackie - June 18, 2008

#213 “Two minutes of Shatner “shoved in” to accomodate a small fanbase could possibly hurt an otherwise “refreshing restart” to the Trek franchise! ”

Sorry Harry, can’t agree there. Cameos, when done properly don’t hurt anything. Remember the Three Stooges appearance in the classic “Its A MAd MAd MAd MAd World”? They said nothing and were on the screen less than 15 seconds. But they’re being there, dressed as fireman spoke volumes.

I would LOVE to have SHatner in the movie with a larger role, that would be just as appreciated. But as it stands, a small role, done properly, can only bring smiles ( to most….lol) and bring more possitive buzz to the movie, both from fandom and the film industry itself.

And to those who are so adament that Shat will not be in the film I just have to quote the good Mr. Orci and say “it’s a year away…who knows?”.

The fat lady may still be singing, but the song aint over.

232. Admiral_Bumblebee - June 18, 2008

Many people say that William Shatner being in the movie wouldn’t affect the gross and maybe even hurt the movie.
I cannot agree.
Nearly every week we have some news about William Shatner in the media, most of the time he is asked if he is in the new movie. There is an interest in the man, there in an interest in him being in the movie.
If it would be revealed that he would indeed be in the movie, the media would go crazy and would report about it all over.
Even in Germany it was on TV when it was said William Shatner was not approached to play a part in the next Star Trek movie!

So I cannot accept it when people say that he wouldn’t affect the movie in a positive way if he would be in it.

233. Robert April - June 18, 2008

re #213

“Two minutes of Shatner “shoved in” to accomodate a small fanbase could possibly hurt an otherwise “refreshing restart” to the Trek franchise! Like adding one spice too many to an otherwise delicious meal!”

SMALL FANBASE???

234. Dom - June 18, 2008

The reason Kirk’s death needs undoing in some way, shape or form is a simple one: he didn’t die in a Star Trek movie, he died in a cameo in a TNG film. For a Jim Kirk death to have any meaning at all it would need to be in the context of the Star Trek series he came from.

Put it this way, if Keifer Sutherland cameoed as Jack Bauer for about ten per cent of an episode of Alias and got killed off by being pushed down a stairwell, how would fans of 24 feel?

That’s kind of what happened to Kirk in Generations. Truth be told, you could remove Kirk entirely from Generations and the basic film would barely be altered. He served no purpose in there. In Generations, it appears that Jean-Luc was made look like too much of a wuss to handle a fist fight so he drafted Kirk in. Neither character comes out well from the film: one is needlessly dead and one is made look like he doesn’t have the strength to save the day himself!

Star Trek VI was intended as a final TOS film. It ties up everything in a neat bow, the cast literally signs off at the and and that’s it. It should be the final word on the TOS characters.

By featuring Kirk, Scotty and Chekov (Scotty and Chekov seeming totally out of character, given they’re speaking Spock’s and McCoy’s lines) in Generations, Generations becomes the final word on TOS. Instead of the crew ‘sailing off into the sunset’, all that is undone.

Our last ever sight of James Doohan as Scotty is of him looking depressed in the ruined engineering deck of a ship that isn’t even his own.

Our (likely) last sight of Walter Koenig playing Chekov is of him looking depressed on a ship that he never served on. The rest of the TOS cast aren’t there, making them look irrelevant. And as for Kirk . . . the death of the main character that would have been huge in STVI is meaningless.

Generations is probably the worst thing to happen to all versions of Star Trek – an ill-thought-out, rushed film that amounts to little more than artisitic vandalism and whose bull-in-a-china-shop impact still echoes nearly 15 years later. It kills off Kirk pointlessly. It revamps the Enterprise-D and finally gives it some scale as well as lighting it far better inside, only casually to blow it to bits because no-one bothered to check whether the recently incarcerated and tortured Chief Engineer’s ‘glasses’ have a built-in spy camera powerful enough to broadcast sensitive information to an enemy ship.

The destruction of the original Enterprise in STIII was a big deal. After so many big battles and after cheating destruction so many times in TNG, for the Enterprise-D to be destroyed so stupidly is actually quite offensive.

If Shatner can be fitted into Star Trek without wrecking it, even in a cameo which simply shows him having a possibiliity of a future beyond the Generations opening, it would undo Generations: symolically, the biggest blunder made in all the Star Trek shows and films!

235. Steve Short - June 18, 2008

If Shatner doesn’t do his cameo at the end of the movie then just have younger Spock see older Spock leave the past for home . At the end of the movie we will stay with the young crew of the Enterprise warp off into space because the next movie will be about them not Shatner.

236. British Naval Dude - June 18, 2008

From Star Trek 11:

SPOCK: I need to book some space travel, and find a hotel next to The Guardian Of Forever. But with these high di-lithium costs, I’m afraid I cannot afford to save the universe.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: Can’t afford to save the universe? Are you mad? Look, it’s so easy to find the right price! Just click here!

SPOCK: But I do not want to travel uncomfortably or stay in a craphole.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: I’m talking 4-star accomodations, complete with Tranya and sauna… and the travel… how does having 2 seats for the price of 1 sound? Look, with one click, we can just shoot Archer and Janeway out the airlock and take their bloated seats. How does it sound to those ears now?

SPOCK: It sounds like I’m going to save the universe after all… and save some cash.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: Now you’re living longer and prospering!

237. captain_neill - June 18, 2008

Bob Orci

Can I ask if this film will fit in with the original series time line, I mean set design and uniform changes are not going to be done so it wont feel like a different universe? I feel like it will be a reboot if they were changed and please tell me that you are not retconning the timeline so TOS never happened?

I would hate that

238. Ampris - June 18, 2008

Hah, y’know what? I don’t really care whether the Shat’s in or out– it won’t affect how I feel about this movie at all. But Mr. Orci, anyone else who’s reading this, just keep dropping those ambiguous statements every few weeks until the movie comes out and we’ll have more than enough pulse-pounding drama to keep us sustained. There might not be any pictures or plot points coming out, but with Shatner threads like these, who needs movie news? This is entertainment enough. :)

239. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 18, 2008

#231 star trackie, I agree, and I liken it more to Marlon Brando’s role in the original 1978 Superman – a small role, but boy, did it add to the overall enjoyment of that wonderful movie. Shatner could’ve added the same gravitas to ST XI.

Nice to see old allies like Kirok Fan and Admiral Bumblebee posting again. Yes, there is always overwhelming support for The Shat from fandom when this topic comes up. But I really don’t think this topic needed to be revived again, we’re still allowing ourselves to be teased when we need to be realistic. Shatner isn’t in it. FUMBLE.

240. Iowagirl - June 18, 2008

#239
– Nice to see old allies like Kirok Fan and Admiral Bumblebee posting again. Yes, there is always overwhelming support for The Shat from fandom when this topic comes up. –

Agreed. Amazing, people keep coming back to this board due to the slightest ray of Shathope. And as far as I know, nobody’s *left* the board since yesterday – so much for “a wider public”…;)

241. hitch1969© - June 18, 2008

Tha DomSter™:

“Generations is probably the worst thing to happen to all versions of Star Trek – an ill-thought-out, rushed film that amounts to little more than artisitic vandalism and whose bull-in-a-china-shop impact still echoes nearly 15 years later. It kills off Kirk pointlessly.”

actually I found your entire rant very well expressed and find no fault in anything that you are saying. I read it three times before I quoted part of it here. I don’t do that very often at all.

BEST!!

=h=

242. BritishStyleGalactica - June 18, 2008

I’m still bloody worried!
I have a bad feeling about the film.
I REALLY want it to be fantastic, but I keep asking myself “Is it going to ruin everything that we have known and loved (and been slightly uncomfortable with sometimes) before it?”
I’m trying to have faith, faith, faith Chris, but the nerves are still there.
I’m a big fan of the Shatmeister but it has to be done right if he’s in it. No silly little cameos. The story must lead the character not vice versa. He’s a big fella (literally) but the story must be bigger!
For what its worth, I have faith, faith, faith in you JJ.
Dont let us down

243. dalek - June 18, 2008

#239 & #240 Hey dont forget me :) There is nothing more alluring than the possibility of Shatner as Kirk again for me… However, I don’t feel there’s enough to go on here to have any ounce of hope. Both parties are talking to the media, all saying different, and often contradictory things. One thing is clear: if they don’t talk to each other, there’s not a glimmer of hope one bit!

244. Mike - June 18, 2008

First of all; I agree with Ted’s message to Marvin the Martian “learn how to use spell check”. Or better yet, learn how to spell.

Secondly; if the Shat has changed his position on cameos than all J.J. has to do is have him show up in a scene (with the young Kirk) as James T.’s grand father. We know there is a young Kirk in the story and we know Kirks father (George) is in Starfleet so maybe gramps give young Jimmy a few pointers about what to do with his life.

I know it’s not as sweet as having the Shat as an older Captain Kirk but to figure a way to work this into a single movie that already has a lot of story would be a small miracle. Maybe J.J. figured out a way. Once you have time-travel all sorts of things are possible.

However; with the grand-father cameo this small scene could be shot after principle filming has wrapped. We didn’t get the cameo from Sean Connery in the Indy film but that’s a different situation. Mr. Connery has done like Johnny Carson and stepped completely out of the public eye (I respect that) while the Shat has never been more exposed.

We’ll have to wait and see.

245. NTH - June 18, 2008

Mr.Orci, I have no doubt that if you check trekmovie.com each day that you are more than aware of the depth of feeling that the issue of Shatners non appearance in your new movie brings out.I for one simply hope that during the next year that something can be worked out.

#240 Iowagirl Re—–,”the slightest ray of Shatrope”, I totally agree.

246. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 18, 2008

#243 … dalek, didn’t mean to leave you out, friend! :-)

#245 … I totally concur with your comment to Mr. Orci.

247. Tom - June 18, 2008

Sounds like Mr. Orci is saying that the interview is now dated . there is still time but are they trying

248. weeharry - June 18, 2008

couple of things…

if the shat doesn’t feature in this one that should the end of the debate, as the whole point of this movie seems to be to launch the ‘new’ crew – having shat, or any of the old guard for that matter, continuing to reappear in subsequent movies would be a bit like them hanging around like a bad smell. I hope the use of a time travel plot and appearances by nimoy (and shat!) is purely used to reintroduce the characters to the “next generation” (pun intended) of fans. As pointed out in other threads, time travel stories are fine in moderation, but if the guys continually retread that plot device that’ll kill the franchise quicker than anything rick berman copuld have ever done. I guess a similar event was the appearance of the old crew in generations to pass the metaphoric torch on to the ‘next gen’.

That said, if a shat appearance in XI can be to the improvement rather than the detriment of the piece of work then I’m all for it and i still hope to see it done, but wouldn’t want to see something so obviously shoe horned in just because it’s fondly wished for. However, if the people concerned can get together and shat can be worked into the film, I have every confidence in the current creative team’s ability to do it in such way to avoid the ‘shoe horn’ effect.

Secondly, in response to #234 – whilst I agree with your reading of ‘generations’ and kirk’s involvement in it (bad!), your analogy is somewhat erroneous, due to the fact that alias and 24 do not co-exist in the same ‘dramatic universe’, whereas TOS and TNG are very obviously set in the same ‘universe’, much in the same way as buffy/angel or dr who/torchwood.

249. star trackie - June 18, 2008

#248 “However, if the people concerned can get together and shat can be worked into the film, I have every confidence in the current creative team’s ability to do it in such way to avoid the ’shoe horn’ effect.”

Amen to that.

#248 “..whereas TOS and TNG are very obviously set in the same ‘universe’”

…not so obvious to this fan…in fact sometimes I have to wonder.

250. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 18, 2008

Sorry guys, but TOS and TNG are set in the same universe whether you like it or not. Kirk died in Star Trek Generations not Star Trek The Alternate Universe That Doesn’t Affect Canon Movie. You can’t have your canon and shoot it too.

251. Nick - June 18, 2008

Am I the only one that thinks that they should not do this movie? I always have been and always will be a devoted fan, but I think they got the concept for this movie all wrong. God, please not another prequel! whatever happened to keep moving forward? This film while may seem like a good idea but im afraid it will be the final blow to the end the great franchise, not a BOOST. PLEASE, DONT MAKE THIS MOVIE — from a life long fan!

252. hitch1969© - June 18, 2008

To: Sir JJ™, The OrcSter®, Daemon Lindeloffagus®, and Dr. Alvin Kurtzweil, MD

from: the desk of hitch1969©
subject: Shatner

Gentlemen,

Although we love Shatner the most, and whereas we continually ask you to cast him in this new trek movies dot com dot org, please consider staying the course for we know not what we seek.

It’s going to upset a very gentle balance if you put Shatner in this movie. I think the DomSter said it best, about Generations. IF you put Shatner in this movie, for the reasons that Shatner wants you to do this… just don’t do it.

We say we want it, but please under no circumstances give us the ShatFix™ that we beg for. It’s whats best for us.

Thank You,

=h=

253. British Naval Dude - June 18, 2008

Continued from 236:

From Star Trek 11:

PICARD: I’d love to go visit the new Spock and Kirk, but they’re in a totally different universe and the exchange rates are unimaginable! It’s infuriating to have to jump through hoops when you travel.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: Totally different universe? No, it’s all one great big universe and we’re just tiny little specks- about the size of Mickey Rooney.

PICARD: Really? So I can go and meet the new Spock and Kirk, after all? Still, when I ran things, I always over-charged for rooms on the Enterprise. Won’t they do the same?

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: Why no! Just point and click. We know that there are constant vacancies in Redshirt’s rooms. It’s all guaranteed.

PICARD: Oh, my! It’s guaranteed alright, guaranteed that I won’t be seeing red or going in the red now!

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: And we’ll keep you off that red alert button, so just relax!

254. Tom - June 18, 2008

Would Bob Orci have said the same if the interview was held today???

255. nscates - June 18, 2008

236 – “But I do not want to travel uncomfortably or stay in a craphole.”

LOLOLOLOL!!! That’s AWESOME! Funniest post in the whole thread!

256. dalek - June 18, 2008

#’246 Cheers :)

#247 unfortunately there is no evidence that they are trying at all and everything said on here and in other interviews has been counteracted by JJ Abrams statements back in January. There has to be action and momentum and we’ve seen evidence of neither.

257. hitch1969© - June 18, 2008

re: 254. Tom – June 18, 2008
“Would Bob Orci have said the same if the interview was held today???”

I believe, that, if he were human, he would say, “Go to Hell.”

IF he were human.

BEST!!

=h=

258. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#239—“I liken it more to Marlon Brando’s role in the original 1978 Superman – a small role, but boy, did it add to the overall enjoyment of that wonderful movie.”

While you are correct in your assessment of Brando’s small but important role in Superman: The Movie, I’m not sure how that applies to Shatner in STXI. Jor’El, as depicted prior to the destruction of Krypton, carries none of the baggage that a dead (and moldering) James Kirk brings with him. Furthermore, Brando’s character is part of the story. Shatner’s character (dead and moldering Kirk) presumably has no relevance to the story in STXI.

#251—“Am I the only one that thinks that they should not do this movie?”

While I cannot speak for everyone, I would feel comfortable saying that you are in a tiny minority at the very least.

“whatever happened to keep moving forward? ”

You mean continuing to make “feature films” in the boring and sterile TNG-era? No thanks. I’ve never paid to see one of those, and I’m not about to start now. TNG was a successful series, but never developed its characters into iconic status, and IMO, was never feature film material. Even at its best (FC), it was only okay. Star Trek feature films should be about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, or sent straight to DVD. But that’s just my not-so-humble opinion…

“This film while may seem like a good idea but im afraid it will be the final blow to the end the great franchise, not a BOOST.”

If STV: The Great Trek Turd and a later succession of bad TNG movies didn’t kill it, how do you figure STXI will?

259. Iowagirl - June 18, 2008

#243

So sorry, dalek – didn’t mean to leave you out, either. ;)

260. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#256—It’s only unfortunate for those who blindly believe that his presence in the film would be worth the baggage to the story, and those who assume that the story could be at all benefitted by a Shatner’s Kirk appearance. Those are huge assumptions, especially when one of the writers has already inferred that the movie could only sustain a role more minor than Shatner claimed to require. Filming is wrapped. Bill would have to surrender his ego and practically beg to get even the smallest concession at this point. I don’t think he wants it that bad. For him to do so even after publicly insulting the director’s decision-making abilities and questioning the creative talents of the writing team would be a huge leap of humility that I do not believe is in Shatner’s arsenal. I think he overplayed his hand already with the “I don’t do cameos” statement, and that’s that. I could be wrong and Bill could surprise me, but I doubt it.

261. star trackie - June 18, 2008

#254 “Would Bob Orci have said the same if the interview was held today???”

Bob can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d dare say he would.

Bottom line is there is nothing to be gained by comitting either way this early in the game. If he”s in , build the suspense. If he’s out…keep em guessing!

His answer would be just as appropriate today as it was 2 months ago…it keeps the fire burning, gives hope and at the same time, reveals nothing.

262. nscates - June 18, 2008

@ 260

Well, I hope that you’re in for a surprise, but of course I can’t be sure until next May. Still, it’s tough to see the logic in allowing the debate to rage on if he’s not in it. The Bring-Back-Shatner camp (of which I am a member) would be quite aggravated to find him NOT in the movie after the key players on the production team avoided answering the question definatively for a year and a half. Of course, if he IS in the movie, all of the deflections and vague statements make a lot more sense – no point in ruining the surprise, right? But I know a lot of trekkers, trekkies and what have you that will be quite upset if they wait all the way until May of 09 only to find out Shatner is absent. For some, it will be like getting up on Christmas morning expecting (hoping, praying) for a new bicycle only to find a lump of coal. Yeah, it’s still Christmas, but the dissapointment leaves a bitter taste, and the rest of the day seems the less for it.

I’ve said it before but I might as well repeat myself since so many others have ; ) : I think there are several ways that Shatner could be included. I also think it’s possible to have a good ST film without him. I think it’s a bad idea, however, to allow fans to think he’s in the movie if he isn’t. To paraphrase Shatner: definately a questionable business decision.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

263. lostrod - June 18, 2008

#260

Do all the folks posting that trying to include Mr. Shatner would be “baggage to the story” or “not fit”, “forced”, etc. have a copy of the script they could share?

If not, how would they know how Mr. Shatner’s inclusion or exclusion would affect it?

Just curious.

Regards

264. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 18, 2008

#258 “Shatner’s character (dead and moldering Kirk) presumably has no relevance to the story in STXI.”

At this point, with the script long since written and the movie already filmed, he does not. But what I’ve said 1,701 times before is that he SHOULD HAVE. You and I are and have been talking about two different points in the development of this project. My belief, one shared by many if this and the other Shatner threads that have been going strong for a year now are any indication, is that back in 2006, when JJ first got out his Big Chief notebook and started scrawling down his ST XI wishlist, it should have started out:

“1) SHATNER
2) NIMOY…”

…and proceeded from there. Understand? I do hear what you’re saying – shoehorning him into the script they decided to go with might very well be a bad thing. And before you accuse me of being against a re-start, let me repeat that is not the case. What I wanted to see was New Kirk/Old Kirk, New Spock/Old Spock. And, yes, the team behind Lost & their brilliant writers who earn millions COULD have made that work. Unquestionably! Characters return from the dead on Trek and on Lost on a regular basis! And if the rumors about time travel/altered timelines are true, that’s more than 50% of the solution right there.

Could you at least acknowledge that in the beginning, there were a variety of ways in which this story could have been told, and some of those could’ve included Shatner?

265. hitch1969© - June 18, 2008

If they’re gonna use time travel to go back and save anyone, then let that person they save be Sybok.

Spock time travels back to Nimbus III.

Then he drops in on the Genesis planet to save David and let Saavik die instead. She wasn’t really ever hot after II anyway.

Next on this most excellent adventure, as Spock, Sybok, and David Marcus travel through the circuits of time in a crowded phone booth, David Bowie’s pointy nipple antennae breaks off and they get stuck with Will and Holly in the Land of the Lost.

Notice there’s NO mention of Shatner in there, folks. The Orcster and I re-wrote it that way on purpose.

BEST!!

=h=

266. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#264—I acknowledge that it COULD have, of course. Never doubted that. But what if this story is better than one that involves Shatner’s Kirk? The writers must have thought so, or they would have written a different one. I have simply chosen to grant them the benefit of the doubt, while others insist that there is almost no way that could be true.

Shatner’s Kirk shouldn’t have been killed, but Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams, and Lindelof had nothing to do with it, and they shouldn’t be saddled with it now. I don’t know how anyone can justify suggesting they should carry that baggage, especially when they are making a film about the ORIGINS of the characters. I just think Nimoy’s involvement (by time travel) is enough, and apparently much more relevant.

At least you understand that putting him in now (in anything but a cameo) is a bad idea, assuming it doesn’t fit, but there are alot of others who obviously don’t get it. You and I are in agreement on one thing. The window has passed. It’s over.

267. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 18, 2008

See, the problem with trying to bring back Kirk from the dead is that what actually happened on Veridian III was that he was just really sleepy after he fell off the bridge dealie and he spent the next five years as a castaway on the planet where he found he could do all sorts of neat things like grow a beard and light fires and make friends with volleyballs and lose weight but when he finally gets to go back to those he loves he finds out that Sulu is married to Brad Altman so there’s no future there but he could always deliver packages or something.

268. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 18, 2008

Closet, I think we understand each other’s viewpoint, but the 2 camps will always remain divided because of this:

“But what if this story is better than one that involves Shatner’s Kirk? The writers must have thought so, or they would have written a different one.”

People like me feel Shatner’s Kirk was/is the heart & soul of Star Trek, and there is no way a script without him could be better than one with him. *Especially* since Nimoy is in it. Even in a small role, Shatner could only enhance. That’s my view. Yours is that he doesn’t matter to the franchise anymore, and you’re entitled to feel that way.

I have said it before … this isn’t really a question of logistics, what side of the fence people fall on re. this issue all comes down to how much that individual fan loves The Shat.

You and I both agree that it could have been done. Why the filmmakers chose not to do it is anyone’s guess, but I am not inclined to automatically believe that their decision was the right one.

269. Ken Hoyas jr - June 18, 2008

Mr Orci:

I noticed that you didn’t respond to VOODOO’s post at #180. VOODOO asked if Shatner had been offered a cameo

Your lack of a response speaks volumes.

270. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#269—Why would they offer a cameo to someone who said, “I don’t do cameos”?

Read it again.

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”

It seems perfectly clear to me.

“by the way, when I said that Mr. Shatner subsequently said he wanted a larger role, I was referring to his public statement that he did not do cameos. Nothing more.”

If it wasn’t clear for you already, it seems as if “I don’t do cameos” played into their decision not to make that offer.

The fact that he did not answer Voodoo’s direct question is probably because that’s a question for Mr. Abrams and Mr. Lindelof, not Mr. Orci, who is one of the script writers. He probably felt it wasn’t his place to answer that. But that’s just my opinion.

271. British Naval Dude - June 18, 2008

267
I’d pay good money ta’ see such a picture… how sad… how much tha’ triumph o’ tha’ human spirit only ta’ be dashed so…

Tack on a happy endin’ tho, mate… he’s deliverin’ a package, gets LOST, and asks directions from John Cho… fade ta’ black as Billy scratches his head in tha’ crossroads… then a DC-10 falls on ‘im.

hey- still debatin’ shatner??? Thar’s a perfectly good thread wit’ a greenie lass on it ta’ be seen… ‘course there they wuz talkin’ aboot video games… geez… I followed her site through…

Yeesh… boyos, at this rate tha’ only procreated Trek fans will be CmdrR’s brood.

– “Is There In “Screw-You!” No Beauty?” –

Arrrrrr…

272. Steve Short - June 18, 2008

If Shatner doesn’t want to do a cameo then how about a holodeck scene with Old Spock and Hologram Old Kirk at the beginning and at the ending of the movie ? And maybe a surprise at the end Old Kirk is not a hologram he is alive with Old Spock who had changed time. That would be more than a cameo for Shatner. At the end Star Trek fans would know that Kirk had not been killed in “Generations”because of Spock. The new fans at the movie would just think Spock and Kirk had stopped the Romulans from killing Kirk.

273. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#268—“People like me feel Shatner’s Kirk was/is the heart & soul of Star Trek”

Not to split hairs (who am I kidding), but I saw Kirk as the heart, Spock as the brain, and McCoy as the soul.

I understand your point, though. Assuming the performances of Pine, Quinto, and Urban are as good as advertised, you may not feel as though you’re missing anything at all. In all sincerity, here’s to hoping you don’t…

After all, I don’t remember Superman: The Movie (an obvious shared favorite of ours) feeling as though it was lacking an appearance by the late George Reeves. We shall see of course.

274. hitch1969© - June 18, 2008

Just got off the red phone™ with the Supreme Court® and they have ruled.

NO SHATNER IN THIS MOVIE.

Opinions as follows:

Sir JJ™ – affirms, NO SHAT
The OrcSter® – affirms, NO SHAT
Daemon Lindeloffagus® – affirms, NO SHAT
Dr. Alvin Kurtzweil, MD – dissents, with protest noted.

Cherry Cordials,

=h=

275. NTH - June 18, 2008

I suspect that Spocks advice to the makers of the new movie would be that ” the logical way to deal with the Shatner controversy, if he is not in the movie, is to make no more public statements about him as they are an unnecessary distraction which create unwelcomed negative publicity unless there is a genuine possibility of his appearance”. 11 months to go and counting,here’s hoping for one last appearance by an old friend that we travelled the galaxy with.

276. Spockanella - June 18, 2008

See, what really happened to Kirk was that he got sucked up by a tornado and landed in a pickle with Picard and that creepy guy from Clockwork Orange and fell off a bridge, but it was all ok because when he woke up he found it was only a dream…and you were there and you were there and you were there too. So was Porthos.

With apologies to THX.

277. Dom - June 18, 2008

Okay, weeharry 248 (hello, by the way!) how would you feel if Sarah Jane Smith was running away from some bad guy in a SJA episode when suddenly The Doctor pops up only to be randomly shot dead with an ‘Unregeneration Gun’ two minutes later, which kills him completely dead forever, disintegrating the TARDIS for good measure? Would you want an SJA episode or Torchwood episode to be the last word on all Doctor Who?

How would you feel if Trip Tucker turned up in a TNG episode and got pointlessly killed off? Oh yeah, they pretty much did that and it went down like a bucket of sick with the fans!! ;)

If Shatner doesn’t turn up in the new film, I’ll live with it (and I remain convinced that this film will be utterly fantastic, either way.) It’s not like I don’t have a billion and one other things going on in my life. The world won’t end, Hell won’t freeze over and fire and brimstone won’t rain down from the sky.

But it’d be ***nice*** if there is a natural way to include him, as this is the last chance we have to see the older Kirk and Spock on film together. At this stage they are kind of the Bill Adama and Saul Tigh of the Trek universe: elder statesmen we respect and care about.

And captain_neill (237), why the heck would Bob Orci answer that question? Flippin’ heck! You’re like Cassandra on this site: ‘Doomed! We’re all doomed!’ Cheer up and ask your doctor to put you on Prozac! ;) We all like Star Trek, but at the end of the day it’s only a movie!

278. weeharry - June 18, 2008

277
(hello too!!)
couldn’t agree more – both with your revised analogy and your assessment of the usefulness of a shat cameo

i’ve fairly given up on a shat appearance and to be fair while it’d be cool i’m not losing sleep

i’ve stated before on other threads that i still think he should record the ‘space…the final frontier’ monologue – to hear him recite it one last time would be enough to get the old hairs on the back of the neck standing up

279. Closettrekker - June 18, 2008

#278—Personally, if those neck hairs don’t stand up when you see Leonard Nimoy raise his eyebrow once again, or when you see the Old Big E in all its glory one more time, then I think you might need to get those nerve endings checked…Perhaps I am developing a more sensitive side nowadays, but when I heard Nimoy’s voice in the trailer, I had that very sensation…

280. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 18, 2008

Spockanella, there is no need for apology. I was just waiting for someone to play my little game. My rules started out as “movies about the undead” but I let it morph into whatever could fit the theme of bringing Kirk back from non-existence. Depending on how much longer this thread goes or how soon another “Bring back Shatner as Kirk” discussion happens, I’ll try for another one. So far I did Pet Cemetary, Night of the Living Dead, and Castaway. BND threw in Lost.

281. Greg2600 - June 18, 2008

Orci is like one of those department store managers back in the 1940’s, when they’d announce a sale on toasters, and all the women would rush, scratch, push, punch, scream and claw over to that section to get one.

282. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - June 18, 2008

#281

What do you mean “back in the 1940’s”? When was the last time you went shopping? And why limit the violence to women? I’ve seen some men go caveman at the local sporting goods or electronics store on big sale days. Or society as a whole (at least the WalMart portion) on Black Friday.

283. Xon - June 18, 2008

#4 – Thank you, Biff.

284. Xai - June 18, 2008

269. Ken Hoyas jr – June 18, 2008
“Mr Orci:

I noticed that you didn’t respond to VOODOO’s post at #180. VOODOO asked if Shatner had been offered a cameo

Your lack of a response speaks volumes.”

Volumes? It can mean he didn’t see it or decided not to answer for any one of 12 reasons.
Don’t assume.

285. Xai - June 18, 2008

We have the same people saying the same things they have said for the past 6 months and a few (welcome and no offense intended) that don’t know that filming is over.

Write him in now?
Please catch up with current events.

286. Dom - June 18, 2008

Xai (285) put your claws away, dude (or dudette!)

Yeah some of these people asking seemingly gormless questions and insisting on what MUST be done in someone else’s film are a drag. They need to get a life or maybe throw themselves off a cliff in the hope that they get a life in their next reincarnation! ;)

But additional filming can be done up until very late in the day and it’s a year before Star Trek hits the cinema. Although Abrams has final cut, do you think test screenings and executive screenings won’t at least produce notes and suggestions?

Personally, I’m happy to sit back and wait to be amazed. I know the difference between hoping to see something and demanding to see something!!

287. Xai - June 18, 2008

286. Dom – June 18, 2008
Claws? Hardly. And I am a “dude”.
I am aware that editing does not always mean cutting. Frames and scenes can be added. But I truly doubt that shoehorning a Shatner scene into a story is likely.
And I agree completely with your last paragraph. Let’s see a brilliant Trek tale regardless of who is cast.

288. Dom - June 18, 2008

Xai (287) Unless there’s already one written that could fit into the film in the event they can make a deal with Bill Shatner! ;)

289. Xai - June 18, 2008

You are grasping at thin straws, friend.

290. Dom - June 18, 2008

Yeah, well, it’s a laugh, innit! ;)

291. Harry Ballz - June 18, 2008

#289

I can’t think of the last time I saw the words “thin” and “Shatner” mentioned in the same context!

292. Xai - June 18, 2008

(rimshot)

293. Harry Ballz - June 18, 2008

Xai, it’s always a pleasure sharing thoughts with you!

294. Xai - June 18, 2008

likewise

295. Amazing Bizarro - June 18, 2008

I would watch a Star Trek with Spock/Nimoy anyday. As for The Shat I’m burned out on him. Why doesn’t he just go away and make a Barbary Coast movie or someting.

296. SirMartman - June 18, 2008

After I watch Star Trek in 2009,Im going to look back at all these posts with a beer and have a laugh.

If Shatner is in,,
Im going to have a beer and thank JJ for a blast of a movie,
If hes not,,,
Im going to have a beer,,thank JJ for a blast of a movie,,,
and start a
“Will Shatner be in the next Trek” thread.

My hat is off to Orci & Kurtzman and JJ,at the moment theres more excitement to see this movie then there was for TWOK

god I cant wait

:o )

297. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 19, 2008

Nimoy, Shatner a n d Deforest Kelly in the final 5. ; )

298. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

Sorry bad question to ask Mr Orci. You’re probably right, i need to chill out. It’s just the changes from TOS that are getting me worried. I love Star Trek loads and always will, it is the best Sci Fi out there. I will love this movie when it comes out but the sets should evoke the original Matt Jeffries design and not replace it. It should not look more advanced than the Enterprise D.

I am just worried this is going to be more dumbed down to appeal to that mainstream audience and that JJ is going to try and make Star Trek his own baby.

Just over a month to Vegas for the Star Trek con and I cant wait. Hope Orci and Quinto can say some cool stuff about the movie.

299. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

I want to love this film, please don’t mistake my concerns for admission of not going to like it. I support Trek and will probably love the movie.

I want to have faith in JJ Abrams. JJ has proven a good guy with MI:III. I guess my problem is the more a guy gets praised for a show I didn’t like the more I ask myself, “Why do you get all that attention?”

I hope i love Chris Pine playing Kirk. He will NEVER take the place of William Shatner, no one can. its like people preferring Sean Connery over Roger Moore as james Bond. We love Roger but prefer Connery. Fair assessment?

300. Iowagirl - June 19, 2008

300th!

We love Shat, YEAH YEAH YEAH!

Where did we break off – oh yes, I remember, somebody said ‘who knows’ and we went into a dream…

Let’s make it real! :)

301. Dom - June 19, 2008

captain_neill (298) your’e still acting like someone whose church has been desecrated. Chill out! Hopefully a USS Enterprise used in a 2009 film will look considerably more advanced than the designed-in-the-1980s Enterprise-D. If the Enterprise-D were to be featured in a future film, I’d expect that ship to be updated too.

The point with this film is that it isn’t a retro nostalgia fest. As of now, ‘current’ Star Trek is the new film. The 23rd century is once more the main era of Star Trek. This is the TOS era, as it would be if it was made for the cinema in 2009, rather than a slavish remake of 1960s Trek.

Additionally, remember that Star Trek wasn’t made for the geek squad: it was a TV show designed to make a profit by getting companies to put their adverts in its breaks, by appealing to the correct demographic. Appealing to the mainstream doesn’t mean it has to be dumbed down and chavved up like the majority of new Doctor Who. In fact, as someone who considers himself a mainstream viewer, I find that opinion quite offensive.

TOS was laden with continuity errors and even Roddenberry was willing to contradict TOS when TNG was made.

This is going to be a different film that will do new things. It will, inevitably, play fast and loose with continuity, taking what it needs form other Treks and ignoring the rest.

But, frankly, if after reading all the remarks made by the new team on this site, you’re going to carry on bleating in the nauseating way you have been, you’re going to sound like you’re a troll who’s taking the pee!

302. Ampris - June 19, 2008

… 300? Again? How is it these threads get so long, and I’m still clueless about the allure of this ‘debate?’ What’s the point?

303. star trackie - June 19, 2008

#285 “Write him in now?
Please catch up with current events.”

…sigh. Please read the interview where Bob Orci says :

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain so we’ve kept him in the back of our minds, and now with another year to go, who knows? .”

That is from Bob Orci, one of the writers who was interviewed in March, when filming was all but done. Maybe it’s just me, but I would think he would know just a little more about such “possibilities” than you or I.

304. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

I dont mean to sound like a troll. So forgive me if I did.

I guess I love Star Trek too much and guess seeing different actors in the roles I love so much makes me feel that I am getting older, kids will not love the Kirk I loved. I guess I have to accept the change in the actors.

I never meant to insult you about the mainstream reference, I guess its my loathing of Hollywood at the moment that gives me contempt for phrases like, making it more mainstream, remaking films that I love so much and not doing anything new. I can’t believe they are remaking RoboCop! Its more quick cuts and special effects than story in many summer blockbusters these days. I apologise for that remark, just Hollywood seems unoriginal and good shows that I do love do strive for too much realism these days.

Truth of the matter I will proabably end up loving this film, it is Star Trek after all, but I guess I’m going to have to accept the fact that this Trek wont be the same for me. I had reservations about Casino Royale for Daniel Craig being younger and for it being a reboot but it turned out to be one of the better Bond films. I just dont want to blindly say it will be brilliant just because JJ Abrams is flavour of the month.

Problem with me about it looking more advanced than TOS and even TNG is that it defintely has to be accepted as a reboot. In retrospect it is probably the better thing to make it a reboot, then it wont be tied down to continuity and if Trek fans hate it then it doesn’t have to be linked yet if it works well maybe it can fit in with the collection. I hate the term reboot, really hate the term.

I should like these new actors but one movie with new actors as the TOS crew is not going to eclipse Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly, etc from the roles

Just hope new kids will watch the past Star Trek shows and films. It annoys me when kids who watch Doctor Who have not watched the old one. I want those kids to see Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker. I love new Doctor Who but its not a reboot its a continuation.

If JJ pulls it off then I will praise the guy. Its great that Leonard Nimoy is in the film, I would love Shatner in the film but it should still be good without him. Shatner’s cameo has to work well into the story and not just be there for the fans.

I will eventually get use to the recast

305. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

Please accept my apologies, I am going to sit down now and look forward to the movie. I have to accept moving times and getting older.

Hopefully JJ will do a good job at getting Star Trek back on its feet. Even though its a direction I would not have chosen. Kudos for him attempting so brave in defiance of fans like me who find recasting iconic characters in Star Trek.

I just hope JJ remembers that this is Gene Roddenberry’s vision and not his. If I was doing it I would make sure I honoured Gene’s ideals and not enforcing my ideas on what it should be. if JJ remembers that I will respect him.

306. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

Dom

I do apologize and please understand I never meant to be a troll

Is anyone going to the Vegas con this year?

307. Closettrekker - June 19, 2008

#298—“I will love this movie when it comes out but the sets should evoke the original Matt Jeffries design and not replace it. It should not look more advanced than the Enterprise D.”

If all they can do with a $150 million budget is come up with a 1960’s vision of what a 23rd Century starship looks like, I’ll be sorely disappointed. The first question I’ll ask (and I’m sure that some gentlemen at Paramount will as well) is where did all the money go?

I love TOS. It’s one of my all-time favorite television shows. However, my appreciation for it 40 years later is always aided by the knowledge that it was produced in the 1960’s. I have already seen what Matt Jeffries envisioned a 23rd Century starship looking like back in the mid-60’s. Now I want to see that vision from a early 21st Century perspective. I want my kids to believe that could be a 23rd Century starship. It should be familiar, but enhanced. I think that is the goal of the production team.

308. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

Not having kids it is harder to think of the next generation. Feel envious all that I am still single. LOL

I understand that it should be updated but I dont think it should look radically different. I mean the same layout and a simialr colour scheme would be great but you can update the screens with LCD screens and make the controls less like jeliton and similar to what you saw on Enterprise. These I would be happy with.

If it’s a reboot they can modify it any way they like as long as it keeps the same layout.

309. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

I am curious to see how the bridge looks

310. captain_neill - June 19, 2008

I would rather then film be a reboot than retconning the timeline. i think it will work better as a universe B than making the original 79 episodes non existant

311. andrea - June 19, 2008

i would like to tell just one thing.

i miss De Forrest Kelley, and if Orci Krtzman and jj really want to gift us a real full circle with the the great old series, i hope they change their mind and rise kirk from dead, at the end of the movie, or avoid “generations” in their story continuity.

THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE CAN SEE 2/3 of the astonish old gang on the silver screen!!!! please!!!

312. Mark Lynch - June 19, 2008

Having just been able to watch the Battlestar Galactica mini series for the first time on a bargain price DVD, I hope that Star Trek is re-interpreted as well as that was.

But please do not change anyone’s gender or make unnecessary inter-personal friction…. :-)

I’m not fussed if Shatner is in or out. But if he’s in, I want it to be relevant in a big way and not come off as forced.

As always, just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

313. Xai - June 19, 2008

303. star trackie – June 19, 2008
” Maybe it’s just me, but I would think he would know just a little more about such “possibilities” than you or I.”

I would certainly hope so and I plan on being at the movie in May regardless of events.
(sigh) But since we are dealing in opinions… and news tidbits…

JJ’s said “no”,
Shatner’s said “no” and printed it in his book as a “no”.
Shatner has been vocal both pro and con about the movie, business decisions and it’s director. (Not a good business decision on his part IMO)
The film is in post-production and no one but some fans seem to be talking up Shatner in the movie.
In my opinion, they would have wrapped up any Shatner parts months ago.
And as you said, this was an interview from March.

314. snake - June 19, 2008

If theres like NO WAY to have shatner in as Jim Kirk or Jims grandfather etc (story impass..or shatner refusing) then what about a photo of Shatner as Kirk (TWOK era) on something like old Spocks desk – like the Sean Connery pic on Indys desk in Indy 4 ( Connery was offered.a cameo but refused) or Davids pic in Kirks cabin in Trek VI

or maybe even spock viewing some old footage of Kirk (from one of the 7 movies…or they could even have some non star trek shatner footage – e.g TJ Hooker…Secrets of a Married Man…Columbo etc to have it look ‘new’ for the fans…

yeah it aint as good as having a live shatner on film but the Connery photo in Indy 4 worked pretty well…as did Bill Bixbys ‘cameo’ in the new Hulk

315. Closettrekker - June 19, 2008

#310—Some months back, I actually asked Bob Orci if seeing STXI might affect my future TOS viewing experiences. Without giving anything away, he told me that his hope was that it would enhance it. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I don’t think we are meant to see TOS as never having happened.

316. Navigator NCC-2120 Uss Entente - June 19, 2008

314 – snake,

Or how about 24th Century Spock viewing Kirk’s recording of “his advice to Bones and Spock in the event of his death” from TOS Episode “Tholian Web”. Followed up by Kirk’s speech at Spock’s funneral in TWOK that occurred just before they lauched the photon torpedo containing Spock’s body into space (…of all the souls I have encountered, his was the most, human.)

Just a thought as an opening scene to the new Star Trek film, as a way of including Shatner as Kirk in the film.

Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

317. Boborci - June 19, 2008

Navigator NCC-2120 Uss Entente – June 19, 2008

Or how about 24th Century Spock viewing Kirk’s recording of “his advice to Bones and Spock in the event of his death” from TOS Episode “Tholian Web”. Followed up by Kirk’s speech at Spock’s funneral in TWOK that occurred just before they lauched the photon torpedo containing Spock’s body into space (…of all the souls I have encountered, his was the most, human.)

Just a thought as an opening scene to the new Star Trek film, as a way of including Shatner as Kirk in the film.

A: Love that.

318. star trackie - June 19, 2008

#313 “And as you said, this was an interview from March.”

..with a year to go. : )

All you said is true. It is also all from the past. The “year to go” has yet to be.

A lot can happen in a year…movie production doesn’t end just because principle filming stops. Just think of the extemely costly reshooting of the entire ending of Generations. The movie was in the can. Bad test screenings, however, brought everyone out of the woodwork to try and make it better.

If the powers that be figure out a way…if they haven’t already… it’s not at all implausible that we may very well see Shatner again. Just ask Bob Orci.

319. star trackie - June 19, 2008

btw, I don’t mean “ask him” again….he already has given the answer in the interview above. I’m just makin’ converation…

320. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 19, 2008

This was probably my favorite Star Trek trailer of all time (though the teaser for XI is pretty damn cool):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RERAc0ipha0

Notice how near the end, the shot of Kirk & Spock from the 2nd pilot gives way to a similar shot of them many years later from Trek V? If Shatner were in Star Trek XI, I would love to see the REVERSE of that at the end of the movie: A shot of old Shat and old Nimoy, the last time we’d ever see them in Trek, dissolving into a shot of Pine & Quinto, ready to carry the mission forward. That would be awesome! And you all know it. :-)

321. Navigator NCC-2120 Uss Entente - June 19, 2008

317. Boborci – June 19, 2008

Navigator NCC-2120 Uss Entente – June 19, 2008

Or how about 24th Century Spock viewing Kirk’s recording of “his advice to Bones and Spock in the event of his death” from TOS Episode “Tholian Web”. Followed up by Kirk’s speech at Spock’s funeral in TWOK that occurred just before they launched the photon torpedo containing Spock’s body into space (…of all the souls I have encountered, his was the most, human.)

Just a thought as an opening scene to the new Star Trek film, as a way of including Shatner as Kirk in the film.

A: Love that.

Thank you Mr. Orci, I am honored.

Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

322. hitch1969© - June 19, 2008

“A: Love that.”

oh man, the OrcSter is reeeeally trolling ‘em today, AP. I think he needs a first and final for that kind of incitement.

OrcSter, as a potential contributor here (fanmade at trek movies dot com by hitch1969 – cross fingers) I am unable to encourage you in continued trolling. However, as a renegade, downtrodden, and outcast of the interwebs in general, I must admit that I like your style. 300 posts in, that’s gonna take it another 300 alone, to be sure. ahhh. yesssss.

That was my Khan, dude. Like it?

OrcSter SAYS…

“A: Love that.”

BEST!!

=h=

323. Mugsy May - June 19, 2008

Come on Get The Shat Back! This is THE LAST CHANCE to EVER see the original Kirk and Spock together again on the big screen.

THE

LAST

CHA NCE…………….. Mister! ;)

If you can’t shoe-horn Shatner into this thing – and I’d understand if you cannot – perhaps just have Spock say something to the effect of “and now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to warn a very dear friend about impending danger” or something at the end of the film, just to let the audinece know the Kirk thing isn’t left hanging. It can then be continued in a future spin off or a novel, or audio play or something. Just let it be known Kirkerino is OK again… This would be a great send off for the older Spock, and Kirk…

– Mugsy

324. hitch1969© - June 19, 2008

Why is it that the new guys that are responsible for unscrewing up Generations?

Its difficult enough to walk into the franchise at the 40 year mark and try to make a new statement that is your own but consistent enough with what’s come before it.

I think some of the folks are just asking waaaaaay too much. Generations has been done for almost 15 years. Thats about double the time span from when TOS ended and they did TMP.

There is a major difference between 65 year old Shatner and 80 year old Shatner. Whatever the guy is. You get my point. You can’t “bring” him back from the dead. Old clips and pics from TOS would sort of make it inconsistent with Pine. Plus at that point, it’s just grasping for straws.

Shatner didn’t play ball. Shatner insulted all the new folks along the way. I doubt that even hadn’t his character died in Generations would he be useful to this movie.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the guy. But some of this begging and the scenarios… (and why in the world would they ever consider using an idea that was posted on the internet just so they could get sued later?) …some of these comments sound totally like battered wife syndrome. Shatner beats you up, and you just keep going BACK and overlooking the obvious, just hoping that he will change. Hoping… that he will just…. love. you.

Then he beats the crap out of you again.

Nice drama triangle, but old h69 ain’t playing. Shatner’s out. Nimoy’s in.

end of story.

BEST!!

=h=

325. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 19, 2008

I am having thoughts of a new perspective regarding Shatner in the next pic. If Spock was alive post Next Gen and Bone appeared near death in Next Gens 1st ep, then how could they all be together at the end of Trek VI.

Trying to bow tie all the series and movies together is going to be WAY too much for this movie. Unless I am really missing a story arc that will not seem like this movie is like eating a Kellog’s Plenty Pack.

I want this movie to be a real Star Trek experience. Not a Fanboy wish that will satisfy everyone’s ideal and dream of what they expect to see onscreen next year.

I am changing my vote.

Nimoy alone (as a tie in to the old series,) will be quite enough for this forty-something Trek fan.

It just doesen’t make sense to have all the Trek elements in this one movie.

Just make it a GREAT Trek.
Hell, I’ll even settle for a good Trek.

But Shatner in this movie (to me) just does not seem to be in the cards.

But,… I still REALLY, REALLY like the idea (above) to have Shatner do the Classic TOS voice-over at the beginning of the movie. That would be PLENTY enough Shatner for me.

I’d really like to hear the original voice over too.
No need to record that TOS intro.
It was PERFECT!!!!

Belated Kudos Mr. Shatner!

326. Xai - June 19, 2008

Bob Orci,
Betcha you didn’t know you held such power over mortal men and women. A couple words from you and they get all frothy round the lips.

Shazam!

327. hitch1969© - June 19, 2008

re: 326. Xai – June 19, 2008

“He knows, doctor….
He knows.”

=h=

328. Closettrekker - June 19, 2008

#325—Spoken with true wisdom.

Asking the production team/ writers to right the wrongs of a previous Trek caretaker would almost certainly handicap their own artistic expression in the form of STXI. I want their best Star Trek story. I also want it to look like something my kids will believe is the 23rd Century.

(Warning: Rant)

I’ve been a TOS fan from time I was 6 or 7 years old. I was a teenager before TNG debuted, and it was never the same when it did. This is “my” Star Trek—Kirk, Spock, and McCoy…and ever since the day that TNG lost me at Farpoint, I’ve regretted that they did not recast the iconic Star Trek characters I loved instead. It probably wasn’t a common opinion then, and I’m not so sure it’s common now, but it is a thought I’ve had since about 1987. I really thought TVY’s ending was a perfect sendoff for most of the original cast. When I saw TFF (aka The Great Trek Turd), I was sure of that. TUC might have helped regain some dignity, but the damage was done for me.

At least they finally promoted Sulu (someone’s career had to progress), but prior to that, there were three men ranked Captain (assuming Mr. Scott actually held the rank of Captain, which might be not sufficiently substantiated) serving aboard the Enterprise. Uhura, McCoy, Sulu, and Checkov (who had actually already served as First Officer aboard Reliant) all held the rank of Commander! Being a combat veteran Marine myself, the notion that Starfleet would concentrate that many command-grade officers aboard one vessel screams “gross misuse of personnel resources” to me…

I would have liked to see a return to television. I would like to have seen Spock become a teacher (not precluding occasional guest appearances), McCoy remaining aboard with Kirk , and Checkov, Uhura and Scotty moving on (and also available for guest appearances). That would have been the perfect setting for introducing some new and younger characters to serve under an older Captain James T. Kirk. A new science officer, navigator, helmsman, and Chief Engineer aboard the Enterprise-A. And best of all, they could have gotten back to exploring the galaxy under the command of Jim Kirk . They could have, but they didn’t. GR went in another direction, as he had every right to, but it just was never “My Star Trek” again. I watched it, but it was never the same.

This film is all my hope for Star Trek. Now, I would like them to fill in some gaps with a new film series—between TOS and TMP, and certainly between TMP and TWOK (the time after the extensive refit and prior to her assignment to training duty–which is about 7.5 years). This film could be a good jumping point for something like that, and it all starts with a good movie. That’s it. Just make me a good Star Trek movie, and I’ll pay good money to see it.

329. lostrod - June 19, 2008

#324

Once again, this may be the end of YOUR story, but not necessarily for other folks who have differing views.

BTW, you claimed that “Shatner didn’t play ball. Shatner insulted all the new folks along the way.”

Can you provide evidence that Mr. Shatner insulted ALL or any of the new folks along the way? I follow the news pretty close myself and do not recall any such remarks from Mr. Shatner. If you can give some examples, it would be helpful.

If not, are you simply making stuff to fit your anti-Shat POV?

Regards.

330. Anthony Pascale - June 19, 2008

[Hulk Spoiler]

I thought the Bill Bixby ‘cameo’ in the new Hulk movie was cool. When Bruce Banner was watching TV he switched to a channel showing courtship of Eddies Father with Bixby…a nice nod. And of course Lou Ferrigno was in there too but he had a cameo as a security guard.

So sure…have Spock watching reruns!

331. tom - June 19, 2008

#257 hitch

How dare he say that!! I hope i am not saying that after the movie!!

332. Xai - June 19, 2008

327. hitch1969© – June 19, 2008

You are scaring me Hitch, This razor-sharp, concise communication is beyond the norm.

New meds or run outta the old ones?

;-)

333. Xai - June 19, 2008

262. nscates – June 18, 2008
“Still, it’s tough to see the logic in allowing the debate to rage on if he’s not in it. ”

Speaking of Illogic…Shatner has said he’s not in it. You aren’t believing him either?

334. Steve Short - June 19, 2008

#324 I wouldn’t do any scenes of the 65 year old Kirk from Generations. If old Spock changes time in the past then goes back to his time a 80 year old Kirk at the end of the new Star Trek 11 movie would be the right age of Kirk if he hadn’t die in Generations. Then you would have two old men.

335. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 19, 2008

Even if things did change, Kirk would still be dead (most likely,) by the time Spock appears in Next Generation episode – Reunification.

Surely, in XI, Spock will look even older than he appeared then.
Kirk would still be a distant memory for Spock.

336. SirMartman - June 19, 2008

God this is driving me nuts,,whens the next Trailer comming out ??

337. Denise de Arman - June 19, 2008

Closet#328- Split up Spock and Kirk? Are you out of your Vul… I mean, are you out of your mind?! The last time that happened Spock resigned from Starfleet and ran to Gol to meditate for 2 1/2 years!

338. British Naval Dude - June 19, 2008

Tha’ followin’ is tha’ pilot episode fur an anthology series I be workin’ on called “Terror Trek.” I’m workin’ oot a deal wit’ CBS ta’ produce it since “Britsh Naval Dude” will likely be cancelled after tha’ first season concludes. Arrrr… oh, and THX canna sue me…

Oh, also it features tha’ mirror universe BND… and there’s not much nigh ‘on sex in it, and that o-mission really do disgusts me…

“Terror Trek”- untitled pilot

NARRATOR: During the whole of a dull, dark, and soundless day in the autumn of this far away dismal planet, when the clouds hung oppressively low in the heavens, he had been passing alone, on his Nemesis dune buggy, through a singularly dreary tract of desert country; and at length he found himself, as the shades of the twice mooned evening drew on, within view of the melancholy House of Bashir.

He knew not how it was – but, with the first glimpse of the building, a sense of insufferable gloom pervaded. This was a familiar place… but different and, as many voices would try to persuade, out of canon.

— Scene- BND arrives, knocks on door and is greeted by Dr. Bashir:

DR. BASHIR: Hello, BND. I’ve been thinking you’d be calling on me. Mainly all those emails and flowers you sent had clued me in. Quit calling me “Petunia” by the way.

BND: Thou hast accommodated me in your finer thoughts, I thank you. But the petals and the poems were meant not for thee. I know not for whom I sent such remembrances, to speak, but there is something attractive yet unknown in these walls.

DR. BASHIR: It’s called asbestos. Tastes good but bad for you. Well, here’s my place. A nice remote mansion for my retirement. Care for a tour?

::: a scratching noise begins softly:::

BND: And what could such a tremulous sound be?

DR. BASHIR: Uhhhh… I gave the cat some heroin, it’ll stop soon. Bad pussy! Bad!

BND: I do not thinkest so, dear friend. For that noise emanates most eerily, such as the yowls of tribbles whilst their Klingon hosts pierced them asunder.

:::scratching noise grows louder, becomes like a whistle in the ear which cannot be ignored:::

DR. BASHIR: Hey, let me put on some music… how about the Veridian Hustle by Dr. Van McCoy… doo doo doo da da da da duh…

BND: No, I must track this grotesque needle of a noise down. In your cellar, deep and downwards resides the grim yet enticing source.

DR. BASHIR: Now then, wait a tic, sir… I’ll tell you something I’ve never told a woman… don’t go down there!

:::BND rushes down into the cellar, only to find a mound of rocks in the middle of the dirt floor:::

DR. BASHIR: You know, you’re right. That scratching is coming from there. Well, this asbestos is a good soundproofing material so I’ll just cover it on up then.

BND: Nigh! Dear doctor, my heart was strung from a distance, called upon to this place, this collection of stones is not mere rubble. There beats the heart of what we have so much enamored ourselves. (uses dagger to start taking rocks apart)

DR. BASHIR: My real estate agent assured me chics dig a Victorian mansion with a dirt basement. So far, only these freaky depressed girls with black fingernails have shown up. Would you care to see one of their bodies? I dressed her in some nice bright Versace for a change. Permed her hair.

::: the rocks fall apart as BND digs through them, but suddenly arms thrust out from the mound and a low growl can be heard:::

BND: The one who rests here has been set unsettled.

DR. BASHIR: Well, he could make a more pleasant sound. Star Trek never had any rock music in it, you know. You’d think we’d still have the Rolling Stones in the future, but noooo.

::: the rock mound bursts open, the make-shift grave is strewn about:::

KIRK: Grrrrr-orrrrr!

BND: (from regular universe) Arrrr! Be a daft killa zombified cap’n comin fur me dear titty obsessed brains! Arrrrr!

DR. BASHIR: Look, this wasn’t in my homeowner’s policy…

:::Kirk rises up, swings arms around clumsily, turns towards BND and Bashir:::

KIRK: Grrrr-oooorrrrr!

::: Simon Pegg rushes in with his cricket bat:::

SIMON PEGG: I’ve got a plan, mates! Cricket the corpse Kirk! Here’s my sticky wicket for you!

:::Simon Pegg beats the crap out of Kirk:::

KIRK: Grrr-oorrr! (spits out dirt from mouth) Pa-tooie! Wait… hold on a second… would you put down the damn stick?! That really hurts.

SIMON PEGG: Blimey! The zombie wanker’s alive!

KIRK: Well, I was never dead. Picard… you know Picard? Skinny bald guy, thinks he’s the captain of the Enterprise. Well, he… never…. checked…MY PULSE! He buried me alive. Buried alive! Buried alive!

— End of scene.

NARRATOR: The three all fled aghast and into the Nemesis dune buggy went Pegg, BND, and Bashir. There was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand Trek fans calling out their captain’s name. As the house fell, the deep, dark fragments at the trio’s feet closed silently forever over the house of Bashir.

DR. BASHIR: Screw this then, I’m getting a swinging pad in Manhattan.

339. Iowagirl - June 19, 2008

#233
No need to not believe Shatner. If he says now he isn’t in, he isn’t. But now with another year to go, who knows… Simple as that. ;)

#329
I follow the news pretty close myself and do not recall any such remarks from Mr. Shatner.

Me neither.

340. Pierri - June 20, 2008

I only hope XI is not another “with us or against us” type movie, like Iron Man and so many others.

ST – specially TNG – was the closest show to what I call “universal” – detached from cultural biases and prejudices. I really hope XI doesnt fall into that irrational trend.

With or without Shatner.

341. Admiral_Bumblebee - June 20, 2008

Old Kirk needs to be there in person. He needs to be alive. Just a recording of him would be lame IMHO.

But why not include old Bones als well? CGI him in oder give Karl urban an appropiate make up, so that we can have old Kirk, old Spock and old McCoy in the movie!

342. Ken Hoyas jr - June 20, 2008

Xai:

I meant no disrespect to Mr Orci with my statement at post number 269. I just assumed that he could end all speculation. The fact he didn’t respond leaves me to believe that there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

I’m sure Mr Orci is quite busy or maybe didn’t even see the question that was posted, but he does admit to speaking with Mr Shatner and he was the one who brought up his possible inclusion in the film not us fans.

Also, I am new to this board and I am not familiar with what has gone on “for the last six months” I will “catch up” as you suggest.

I didn’t realize this is such a heated subject. It seems people are pretty passionate about William Shatner being in this movie one way or the other.

343. Mark Lynch - June 20, 2008

#342

Well, FWIW I am not at all bothered about Shatner being in or out, there are far more important things to use that level of energy on.

If it is a good movie, I don’t care if they have Thunderbird puppets in it. Just let it be good.

If it is a bad movie then I’ll probably see it the once at the cinema (unless word of mouth is that bad) and not buy the DVD until it comes down to less than £5.
I didn’t buy Nemesis on DVD until early this year and got it for £3.99. The passage of time has not made it a better movie… :-)

344. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#329—“Can you provide evidence that Mr. Shatner insulted ALL or any of the new folks along the way? ”

Hitch may be overstating things a bit, but I think I would consider Shatner’s repeated public statements that JJ Abrams’ choice to leave him out was a “bad business decision” to be rather insulting. I would also say that Shatner’s “I don’t do cameos” comment is insulting, given the fact that it is completely untrue in general, and seems to only have applied to STXI. It might be construed as meaning that he is simply too good for a cameo in Star Trek XI, but is perfectly fine with appearing in such a role in Horrorween.

#339—“Me neither.”

I think either you and Iostrod have selective memories, or perhaps you don’t feel as though public criticism of your decision-making skills (without any knowledge of the actual outcome) would not be insulting, and the additional inference that he’s too good for a cameo in your movie, yet not too good for a cameo in a crap-movie like Horrorween would not be equally insulting. I think that if your profession were making movies, it is difficult to imagine it not being taken that way.

#337—Not to upset you, of course, but both of them holding the rank of Captain would seem to make that a foregone conclusion, IMO. It is all a moot point anyway, given that the movies chose to ignore that even after the TWOK–TSFS–TVH story arc was completed. However, it never sat well with me that 2-3 Captains, as well as 4-5 Commanders (depending on Scotty’s actual rank after STIII) would be serving aboard the same ship in STV. It is utterly inconceivable to me that Starfleet Command could be so negligent as to misappropriate that many valuable personnel resources. Come on, Denise, you of all people should appreciate the logic of that!

345. Iowagirl - June 20, 2008

#344

If I was going to make any movie, you’d be right. But if I was going to make a ST movie based on a 40 years spanning legend, I would have to make up my mind on the implications, on the people who made TOS what it is today, on the legend. Completely different camp. Fortunately, Abrams has met a man he can’t walk over: Bill Shatner. A lot of people think not putting Bill in is a foolish (business) decision – Bill actually said it. A lot of people think a cameo as the character he made iconic might not do Bill justice – Bill actually said it. If you consider this insults, you might be a bit oversensitive or “selective” yourself;) I for one appreciate him not mincing matters.

346. nscates - June 20, 2008

333. Xai – June 19, 2008
“Speaking of Illogic…Shatner has said he’s not in it. You aren’t believing him either?”

I believe him up to a point. He has made some contradicting statements regarding how this has all played out, (‘they called me’, ‘they didn’t call me'; ‘I don’t even know what it’s about’, though Orci says above that he pitched Bill the outline) leading me to believe that more transpired than anyone was really saying. My personal feeling is that he won’t be in it, but then why is everybody (aside from Shatner) so reluctant to say in blunt terms that he’s not in? So either he’s in it and everyone is trying to make it seem like he’s not, or he’s not in it but the only one who will say so is Shatner himself.

My apologies if Abrams has gone on record and said without equivocation that Shatner is out. It is possible I missed it. The closest I heard to him saying that was in an interview with trekmovie.com where he discussed the difficulty with continuity and Shatner’s Kirk dying in Generations, but he didn’t say that precluded an appearance – just that there were difficulties. I found that omission interesting at the time and I still do. Why have they not just said it? Bill has. This is why I questioned their logic in not coming out and saying it in my last post. It tough to see how Abrams and co. could benefit from keeping the situation ambiguous. I don’t know maybe I missed a press release or something. Does anybody know of or have a quote from JJ or Mr. Orci that says in no uncertain terms that Shatner is out?

I would like to reiterrate that, though I am a fan of the original Jim Kirk, the sun will still rise if he’s not in the movie. I, too, would much rather have a good movie than a bad one and, if including Shatner requires shooting holes in the plot, then don’t bother. I suspect there are more possibilities than just those two, but I suppose I’ll just have to wait ’til May ’09.

347. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#345—I understand completely that you share Bill’s opinion that making a Star Trek movie without him in a substantial role could not possibly be a good business decision. But the truth is, the writers, producers, and the director seem to think otherwise (or they would have made a different movie). You and Bill have every right to your opinions, but it is naive to think that such public criticisms are not insulting, and that was my point.

Furthermore, what credibility does Bill have in determining what is a good or bad business decision from a director’s standpoint, when he has STV to his credit? He is an actor, and should stick to acting–and forget about advising JJ Abrams on the business of making creative decisions. I once tried to paint, and failed as miserably as Bill did in directing Star Trek V. You won’t see me publicly criticising a professional painter’s choice of color, especially when I have no idea what the finished product is going to look like! Not only would it be insulting to the “professional”, but it would be a completely uneducated opinion without a leg to stand on. There has never been a movie about James Kirk without Bill Shatner, so there is no frame of reference.

IMO, Bill should have been honored that a character he helped make into an icon is going to live on, shown some class, and been a bit more open-minded. Maybe then he wouldn’t have ended up “disappointed” that no role (even a voiceover or minor part as someone else) was ever offered to him. His recent appearance on The View would certainly indicate that he was not being completely honest about things when he said, “I don’t do cameos”, or he has at least altered his opinion since then. He was playing the role of a man who can’t understand why he couldn’t play Jim Kirk’s grandfather or something to that effect, when he was the one who put it out there that he was not open to a cameo. It’s all very bizarre.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…Bill’s work as James T. Kirk is so admired that his character is now being expanded upon by one of Hollywood’s hottest creative teams. May we all be so honored for our contributions to our culture 40 years from now. Shatner’s biggest fans continuing to sulk about his absence in STXI is really viewing things from the wrong perspective, IMO. He had a good 30 year run in that role, a fitting Swan Song in TUC, and even a bad curtain call in Generations. Enough is enough. His character was killed off, and through absolutely no fault of Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, or JJ Abrams. As Nimoy said, “He has been moldering for quite some time”.

You may never appreciate Chris Pine’s James T. Kirk, but that isn’t really what is most important. What matters most is that my kids (and yours) may very well appreciate it. You and I won’t keep Star Trek alive, but they might. I think that James T. Kirk (the younger version) deserves a few more adventures…

348. lostrod - June 20, 2008

#344

Yes, Hitch was overstating. He’s done that a lot – repeatedly stating HIS opinion as somehow being a collective opinion for ALL of us.

Once again, where’s the proof that Mr. Shatner insulted EVERYONE? As a journalist I was taught that you must have facts to back up an assertion. However, it is common for some posters to make a blanket accusation with little or nothing to base it on.

Examples include:

“Shatner’s appearance in the movie would not fit the storyline or plot”. Has anyone here (other than Orci) actually seen the script so they would know whether or not this is true? I don’t think so.

“Shatner demanded millions (or at least an excessive amount) to appear in the movie”. Once again, who amonst us (Orci excluded) was actually privvy to conversations between Mr. Abrams and Mr. Shatner?

The problem is that when people make accusations or make personal attacks in an anonymous public forum – you can’t really take it back. The statements make the rounds and many people will see a blatantly false statement and forever assume it to be true.

I love this site and the iteraction of anticipating ST fans. I just ask that people pause a bit longer before hitting the submit button sometimes.

Regards.

349. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#348—I don’t agree with Hitch saying that he insulted everyone along the way. He exaggerates a bit to be sure.

But you went on to ask—

“Can you provide evidence that Mr. Shatner insulted ALL or any of the new folks along the way? ”

“Or any of the new folks” being the key phrase…I think he did insult some of them, and there is more than enough evidence to support that.

1. Calling Abrams choice to leave him (at least in a substantial role) a “bad business decision” and a “bad box-office decision”.

2. Saying “I don’t do cameos” (when asked about the possibility of having one in STXI–while that was still openly on the table) and then appearing in such a role in another movie.

3. Inferring (on more than one occasion) that his absence in the film may have been due to a lack of creative writing ability and inability to solve “the writing problem” ,as he called it, on the part of the script’s writers (instead of the possibility that it just might not have been right for the story they want to tell).

You said, “I follow the news pretty close myself and do not recall any such remarks from Mr. Shatner. If you can give some examples, it would be helpful.”

I realize that I’m not Hitch, but I hope that was helpful nonetheless.

350. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

Isotrod, just to be perfectly clear, I am not firmly in the camp of “Shatner should not be in the film at all”.

I have long been a proponent of seeing him in a flashback scene, perhaps from Spock’s memory, depicting a conversation between Spock and Kirk prior to his boarding of the Enterprise-B. It is not unreasonable that it might be relevant to the story. Unfortunately, “I don’t do cameos would preclude that, as evidenced by Mr. Orci’s comments:

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”

351. lostrod - June 20, 2008

#349

Thanks for trying to clarify Hitch’s statement. However, what Hitch stated was:

“Shatner insulted all the new folks along the way.”

He didn’t say Mr. Shatner insulted some of them. He said “ALL the new folks”. That’s a serious statement, implying he insulted the entire cast of the movie and the production team.

I simply asked for evidence of this and have yet to see any. I don’t think someone who’s been in the entertainment business as long as Mr. Shatner to observe his opinion of a casting decision to quite qualify as insults as do some comments made to him such as:

“Now he’s Denny Crane, the priceline guy, the buffoon, the interwebwhore.”

Not to mention the constant references to his age, weight, hair, directing skills, etc.

It’s only my personal opinion. I would never claim to speak for everyone else as the Hitch does. I just request that people not make claims that can’t back up and, most of all, be polite. :)

I love this site and discussion.

Regards.

352. Xai - June 20, 2008

339. Iowagirl – June 19, 2008
#233
“No need to not believe Shatner. If he says now he isn’t in, he isn’t. But now with another year to go, who knows… Simple as that. ;)”

Wow, if it’s that simple, we could see Lassie and Mr. Ed on the bridge too!

Just have to have Bob Orci breath their names into the ether of the vast Internet and… Who know?

353. Xai - June 20, 2008

oops… typo

breathe

354. Xai - June 20, 2008

343. Mark Lynch – June 20, 2008
” I don’t care if they have Thunderbird puppets in it. Just let it be good.”

LOL…just thinking of an old Enterprise model dangling on piano wire from the ceiling in front of black felt with twinkle lights…

Wow another episode from BND!

355. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#351—I understand, and I will not defend any posts which are unnecessary personal attacks or blatantly unsubstantiated claims. Hitch has been warned by the trekmovie.com staff on many occasions for trolling and flaming.

I responded to your question to Hitch, which was a bit more expansive.

You asked, “Can you provide evidence that Mr. Shatner insulted ALL or any of the new folks along the way? ”

It’s obvious that he didn’t insult ALL of the “new folks”, but he certainly did insult some of them (namely, several members of the so-called “STXI Supreme Court”, who would ultimately decide if there were to be a place for Mr. Shatner in the film).

Once again—

1. Calling Abrams choice to leave him out (at least in a substantial role) a “bad business decision” and a “bad box-office decision”.

2. Saying “I don’t do cameos” (when asked about the possibility of having one in STXI–while that was still openly on the table) and then appearing in such a role in another movie.

3. Inferring (on more than one occasion) that his absence in the film may have been due to a lack of creative writing ability and inability to solve “the writing problem” ,as he called it, on the part of the script’s writers (instead of the possibility that it just might not have been right for the story they want to tell).

Now you say, “I don’t think someone who’s been in the entertainment business as long as Mr. Shatner to observe his opinion of a casting decision to quite qualify as insults…”

Really?

So, you’re JJ Abrams. You’ve been on record as saying you would like to include William Shatner in the film, but you recognize that there are continuity obstacles to doing so in a substantial way, specifically the fact that his character is dead and has been for quite some time in the timeline. With that in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that his potential role in the film might be somewhat limited, but you want to find something for him. He then reacts publicly to the question of a possible cameo in the film by saying, “I don’t do cameos”. Naturally, you don’t offer him one. Why would you? He then, once again very publicly, calls your choice to make a ST movie without him a “bad business decision” and a “bad box-office decision” (this commentary from the man whose feature film directing experience was the disaterous STV and nothing else).

Bearing in mind that Shatner himself admits that he knows nothing about the film, and certainly has no idea how successful or good it might be, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t be insulted by those remarks?

Is it the same as calling someone fat? No. But to say it is not evidence of insult is completely different.

Now, I’m a reasonable man, and I’ll assume that you’re being honest in saying that you wouldn’t feel insulted by his criticism of your decision-making skills, or the fact that he’s too good for a cameo role in your movie, or even that he really hasn’t been condescending toward your writers and their creative abilities, but you cannot possibly say with any conviction that you have yet to see evidence of insult. That would be unreasonable, and I’d have to call you on that.

It (Shatner’s comments) is, at the very least, discourteous, and I would have to say somewhat humorous given his directing performance in STV: The Great Trek Turd. Talk about a “bad business decision” (a legitimate opinion set apart by the fact that we’ve all seen it)! Jerry Goldsmith cited STV’s disaster as the reason he would not come back to score STVI (according to Memory Alpha).

You mention that Shatner has been in the entertainment business for awhile. Ok—as an actor, and an extremely successful one. But I think it’s very reasonable to say that his opinions about the validity of a director’s creative decision-making might lack a little credibilty…and he certainly shouldn’t repeatedly say it publicly (along with “I don’t do cameos”), and then act surprised when he is not offered at least a cameo role.

I think that he has been insulting to people who have done nothing but be polite and respectful to the iconic original actors. Each of them has been invited to participate to one degree or another in the process. But which is the only one of them that (apparently) has not been invited to the set as JJ Abrams’ guest?

I wonder why…

356. hitch1969© - June 20, 2008

Look – I absolutely stand by the opinions that I posted. OPINIONS. as in, comments. as in… appropriate and on topic.

This section of the page is not a newsroom. That’s AP’s job in the story that we are commenting on. Which he does, honestly and accurately.

I don’t need fact checkers and “proof” to back up what I “think”, what I’ve COMMENTED on. Take it for what it is. I’m a 40 year old fat bald guy in midwestern America with a string of kids from different mothers who I write checks to every month. Just a major major fan. Just an observer with no real ties to facts other than what’s been reported me here, and ergo… my honest reaction and comments to.

Making you THINK and DECIDE is not trolling or flaming. It’s engaging you in the discussion, which is what we are here to do. My opinions dont have to line up with everyone elses – but i think you’ll see that I am right.

BEST!!

=h=

357. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 20, 2008

#345 “If you consider this insults, you might be a bit oversensitive or ‘selective’ yourself, I for one appreciate him not mincing matters.”

Hear, hear! I’ll second that. Let’s hear it for forthrightness! :-)

358. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

“Not mincing matters” and “forthrightfulness” implies to me a degree of credibility in what he’s saying, in addition to honest availing of one’s opinion.

Shatner is a successful actor who once tried his hand at being a director and failed miserably…So that qualifies him to talk about bad business decisions on the part of JJ Abrams (a succesful and up-and-coming director) with any degree of credibility?

Uh….no. I think not.

359. hitch1969© - June 20, 2008

One thing I will clarify that I said, and I will shut up. It’s about Shatner’s comment, the “bad business decision” thing.

What I think was going on there – is that Shatner was actually trying to go OVER Sir JJ™’s head on that one. Isn’t that a STUDIO decision that he’s commenting on?

The alpha dog approaches the oncoming pack, sizes them up for the biggest and baddest… and attacks. Like that episode of Sopranos after Tony got shot, then beat up his bodyguard for no reason. The alpha dog is BACK.

I think is what Shatner was doing there.

Just normal mano y mano cockfighting.

BEST!!

=h=

360. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 20, 2008

Oh, Closet, put a Starfleet-issued sock in it.

:-)

361. Iowagirl - June 20, 2008

#347
– Furthermore, what credibility does Bill have in determining what is a good or bad business decision from a director’s standpoint, when he has STV to his credit? He is an actor, and should stick to acting–and forget about advising JJ Abrams on the business of making creative decisions. –

I don’t think that he was advising Abrams on the business of making creative decisions, otherwise he wouldn’t repeatedly have stated that Abrams is a talented director who will make a good film. All he was saying that he as the authentic Kirk is still available (apparently he wants to stick to acting…), is still being identified with the role, and is still able to put some butts in the seats (paraphrasing). All correct. So, if you try for one moment to look through his glasses, he never said anything negative about the quality of the film, he just said that from a business point of view it would be wise to put him in and that the film would benefit from his ST popularity. I think that’s advising Abrams on Bill Shatner and business, two things Bill has loads of experience and credibility in;).

As to STV, it undoubtedly is the least successful of the original ST films, but it nevertheless is appreciated by a lot of people. And I bet you there are some folk who secretly like that Transformers milestone… And where can I marvel at your disastrous masterpiece? Just be bold and display it. Never give up, always think of Van Gogh who died a poor man because people didn’t understand his art then. :)

– Maybe then he wouldn’t have ended up “disappointed” that no role (even a voiceover or minor part as someone else) was ever offered to him. –

We cannot positively know whether we was ever offered anything – opinions on that topic obviously differ.

– It’s all very bizarre. –

Agreed.

#355
– ..that his absence in the film may have been due to a lack of creative writing ability and inability to solve “the writing problem“, as he called it.. –

That’s not an insult, that’s the simple truth. Generations was there from the beginning, talks started and Abrams & Co. obviously couldn’t make Kirk post GEN and XI happen. So, where’s the insult? He called it “writing problem”; that’s not even insulting wording. Abrams & Co. themselves admitted to have a problem; we all knew that there might be a problem. Plain facts, no more – no less.

But IF they couldn’t figure it out because the film they wanted to make didn’t have a seat reserved for him from the very beginning, then starting talks, playing a cat-and-mouse game, and finishing it with not putting the most famous face of ST in, would have been the actual insult. But as RO said “Who knows”.

#352
Yeah, I’m still hoping for Flipper, but I’m afraid the water might be a creative problem…

#360
The still do come in pairs, don’t they? May I have the other one, my friend? I feel a bit dizzy by now from all this he said, they said, they offered, they didn’t offer, he didn’t want to, he wanted to, nobody ever, who knows, one year to go…Haven’t had anything to drink or eat for about two days. Note to self: Must go to kitchen (faints) ——————————

362. Mr. Bob Dobalina - June 20, 2008

Shat in the movie? May not happen. But the important thing is that, according to one of the writers, it could. That’s all the hope I need. I hope he is in and I hope no one knows it until the first print is dry and playing down at the local Bijou.

363. Steve Short - June 20, 2008

#335 I would think the new Star Trek 11 movie would start in a time after the” Nemesis” movie with Old Spock because of the Romulans. In “Generations” 65 year old Kirk traveled through time (way past “Next Generation Reunification” episode) to Picard’s part of “Generations” some 78 years later Old Kirk would be still 65 years old at the end of the “Generations”movie. Now it’s about 15 year later so old Kirk is 80 years old for the new movie (Shatner and Nimoy are about 80 in age). If old Spock changes the past to save Kirk and comes back home to his time 15 year after “Generations” and just after “Nemesis” that would make Old Kirk 80 years old and not dead because of his time travel and Spock’s time change.

364. lostrod - June 20, 2008

#351

Suffice to say we disagree on the extent and range of the so called “insults” to the “new people”.

I don’t think I can add anymore to this particular discussion at this point. I think Iowagirl in #361 did an excellent job of distinguishing what constitutes an “insult”.

I’m definitely looking forward to reading some actual news about the production here rather than assumptions and conjecture (based on no concrete information) of if/how/when Mr. Shatner will participate.

Regards.

365. Pierri - June 20, 2008

I can think of a thousand ways to bring Shatner back – well, everyone can.

Some of the worst of them, in no particular order:

1. Q bringing him back to annoy Piccard.
2. Q “dressed up” as Kirk to mess with Spock AND annoy Piccard.
3. Kirk becomes a borg drone and try to bluff everyone that “resistence is futile (and a bad business decision)”
4. He as a ghost saying “may the bluff be with you” a lot.
5. That future guy from STE butts in to get Kirk’s corpse and his tech brings him back to fight some menage along with every other ST captain.
6. A temporal anomaly caused by tribbles make Veridian´s time to revert erasing Generations.
7. A temporal ship gets a trekfan back in time to stop them to make STG.

:)

Now, seriously, I like Shatner´s Kirk because his character loves the big E as much as everyone. He represents our teenage dream of sitting in that chair. He longs for something he, like us, cant have.

But at the same time he cant grow past that longing, he never grew past his “cowboy” attitude.

Generations was so terrible that it killed Kirk in four senses, IMHO:

1 He lost that longing that defined him and mirrored ours (and to cook eggs, no less),

2 As he only leaves his existence in the Nexus because it lacks danger, all his desire to be the Big E’s captain is changed into a mere need for adrenaline, and not something we can relate to.

3. Once again he doesnt grow out of his “cowboy attitude”. Unlike Spock that not only accomodates his human side but sets out to really make a difference, Kirk is shown to be a kid in adult shoes, looking for trouble, for danger, trying to have everything his way no matter what.

4. And a character has only three choices: to grow, to become irrelevant or to die. Instead of the first, they choose to kill him, along with our mirror in that universe.

I think we – the fans – outgrew his representation (and we became closer to Piccard, that is more mature than Kirk and still have that need for the seat not because it is dangerous, but for the adventure and chance to explore, to be the pioneer), and Kirks desconstruction made him too flawed to be repaired and unwilling to grow. Thus, his “un-epic”, unecessary and meaningless death.

They could have made Kirk something else, something grander, but chose to kill him almost like as they were saying that there were no place for a “cowboy” in the TNG era – or at least a constructive place -, instead of develop him BACK into something more than his flaws, as he was in the TOS: a pioneer, an adventurer, a passionate explorer.

Sorry for the bad english. It is not my first language :)

366. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#361—“…he never said anything negative about the quality of the film, he just said that from a business point of view it would be wise to put him in and that the film would benefit from his ST popularity.”

You can rephrase his comments to make them sound less negative, but here are his exact words—-

“It was a bad business decision.” —William Shatner

“I don’t think that he was advising Abrams on the business of making creative decisions, otherwise he wouldn’t repeatedly have stated that Abrams is a talented director who will make a good film.”

Yes, he often softens you up before he delivers an uppercut.

“Abrams is a talented director and I’m sure he’ll make a good film….but leaving me out was a bad business decision” (Suckerpunch…ouch!)

“The writers are incredibly talented….but somehow I guess they were unable to solve the writing problem” (Duck, Roberto!)

“But IF they couldn’t figure it out because the film they wanted to make didn’t have a seat reserved for him from the very beginning, then starting talks, playing a cat-and-mouse game, and finishing it with not putting the most famous face of ST in, would have been the actual insult. But as RO said , who knows?.”

They obviously did have some ideas in mind, or they wouldn’t have brought it up. Without giving too much away right now, I think Bob Orci makes it all but crystal clear that there was simply a discrepancy between what Bill Shatner wanted his role to be, and what the creative team felt they could get away with within the story.

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”—Bob Orci

“I don’t do cameos”—William Shatner

Be careful where you place the blame. It is obvious that if Bill never received an offer, then it’s most likely because of his own public comments.

367. Anthony Pascale - June 20, 2008

I think some people here need to take some chill pills and go outside and enjoy the sunshine and the weekend.

368. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#360—LOL. If you notice, I didn’t invoke the STV moniker I know you like so much, so be nice.

#367—Unfortunately, I think chill pills are frowned upon without a prescription, Anthony. But if you can get it to drop below 100 degrees F here in Houston, going outside wouldn’t be a bad idea. As it is, I can’t take out the trash without wanting to change my shirt by the time I come back inside. When 5pm CST arrives though, I’ll brave the heat and humidity in the parking lot and make the lonely commute back home to the family (or at least the swimming pool).

369. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 20, 2008

#368 … Get outta here, you live in Houston?? Me too!! As McCoy would say, “It figures!”

370. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#369—-I’ll be damned…Actually, my business is based in Houston, so that’s where I am now. The family and I dwell in Katy. I’m about to brave I-10 West from the Heights area.

Where’s Scotty on the transporter console when you need him?

371. nscates - June 20, 2008

@ 365
Your english is fine, I believe I understood you perfectly. I agree – Generations really didn’t portray the character accurately or well. It was pretty obvious to me that he was only in the film to die.

372. Iowagirl - June 20, 2008

#366
You may repeat Bill’s comments as often as you want – they don’t get more insulting, nor less plausible, understandable, reasonable, sensible (insert synonyms here).

Fact remains, RO said “who knows”, and THAT’s the most recent statement we’ve got, despite Bill’s bad bad bad behaviour. Orci must’ve been deeply insulted, so that he was confused and didn’t know what he was saying..;-)

#369
Run for your life or set phasers on ‘post to kill’. :)

#370
I’ve never felt more blessed living in Germany. :D

373. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#372— Very nice country, although I haven’t visited there since the mid-90’s. In fact, there were many German immigrants who settled East Texas and the Hill Country to our West, and you can see their imprint on the culture of South/ Southeast Texas. I am of Norwegian ancestory myself (and a proud Texan to be sure), but there are many things to appreciate and admire about your country and its people, and I am happy to be able to interact with fans like you (with often difering opinions) so far away,… “but never parted” (thanks to the internet). lol…

This thread was good. We heard from Bob and its always nice to know that he’ll throw his two cents in on occasion and checks in on what we’re talking about and even mingles a bit with the Troglytes down here.

374. Alan G - June 20, 2008

I know a really easy way for Kirk to still be alive and have Shatner in the film.

Does anyone remember what Guinan said (the Woopie Goldberg character) in Generations. She said when you are in the Nexus, a part of you is always in the Nexus. Therefore, although Kirk died and Picard buried him, part of him is still in the Nexus. He is still alive in the Nexus. Spock could get into the Nexus and bring him out.

Orci, if you put this in the movie, I want full credit.

375. Alan G - June 20, 2008

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Did anyone read William shatners book , “The Return”. The book takes place right after Generations. The Borg dig up Kirk and re-animate him and make him a Borg. During the book, he is supposed to help kill Picard and crew, but his will is so strong that even the nano probes can’t make him do things against his will. Eventually, Mccoy (137 years old) gets most of the nano probles out of him. Spock is quoted in the book “I knew you never died, I never felt you die so I knew that somehow you were still alive”.

376. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#374—Didn’t Guinan say something about not being able to leave? That she was some sort of echo of the person Picard knew?

What reason would Spock have to stop off in the Nexus and pick up his friend’s echo?

Sounds like a “cameo” to me, and one that might prove difficult to paint as being beneficial enough to the story to justify it.

377. Alan G - June 20, 2008

I just would like to see Shatner in the movie somehow. Hey, if this is a time travel story where Spock goes back into the past, why can’t he go back and prevent Kirk from dying in the first place.

378. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#375—-That’s awful. I’m glad that isn’t being made into a movie. That’s straight-to-dvd caliber at best. If Abrams spent $150 million of Paramount’s money on that, they’d be pissed.

I’d rather see what Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Abrams came up with, and I’m encouraged by the knowledge that Paramount was impressed to such a degree that STXI will be a May release.

379. Alan G - June 20, 2008

I can’t wait to see the film also. I’m sure it will be worth waiting for.

380. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#377—What would prompt Spock, of all people, to put the entire timeline at risk by altering the past, putting the existing fates of billions at risk?

Even the slightest, most seemingly insignificant interaction of a Kirk who is supposed to be dead with another could affect the timeline. Kirk may have put his career at risk in getting Spock’s body and his Katra to Vulcan, but Spock putting the future he knows in jeopardy?

That’s not the Spock I know, and it’s apparently not the story Paramount approved.

381. Closettrekker - June 20, 2008

#379—You and me both.

382. Thomas - June 20, 2008

374. I personally understood that to mean that the part of someone that remained in the Nexus was like an imprint, or what Guinan described as an “echo”, some essence of a person that become part of the Nexus as a whole. That doesn’t necessarily mean “the” Kirk is still alive in the Nexus. Remember that Picard found Guinan in the Nexus, but that she reminded him that she (the “real” Guinan) was already on the Enterprise, and that she (Nexus Guinan) could not leave. The fact that Guinan left an “echo” in the Nexus may have something to do with her having left the Nexus forcefully, as though some part of her was ripped away. I don’t know if Kirk left any part of himself in the Nexus if he left with Picard of his own volition.

383. Xai - June 20, 2008

When someone from Paramount/ Bad Robot announces the addition of William Shatner officially or he somehow appears in the movie next May, THEN I will believe he’s in it.

Until then it’s my opinion that a return of old Kirk, despite being dead 15 years now, would be a mistake.. THE worst decision that could be made story-wise.

For what I hear of the story, it doesn’t include the character at that age. JJ and crew tried to get Mr. Shatner in and for whatever reason, it did not happen. They did speak to him even if Mr. Shatner can’t recall details or choses not to.

I won’t go for stretching credibility again by another resurrection. That was done, move on. Shatner put his prime character on the chopping block for one more Trek Check years ago,.,( but we’ve discussed that to death too.) It would be Star Trek XI: Spock and Jim’s Most Excellent Adventure if he had not let Kirk die in a poorly-written, poorly acted manner.

Iowagirl, you can sugar-coat his quotes any way you want, but if someone of his supposed status said that of my hard work, he’d better have his eyes open and be prepared to back up his words. Closet called it a sucker-punch. I agree.

384. dalek - June 20, 2008

#380

Not if Kirk is told to stay “our of history’s way” until the time of Spock’s return. Kirk’s death itself did not stop Soran. And it was already an altered timeline, the crew of the D perished and Kirk was “out of time” and in effect altering the natural continuity of the era.

Kirk living will not stop the Borg attacking earth, Picard retrieving Data from the Sona or Shinzon taking over Romulus. Nor will it stop Sisko from defeating the Dominion or Voyager returning home.

Captain Picard instructed his crew of 400 plus people to live in earth’s past but stay out of events of the timeline. Maybe you missed that movie ;)

Besides Orci Kurtzman and JJ could say it was always canon that Kirk was revived after the events of Generations. Their word would be canon, as the new caretakers of the Trek universe.

But with an infinite universe of possiblities there are numerous ways that Kirk could live on past Generations without his revival having to occur during those events.

All this is however, pointless speculation because the decision not to put him in the film was made at the scripting stage…

385. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 20, 2008

#378 “That’s awful. I’m glad that isn’t being made into a movie. That’s straight-to-dvd caliber at best. If Abrams spent $150 million of Paramount’s money on that, they’d be pissed.”

I’d recommend reading it if you haven’t. It may be the most exciting Trek novel I’ve ever read. It was written with the help of the great Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, and also made the NYT Bestseller list. Kirk whips the asses of most of The Next Generation crew, it was worth reading almost for that alone! But in the end, of course, he teams up with them to take on the Borg. The book even suggests that the “machine planet” that gave VGER its intelligence was the Borg homeworld. It’s a great read, and it may not work as a movie only because the story would be too big to be contained in 2 hours. But if done properly, I guarantee you it would’ve been a better film or mini-series than most of the Next Gen movies. I know you agree with me as to how poor those were.

And, my God, I live in the Heights! I’m starting to get frightened that the “closet” you’ve been posting from may be my own! You’re pulling a Ben Finney on me!

#372 … Don’t worry, I’m going to sleep with a rock in hand, like Kirk in Rura Penthe.

386. Boborci - June 21, 2008

Can I just say how much I loved this debate? Smart stuff all around.

387. Iowagirl - June 21, 2008

#383
Iowagirl, you can sugar-coat his quotes any way you want…

Xai, never did that. I just agreed to what Bill said and tried to explain that I don’t consider it insults. If you look at #345 I actually quoted “Foolish (business) decision” and explicitely referred to the “cameo” remark.

In #361 I wasn’t sugar-coating either, but putting my emphasis on the “positive” things he did say, things you may have deleted from your memory banks.;)

Next time, please read my posts before commenting them.

Cheers!

388. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 21, 2008

#386 … Hi, Bob. I know you’ve said in several interviews that you love the novel Federation, which is great was also written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. I’m pleased that you’ve read and enjoyed their work; IMO they are the best Trek novelists.

See, Closet … yet more evidence that you should give The Return a try!

389. VOODOO - June 21, 2008

Xai:

I understand what you are saying about stretching credibility, BUT this is Star Trek where every major character has “died” at one point or another. There is no credibility in any of it when you take a step back and take a hard look.

If you take an ultra critical view of the series Leonard Nimoy being in ST XI should insult your intelligence. His character died of radiation and then was shot from deep space onto a planet that just happens to be rejuvenating itself. Spock is then lucky enough to have his billions of cells reform into a being that looks exactly as it did before he died and luckily enough his “katra” just happened to be given to his friend ready to be down loaded back into Spock’s head by some ancient Vulcan ritual that hasn’t been performed in eons. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Where is all the outrage about Mr Nimoy being in the film because it stretches credibility or it would be a distraction? Shatner being included in some type of alt universe seems like hard science compared to the Spock scenario.

If as you say “J.J. and crew tried to get Mr Shatner in and for whatever reason it did not happen” didn’t the creative team at least at some point seem to want Shatner for their script? How can you say his appearance is not pivotal to the script if you don’t have first hand knowledge of that script?

Perhaps Shatner has a small cameo, but that cameo is a major plot point? Maybe Kirk being alive in the end due to some type of alt universe is the big ending?

I strongly disagree that Shatner being in this film would be “the worst decision that could be made story wise”

1/ We know almost nothing about the story

2/ The writers seem to have wanted him at some point.

3/ He should be included for no other reason than it would be fun to see the Kirk and Spock characters played by the original actors come full circle and be given a proper ending. An ending that does not include Kirk dying an utterly foolish death that had him falling off a bridge for no apparent reason.

4/ Love him or hate him it would be fun to see Shatner and Nimoy one more time. The public would love it.

I am fully convinced that Shatner was offered a cameo and turned it down hoping to get more of a role and more money out of the deal. It seems he played his hand and lost.

It seems Shatner “I don’t do cameos” is now willing to do as little as a voice over to be included. If that is the case I think there is a 50/50 chance that Shatner gets in after all.

390. Steve Short - June 21, 2008

# 363 I guess in the new Star Trek movie some time after the Nemesis movie Spock goes back in time to save the much younger Kirk 20 something in age from the time traveling Romulans. And tells him all about what happens in Generations or what Spock has done in the past will change Kirk’s future. So when Spock returns home about 15 years after Generations (65 year old Kirk add 15 now is Kirk is 80 years old) Kirk is alive.

391. Xai - June 21, 2008

387. Iowagirl – June 21, 2008
Re: Sugar Coating.

“I just agreed to what Bill said and tried to explain that I don’t consider it insults.”

“Next time, please read my posts before commenting them.”

_Yes I know. I read English as a first language and even read your post. You explained what you feel Shatner really meant by comments like “Foolish” and “Poor” business decisions” and the “writing problem”.

I explained what I thought of the comments and how I would react if I was in a similar situation. And yes, I did see he made positive comments too… but I tend to agree with Closet on that… but you read that already.

I got it.
I disagree with your interpretation of his statements, but it’s a board full of opinions.

392. Xai - June 21, 2008

389. VOODOO – June 21, 2008

Yes, they all died, again and again…it’s a tired, old plot device for Trek. and Kirk’s resurrection would smack of “The Search for Kirk”. NOT a good plot or subplot to revive the Trek movie series.

Outrage over Nimoy? My initial thought was “no original cast” when word of this movie came out. I’m now ok with Nimoy. His character is alive, even if contrived.

your second to last paragraph I agree with. Some of Shatner’s comments in interviews I do have a problem with… have to run

393. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#384—“Kirk living will not stop the Borg attacking earth, Picard retrieving Data from the Sona or Shinzon taking over Romulus. Nor will it stop Sisko from defeating the Dominion or Voyager returning home.”

Wow, that’s pretty presumptuous. ANY interaction between Shatner’s Kirk and another person could affect any number of events. And who is to say that it would have to be something like the Borg Invasion or The Dominion War? It could simply result in two people never meeting, and thus someone never being born. And any conversation, for instance, could alter how someone reacts to something later on (as opposed to their original reaction), and that change could cause a succession of such changes. Spock is simply not irresponsible enough to put that much at risk, especially for the life of one man—any man.

394. VOODOO - June 21, 2008

Xai:

No need for “The Search for Kirk” in a film with alternate time lines and time travel. A 30 second cameo that gives Kirk a better ending would be more than enough from even the most ardent BBK fans.

Hopefully the people behind the film won’t be influenced by Shatner acting like a jerk about not being included to this point and still get him in there. Not for Shatner, but for the fans of the character he played.

395. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#389—“If you take an ultra critical view of the series Leonard Nimoy being in ST XI should insult your intelligence. His character died of radiation and then was shot from deep space onto a planet that just happens to be rejuvenating itself. Spock is then lucky enough to have his billions of cells reform into a being that looks exactly as it did before he died and luckily enough his “katra” just happened to be given to his friend ready to be down loaded back into Spock’s head by some ancient Vulcan ritual that hasn’t been performed in eons. GIVE ME A BREAK.”

So you equate that with resurrecting a man who has been dead for at least a decade (“moldering”, as Nimoy put it)?

“The writers seem to have wanted him at some point.”

But apparently not in the capacity which he had in mind.

“Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain …”—Bob Orci

“He should be included for no other reason than it would be fun to see the Kirk and Spock characters played by the original actors come full circle and be given a proper ending”

STVI was to be the final bow….Generations was a curtain call (albeit a bad one). It seems to me that we’ve said our goodbyes to William Shatner as James T. Kirk twice already. I disagree that giving them “a proper ending” should be the goal of this creative team. They didn’t create the problem, and do not deserve to be saddled with the baggage left by another Trek caretaker. They have a story they want to tell, and according to Mr. Orci, that story could not sustain a major role for Shatner’s Kirk.

” am fully convinced that Shatner was offered a cameo and turned it down hoping to get more of a role and more money out of the deal. It seems he played his hand and lost.”

While I agree that he probably overplayed his hand, I’m not willing to say that it was about money. I think he shot himself in the foot with some of his comments, and that’s why he never got a callback. I don’t think he was ever offered anything, but I believe it had everything to do with the whole “I don’t do cameos” comment.

Would you ask a girl to the dance if she had already gone around telling the other kids she wouldn’t go out with you? Of course not. Neither would I.

“It seems Shatner ‘I don’t do cameos’ is now willing to do as little as a voice over to be included. ”

Sure, now that he didn’t get asked to the dance at all, he is suddenly willing to be more humble. Go figure.

396. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#394—“Hopefully the people behind the film won’t be influenced by Shatner acting like a jerk about not being included to this point and still get him in there. Not for Shatner, but for the fans of the character he played.”

I hear what you’re saying, and it seems that at least Mr. Orci would be pleased if there could be a role for Shatner. But should they approach him with something like a voiceover? It seems to me that if Shatner really cared that much about the fans who care so much about him, he would go to Abrams “hat in hand”—not for himself, but for his fans. I’m sure they wouldn’t make a public spectacle of it, and I think they might be open to something like that, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I don’t think Bill has had humility in his arsenal for quite some time, nor do I honestly feel he would do that for you, me, or any other fan. I think it’s over.

397. dalek - June 21, 2008

#393 Your post is also pretty presumptious that Kirk isn’t a smart intellect. Again I refer to the stay out of histories way bit. Plus as Kirk’s death hasnt been mentioned in canon since Generations, his revival could always be part of the timelines we saw anyway.

398. dalek - June 21, 2008

Additionally it is also canon that the future Scotty believes Kirk is alive and well, refer to Relics. Anyone excusing that comment he makes as “Transporter psychosis” is clutching at straws. He was extremely lucid the moment he was beamed back, with no sign of any single mental problems. Now that’s canon.

399. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#385—Yeah, I don’t think it would take much to be better than the TNG -era movies, that’s for sure. The characters never had the same kind of appeal to me…but that’s another subject.

The Heights, huh? I may live in Katy, but I work on Washington Ave. I’m also a member of the Greater Heights Chamber Of Commerce, and Tues-Sat, I can usually be found eating lunch in one of the restaurants in the Heights area as well. I’ve spent a small fortune there on food (and the occasional adult beverage) alone. Small world indeed.

400. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#397—“as Kirk’s death hasnt been mentioned in canon since Generations, his revival could always be part of the timelines we saw anyway.”

That’s almost an approach I could actually get on board with. But still, how do you make that palatable to the more casual fan (or worse, the average moviegoer) who doesn’t actually “micro-analyze” canon that way?

“Anyone excusing that comment he makes as “Transporter psychosis” is clutching at straws”

Are you sure people who make that comment are the ones “clutching at straws”? LOL.

I think trying to make suggestions as to how they could justify resurrecting Shatner’s Kirk at this point is much more questionable. Even if he were alive (Post-Nemesis), as you’ve suggested (due to an altered timeline), would it really be so gratifying to see an 80-year old Kirk? And that means he was alive all through DS9, with no mention of that whatsoever. It’s tough to swallow. I can’t do it. It sounds too much like a bad novel.

401. lostrod - June 21, 2008

#389

Voodoo – excellent post.

You hit the nail on the head when you point out that none of the folks posting here (other than Orci) have read the script. Yet they keep saying that an appearance by Mr. Shatner would be “contrived”, “forced”, “unbelievable”, etc.

I would never claim that such appearance would affect the storyline one way or the other since I have no personal knowledge of the actual script. All we really have at this point is a vague outline that the story deals with time travel to prevent young Kirk’s death and (based on casting) seems to deal with a variety of time periods. Based on that there are numerous ways in which an elder Kirk played by Mr. Shatner could make an appearance.

It occurred to me that the definition of “cameo” might have significance here. It seems that most appearances by original stars in a remake that are defined as cameos have the stars playing different characters. Examples:

Mark Goddard, Marta Kristen and Angela Cartwright in 1998’s “Lost in Space”

Bernie Kopell (original Ziegfried) in the new “Get Smart”.

Perhaps a “I don’t do cameos” might refer to a small part other than the original character.

I’m sure others can come up with other cameo examples. How about some examples of where the returning actor played the same character?

James Garner in 1994’s “Maverick”
Ernest Borgnine in 1997’s “McCale’s Navy”

At any rate, I am naturally looking forward to the new film and I’m sure I will enjoy seeing such iconic characters back in action. But I’m sure I would enjoy it more if it features Mr. Shatner in some capacity.

Regards.

402. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#401—“You hit the nail on the head when you point out that none of the folks posting here (other than Orci) have read the script. Yet they keep saying that an appearance by Mr. Shatner would be “contrived”, “forced”, “unbelievable”, etc.”

I don’t think that is a fair assessment of the opposition’s viewpoint.

It may very well be a stretch to call it “unbelievable”, considering the setting is a fictional universe full of endless possibilities. I certainly won’t argue that.

However, since the story is set in the time period post-Nemesis and pre-TOS (the extent of the “various time periods” you referred to), then obviously fitting Shatner’s Kirk into the equation, while maintaining a coherent storyline, is not so simple. In fact, his presence must be beneficial to the story, or it IS forced, shoehorned, or the like.. If you read Mr. Orci’s comments in the above article, it is not unreasonable to assume that the story could only have supported a very minor role for Mr. Shatner—like the flashback scene I have often suggested—in other words, a “cameo”.

“We talked in the meeting about the fact that Star Trek had killed Kirk and that was going to be a big stumbling block to an organic introduction of the character, but we would do our best. Subsequently he said he would require a slightly larger part than maybe this movie could sustain…”—Bob Orci, March 2008.

It doesn’t take any extraordinary reading comprehension skills to see what happened. Shatner may have ultimately been offered a role that might have fit within the storyline, but it was obviously not going to be one that saw his character resurrected from the dead or that was going to be a major part of the story’s resolution. It would have been, if anything, a cameo. “I don’t do cameos” was seen as a pre-emptive refusal of such a role, and he was probably never offered anything.

Those strongly advocating his inclusion haven’t read the script either, yet often suggest that writing him into the story is as simple as explaining away his death. You seem to invoke somewhat of a double-standard there.

We know this. JJ Abrams said he wanted to include Shatner, but it would be difficult. Bob Orci says they pitched Shatner the general idea of the story. Shatner said, “I don’t do cameos”. Bob Orci said Shatner wanted a larger part than the movie could sustain. JJ Abrams never called Shatner back.

Bill should have been humble and more open-minded. If he had, it’s hard to imgine now that they wouldn’t have found a way to include him. Now, the movie’s filming is wrapped. Unless he wants to beg for a voiceover, it’s probably not going to happen.

403. Xai - June 21, 2008

thanks for posting that Closet

404. dalek - June 21, 2008

#400 Spock has a time ship according to what we’ve heard. Kirk wouldn’t even have to live those years.

And no its not clutching at straws, what Scotty said and believed is definitely canon :) The other theory is not canon, there was no mention of him having mental problems or transporter psychosis. Star Trek canon is that Scotty was perfectly lucid when he was beamed out the Jenolan transporter and wondered if Kirk was behind it!

As for Spock not changing time and it being inconsistent with the Spock you know altering one pebble, causing ripples etc. Consider this:

Spock had no problems in taking Captain Christopher out of time to the future in “Tomorrow is Yesterday” after researching that he made no “significant” contributions to history…. he later found at this error when Captain Christophers offspring proved to be instrumental in later space flights.

20 years later spock suggested (yes it was his suggestion) they go back in time and remove two humpback whales from the timeline. Not only that but they took a woman from the 20th century out of time back to the 23rd century.

It’s clear based on the evidence, Spock does not subscribe to the smallest of changest theory. As long as Soran was stopped on Veridian 3, he wouldn’t have a problem as that is the significant event.

Spock doesn’t have to change things as of Generations timeline. This is of course science fiction. That Kirk can still die on Veridian 3, and there are always possibilities. Generations left many loopholes, but as Shatner and the Reeves Stevens proved you need not have to go the Generations/Nexus route to restore Kirk back to life.

In the end we are talking about Captain James T Kirk, perhaps the greatest Star Trek legend ever to have lived. One thing consistent with the Star Trek universe is that this man cheated death! It would be in his character to survive the grim reaper also.

405. lostrod - June 21, 2008

#402

Closet – I stand corrected. When I posted:

—”You hit the nail on the head when you point out that none of the folks posting here (other than Orci) have read the script. Yet they keep saying that an appearance by Mr. Shatner would be “contrived”, “forced”, “unbelievable”, etc.”

I should have used the term “some of them” rather than simply “they”.

However, you stated:

“Since the story is set in the time period post-Nemesis and pre-TOS (the extent of the “various time periods” you referred to), then obviously fitting Shatner’s Kirk into the equation, while maintaining a coherent storyline, is not so simple. ”

My question once again is how do you know that the only time periods in the script are post-nemesis and pre-TOS without having the benefit of reading the script?

Regardless, we will all now next year for sure, right? :)

In the meantime, I appreciate your thoughtful contributions (as well as many others) on this site. It will make the wait until next year more endurable.

Regards.

406. Iowagirl - June 21, 2008

#404
You hit a row of nails on the head – needless to say, I agree. :)

407. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2008

I have a question for the BBK people

Given a choice between STAR TREK having
1. A movie with a scene with Shatner as Kirk, but taking place before his death (therefore no resurrection)
or
2. A movie with no Shatner as Kirk, but a mention that Kirk was resurrected

which would you chose?

408. dalek - June 21, 2008

2) Kirks life is far more important than Shatner having to play him. Thats the big downer of the movie as far as I’m concerned. It will be like watching a home movie of a dead relative. Whatever jeapordy Kirk is in, in this flick, the absolute certainty that he ends up as mush in that death on Veridian 3 is offputting. It even taints watching reruns, that knowing no matter how brilliant the writing was, the death and the way it happened, is very depressing.

#406 thanks Iowagirl :)

409. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#404—I’m not going to sit here and poke holes in “Tommorow I Yesterday”, although it can easily be done, but as far as bringing humpback whales to the 23rd Century, I would say that Spock’s hand (and that of Admiral Kirk) was forced by an alien probe that threatened Earth. I will grant you the notion that Spock would indeed voluntarily alter the future if such a threat were present (ends justifying the means), but not simply to bring back Jim Kirk. You cannot convince me that he would put Jim Kirk’s life (which was already taken) above the future he knows, and you certainly cannot convince me that he would decide to do it 15 years later.

You certainly cannot convince me (at this point) that such a story is automatically better because it brings back Shatner’s Kirk. The goal is to create new fans while honoring the original work, not to give us more of the same.

We’re going to see a modern look at TOS-era Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. That’s what has me excited. I’m not sure I would be so thrilled if I knew I was going to pay and see William Shatner in a Starfleet uniform again, no matter what gimmick they used to resurrect him. I moved on a long time ago. Shatner is not the end-all-be-all. James T. Kirk was Captain of the Enterprise, not Bill Shatner. Bill Shatner plays a sleazy lawyer on TV and does Priceline commercials.

Look, there’s no question that these guys COULD have written a story which saved the life of Captain Kirk and righted the wrongs of someone else’s bad movie. But they did not. They wrote what they believed was the best Star Trek story they could put to paper and make into a big budget feature film. They obviously believed that something about their story was appealing enough to do so. They were right. Paramount gave them a massive budget, Leonard Nimoy was so enamoured with the script that he chose to come out of retirement and play Spock again, and then Paramount liked enough of what they saw to make STXI their May release for 2009.

They are apparently doing something right, and just as #405 pointed out, none of us has had the benefit of reading the script, so what justification is there for saying they should have done this, or should have done that, when you don’t know how good the story they DID choose to tell is?

#405—-It has been confirmed by trekmovie.com that the story begins post-Nemesis, and Spock uses his timeship to travel back to various periods prior to TOS. There has been no indication whatsoever that any of the story involves the time period after the original movies or certainly not the time period of Generations. You cannot prove a negative, so I won’t try to, but from what we know and what has been confirmed, it does not.

410. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#408—We can certainly agree that it was a bad idea that Kirk be killed. But it was someone else’s bad idea. My question is, how and when does it become the problem of JJ Abrams and the STXI creative team? Is it the moment they chose to make a movie involving Jim Kirk at any point in his life? If so, that’s pretty extraordinary. I don’t believe it’s their problem, or their burden to carry. If they want to tell more stories about Jim Kirk and co. in the earlier years, I say more power to them. Just make them good. Saddling them with the baggage of Kirk’s death in Generations is just wrong. Period.

411. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 21, 2008

#407 … Option #1. I’d rather have Kirk be alive, but given the choices you gave us, some Shat is better than no Shat.

412. VOODOO - June 21, 2008

Closettrekker #395

– What difference does it make if a character is dead for ten minutes or ten years? In the real world dead is dead. Clearly Spock had been “dead” for sometime before he came back in ST III.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a character to return in a alternate time line than the way Spock did? Ultimately this is a fictional universe where anything can happen and usually does.

– The writers wanted Shatner on their terms. Shatner wanted a bigger part and more money. He thought he could twist their arms in the negotiation process. He was wrong. Now he seems to be open to their terms. As Anthony mentioned earlier. I also find it funny that Shatner’s stance has gone from “I don’t do cameos” a year ago. To “I would be happy to just do a voice over” Perhaps Mr Orici’s statement is opening the door for Shatner and his people to sign on to their project on their terms?

Despite the fact that Shatner has acted like a jerk throughout the entire process both sides could benefit from his inclusion. Shatner’s daily statements about not being included in the film sound to me more of a public negotiation than truly being upset about not being included in the film. It has been my experience in business dealings that when both sides truly want to get a deal done it ultimately gets done. If Shanter wants in and Abrams wants Shatner to be in what is the issue? As Leonard Nimoy himself said “This film would be better with William Shatner in it.

– “Now that he didn’t get asked to the dance at all, he is suddenly willing to be more humble”

I don’t know if that is 100% true. I have heard rumors (by more than one person) that Shatner was in fact asked to do a cameo that he turned down near the start of the project. It seems he wanted a bigger role.

Remember his “I don’t do cameos” line that has become his mantra for the last year or so? Where there is smoke there is fire. Did he just say I don’t do cameos for no reason? He was offered a cameo and he wanted more.

When I asked Bob Orci point blank if Shatner was offered a cameo he wouldn’t answer.

He didn’t answer for a reason. He doesn’t want to open a can of worms. I can’t blame him for that at all. I completely respect that he must keep silent about the film and especially such a hot button issue as Shatner. I for one wouldn’t be as open as he has been with us. By the way thanks for that Bob.

That said Mr Orci or any of the creative team could come out and say something to the effect of we never wanted Shatner. Or we offered him a cameo but he turned it down, but they never do. Both sides continue to send mixed messages.

I’d bet my life Shatner also wanted more money. Do you recall his “I am worth the salary” comments? Remember when Shatner kept going on about what a big star he is these days and that he could bring people in due to his current popularity? And that “it was a bad business decision to not have him in the film” Again where there is smoke there is fire. A bigger role equals more money.

Why should they break the bank for a cameo by William Shatner? I’m sure they didn’t offer him $250 bucks to be in the film. If I were in his shoes I’d leave my ego at the door and do the cameo. Since when has “The Price Line Negotiator” and the creator of those highly esteemed paint ball videos been so high and mighty that he won’t do a cameo (which could be a pivotal role) in one of the biggest films of 2009?

It is my understanding/feeling that Abrams + Co wanted/want Shatner on their terms not his. I can’t blame them for that. They choose to write and film the story that they wanted to create. That story does not call for a major role from William Shatner.

This film is wisely meant to bring in a new audience for Star Trek that respects the past (Nimoy and maybe Shatner) but it is not meant to be ST XI: The Search for Kirk. If they did offer him a part (even a small part) and he turned them down due to ego and money I have no sympathy for him. I just wish that they would say it one way or the other.

#396

Lets face it. Shatner cares about Shatner not Star Trek fans. He thought he was going to get a big pay day and a boost to his ego at the same time with this film. Instead he was offered a cameo and initially turned it down.

Something was/is clearly going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about. IT’S ALL OUT THERE IF YOU READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

Why would Abrams publicly state that he wanted Shatner in the film if he truly had no interest in him? The fact is Abrams is smarter than that, He would lose all credibility if he did that. Why would he risk upsetting an already fractured fan base with these comments if he truly didn’t want Shatner?

Please don’t tell me it’s because they couldn’t find a way to get him in. Perhaps it is true that they couldn’t get him in a manner that would satisfy Shatner, but they could easily get him in a film about time travel and alternate universes.

I can’t help but think there is another chapter to this story to be written.

At the end of the day I as a life long Kirk fan I hope that William Shatner can check his ego and take a smallcameo role and that the people behind the film can forget about Shatner being a jerk and still find a way to put him in the film as Kirk That is really the only way both sides can win.

As Mr Orci said “With another year to go, who knows?”

413. VOODOO - June 21, 2008

Anthony# 407

No doubt about it I would rather have Kirk be alive at the end of the film than see Shatner in a flashback cameo.

For me it’s more about Kirk getting a better ending than having Shatner in the film.

414. Harry Ballz - June 21, 2008

VOODOO, you make some excellent points, as always!!! I agree!

415. Xai - June 21, 2008

394. VOODOO – June 21, 2008
I’d rather see a scene where Spock realizes his illogical hope of rescuing the older Kirk (yet to happen in the movie) must now be set aside for the greater good.

This movie is not responsible to right the wrongs of past films. I want certain things to happen in a Trek film and they likely won’t. That makes me sympathetic to Shatner fans who want him back one-more-time, but every dream cannot be realized, not every wish granted even if this Trek and the dead regularly return from the grave.

—-

And sometimes life reminds us that there are more important things. As I was writing the above, we recieved a call telling us that my uncle likely has days left. Hospice has been called in and his time will be soon.
So I say fine… Shatner, no Shatner, I want a dam good story that enthralls and entertains and today I don’t care who’s in it.
Bob, JJ. I pray you did it right.

416. lostrod - June 21, 2008

#407

Definitely option #1.

What would be the point of suggesting Kirk was resurrected without showing the resurrected Kirk?

417. Mugsy - June 21, 2008

Despite all this conjecture, the facts are that this isn’t a TOTAL reboot – if it was then Nimoy wouldn’t be in it at the beginning in the post TNG world. Therefore there is an oppurtunity to get Kirk in here as well.

It si VERY difficult to get Kirk involvef without it seeming like he’s being shoe-horned in, but it’s NOT impossible! I think the relationship Kirk/Spock has shared throught the series and films is WORTH the trouble to come up with a suitable way of getting them back together one more time before the reigns are TRULY handed over to a new cast. Heck we owe it to these characters after 40 odd years of them entertaining us. Give them BOTH a royal send off, but make it clever. Some good ideas have already been pitched on this forum already.

Star Trek at it’s best used to deal with several different problems in one film, or episode (Most successfully in Star Trek II, IV and IV I think). Make the old Kirk ONE of those elements, and tie it somehow into the whole. Kirk NEEDS to avoid death to avert soem future disaster from happening or something… , something which will tie in to the young Kirk as well and provide a nice ‘circle’ and closure to the overall story, and really set up for the next film’s young crew,

Perhaps Kirk’s line, “I’ve always known……….. (pause!) I’ll die alone. Perhaps the older Kirk has given him this knowledge?

Anyway I am just rambling – hope some of these thoughts interest someone out there :)

Whatever the story, I can’t wait to see it Mr Orci – God Bless!

– Mugsy

418. Mugsy - June 21, 2008

p.s. sorry about all the spelling errors – ot’s gone midnight and I’m half alseep and doing the one fingered keyboard hop ;)

Nite all!

Mugsy out

419. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

Voodoo, I think we have a mutual opinion about Shatner’s nature. I’m just not willing to openly suggest that it was monetary greed was any kind of major factor (although I would not dismiss the possibility). I don’t know who your source is, and I need a bit more than that to feel good about presenting it as fact.

The facts are:

— that Abrams said he wanted to include him

–Bob Orci says they pitched him an overview

–Orci goes on to say they got his “approval”

–Shatner publicly stated “I don’t do cameos”

–Shatner calls leaving him out a “bad business decision”

–Shatner says Abrams never called him back

–Orci says Shatner required a larger role than the movie could sustain

–Principle photography wrapped

–Shatner publishes autobiography and says he’s not in it

–Shatner publicly wonders why he doesn’t even have a cameo

–Shatner is disappointed he’s not in it

That’s about it for the facts. There are a few comments about the writers and their creative abilities which seemed to be somewhat condescending on Bill’s part as well, IMO, but I don’t don’t think anyone can dispute the above information as fact.

The point is, whether an offer was really made or not, Bill and his fans have no one to blame but him. Whether he rejected an actual offer or never received one at all, his public “I don’t do cameos” stance created an impasse.

That’s all we need to know about it.

What I cannot stand is the notion that Abrams and the writers should be expected to right the wrongs of another Trek caretaker. They did not create the problem, and they have chosen to leave it alone. They could have written a story that “repairs the damage” done by Generations, but they made a creative decision to tell another story. I have a lot of respect for that. Just give me your best story. Don’t handicap yourself with a “to-do list” that starts with resurrecting a dead man. They decided to tell an “origins tale”, and I think that is wonderful. Bring it on.

420. King Anthony - June 21, 2008

A whole ‘nother year to go, huh?

Anything can happen. Oh, yeah.

More than enough time to sink or float a movie, I’ve found. It’s happened before, and to a lot of films far bigger and anticipated than this.

Which way it goes, depends on the choices one makes, and how they’re perceived.

Let’s wait and see….

421. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#408—I have some issues with your assertion that knowing he is going to die dampens your viewing experiences of events prior to his death.

Does it affect your appreciation for Robert DiNiro’s portrayal of Vito Corleone in GFII that you know already that Vito will ultimately keel over in his tomato garden?

Is George C. Scott’s performance in Patton any less enjoyable because you know that the enigmatic, yet tactically brilliant General will actually die in a meaningless jeep accident?

It certainly didn’t stop those two films from winning Oscars, and it certainly doesn’t inhibit my viewing experiences, no matter how many times I watch them on a Sunday afternoon (when it’s not football season, anyway). I don’t see the difference.

422. lostrod - June 21, 2008

#419

You stated:

“That’s all WE need to know about it.”

Shouldn’t that be:

“That’s all I need to know about it.”?

There are obviously others who do not share your opinion or interpretation of the “facts”.

Regards.

423. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 21, 2008

#419 “What I cannot stand is the notion that Abrams and the writers should be expected to right the wrongs of another Trek caretaker. They did not create the problem, and they have chosen to leave it alone.”

This is all soooooo borrring. This topic is so 2007. But I feel inclined to point out that if alternate timelines and time travel are what’s going on in this plot, the mistake that you always play up like some huge burden on JJ … could be resolved in 2 lines of dialogue! Generations and the Nexus need not even be mentioned. Basically, all the audience would have to be told was…

Spock: “Captain Kirk died tragically years ago. Now, as an effect of alterations to the timeline, it would appear my friend has cheated death once again.”

That’s IT. How hard would that have been? With time travel/altered timelines, the filmmakers couldn’t have it any EASIER, Closet! If the whole film were centered in the pre-TOS era, that’d be one thing. But with Nimoy Spock hopping all over the timeline, JJ & crew had a total Get Of Jail Free card!

424. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#422—No, I intentionally used the term, “we”.

Every one of those facts was reported and confirmed right here at trekmovie.com. I stand by my presentation of those events as fact, and see no room for disputing them. They are not “my” facts. They are “ours”.

When I say, “That’s all we need to know about it”, I am saying that there is no cause for going outside the facts. I don’t understand you. Didn’t you complain about people making assumptions about Shatner wanting more money? Here I was telling another poster that I’m not going to support that without evidence, and yet I’m speaking out of turn? I don’t think so. Did I confuse you with someone else?

Facts are facts. You cannot pretend they aren’t just because they paint a picture you’re uncomfortable with. The truth is, I didn’t present anything as “fact” that isn’t.

425. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#423—You know how I feel about it. There’s no question that they “could” have.

I’m not, however, willing to say that Nimoy will be “hopping around the timeline”. What we know is that he begins the story post-Nemesis, and apparently has reason to travel back to the period prior to TOS. I’m sorry, but simply throwing in a line of dialogue or two is pretty weak. How do you know that will make any sense? Short of Spock outright warning the younger Kirk not to board the Enterprise-B, what could happen in the pre-TOS era that would keep Kirk from dying the Berman death? IMO, that would be just another thing for Trek fans to argue themselves to death over.

426. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 21, 2008

If they had set the story 10 years after Kirk’s death abord the Enterprise-B, and stayed out of the post-Nemesis era, Spock could’ve returned to his time at the end of the film and discovered Kirk alive. Best ending imaginable. Audiences have been loving Robert Downey Jr.’s cameo at the end of The Incredible Hulk. When I saw Batman Begins, the audience cheered at the end when the Joker card was revealed. A Shatner ending for Trek XI would’ve trumped both of those examples. It would bring the house down.

If Shatner was offered something like that and turned it down, then that is a shame, and you’re right, he would be the one at fault. But I’m not going to speculate on that; I’m certain the reason for his non-appearance will make it into print in due time. Orci even hinted on this site that he might write about it someday.

And you probably haven’t seen every episode of Lost, like I have. It is the most non-linear show in the history of tv. It goes backwards to the past, tells a story in its present, and even goes into regular flashforwards. If we’re seeing Spock as a kid, at the academy, serving on the Enterprise, and as an old man in this movie, I would definitely say there is some timeline hopping involved. Working in Shatner’s Kirk somewhere during Spock’s journey through time should’ve been a given.

427. Thomas - June 21, 2008

People keep bringing up Spock’s resurrection as proof that a Kirk resurrection can be done. However, it is conveniently forgotten that a whole movie was made specifically to revive Spock. I could see older Kirk being alive again if that was the movie JJ and co. wanted to make, but the indications are that they wanted to do something else. That’s their prerogative.
On a side note, I started to read “The Return”, but never finished it; I thought it was boring.

428. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#426—I’m actually pretty well caught up now on LOST, and I think I know what you mean. That’s actually the basis for the flashback scenario I thought would work so well with Shatner in a minor, but very fan-friendly role in the film.

You know, I actually have this feeling that Nimoy’s Spock doesn’t make it back to the post-Nemesis era at all. I can’t back it up with anything concrete of course, but it’s a feeling I have. I can easily imagine him (once again) making the ultimate sacrifice for his shipmates. Who knows?

As far as the timeline hopping goes, what I meant was none of it seems to involve the era of the Enterprise-B incident or the events in Generations.

Since Shatner says he never heard from him again, I don’t think he got an offer at all. If he did, it would probably have been very early on. I don’t think it matters, really. He took a stance on the kind of role he was willing to take, and it just wasn’t in line with what they thought would work in the film. The shame is that he waited so long to back off that stance.

If Orci writes that, I’ll read it.

429. Closettrekker - June 21, 2008

#427—I haven’t read a ST novel in quite a few years, but the concept of the Borg and Captain Kirk in the TNG era? No thanks. I like my TOS icons in the 23rd Century. Let me count the ways:

–no holodecks
–no children on the bridge
–no Klingons in Starfleet
–no female Starfleet personnel in pants
–no android Starfleet officers on the bridge
–no ship’s counselors
–Scotty
–Bones vs Spock
–Spock vs Bones
–Tribbles
–Pon Far
–Vulcan neck pinches
–The Gorn
–a Starship captain who’s not afraid to take the “lots of fist-fighting and fornicating” approach to exploration and diplomacy.

430. Iowagirl - June 21, 2008

#407

Definitely option #3.

The Prime Directive is to resurrect Kirk – but seeing is believing…:)

431. VOODOO - June 22, 2008

Xai #415

Very sorry to heat about your uncle.

Best wishes to him and your family.

432. lostrod - June 22, 2008

#424

Closet, I’m not sure why you think I accused you of “speaking out of turn”. Nor do I necessarily dispute what you listed as facts.

What I was commenting on was that what you listed as facts may be interepreted differently by others. And for some they may even be insufficient. Not necessarily by me. Using the term “we” implied that what you listed was sufficient for everyone when, for many (based on a number of postings), they are not.

I don’t understand you (sometimes) either, but that’s ok, right? :)

Regarding “LOST” – I’ve followed that serious since the beginning and find it’s non-linear approach to storytelling fascinating. It will definitely be intriguing to see it applied to the ST movie.

Regards.

433. STAR TREK FINITO - June 22, 2008

they should subtitle it ‘Star Trek: A Bad Business Decision’

then the opening credits should read..starring Pine..Quinto..Urban..blah blah..with Leonard Nimoy and not starring William Shatner *audience gets up in unison and leaves*

they should do what they did with Exorcist The Begining and scrap the movie and get the shat to film his The Return novel ..and call it Star Trek : The Return..cue 5 star reviews..a 100 million opening weekend and a $500 million ww gross….and sequels a plenty

thats what im talking about!

no shatner…no moolah

finito

434. Harry Ballz - June 22, 2008

In the last 14 years Shatner has elected to kill off his most popular role for a paycheque and then lampoon his own image in order to keep working as an actor. His days of portraying a certain Starfleet captain, in any dramatic way, are over……that particular starship has sailed!

435. tom vinelli - June 22, 2008

as far as i know,no one has come out and said shat will not be in this movie.
othe then that i hope for a great star trek film,if this film bombs i fear that will be it for trek.

436. Mr. Bob Dobalina - June 22, 2008

#407 “I have a question for the BBK people

Given a choice between STAR TREK having
1. A movie with a scene with Shatner as Kirk, but taking place before his death (therefore no resurrection)
or
2. A movie with no Shatner as Kirk, but a mention that Kirk was resurrected

which would you chose?”

Of those choices, I’d prefer the first because I like watching Shatner play Kirk. ANd with an altered timeline in place that clearly changes certain aspects of the known “TOS” universe, it’s a very real possibility that the evens of Generations never occured. So Kirk’s “death” doesn’t have to be an issue at all.

437. Steve Short - June 22, 2008

At first Old Spock could be just mediating and thinking of Kirk so we could see Shatner playing Kirk in Spock’s thoughts instead of a holodeck with a hologram of Kirk. But with Old Spock changing the past Kirk’s future has changed so at the end when Old Spock returns to his time after Nemesis a 80 year old Kirk is alive and Kirk was never killed in Generations. How many different time periods will we see Kirk in age? A baby, a boy, a teen ,20, 30 , 40,50, 65, and 80 years old in the new Star Trek? Will Spock just travel to one time period in the past?

438. Harry Ballz - June 22, 2008

So, if old Spock goes back and interacts with young Spock, causing old Kirk to live, then we can watch young Kirk without feeling deflated over the silly demise of old Kirk……….everybody got that??

439. Xai - June 22, 2008

433. STAR TREK FINITO – June 22, 2008
“they should subtitle it ‘Star Trek: A Bad Business Decision’

then the opening credits should read..starring Pine..Quinto..Urban..blah blah..with Leonard Nimoy and not starring William Shatner *audience gets up in unison and leaves*

they should do what they did with Exorcist The Begining and scrap the movie and get the shat to film his The Return novel ..and call it Star Trek : The Return..cue 5 star reviews..a 100 million opening weekend and a $500 million ww gross….and sequels a plenty”

_You have one hell of an imagination…
.. because that’s the only place the events you say should happen could happen.

440. Xai - June 22, 2008

#431 VOODOO..

Thanks

441. krikzil - June 22, 2008

Wow. What a thread! I need something to do today since going outside isn’t an option. It’s been over 110 degrees all week here in Phoenix. Ug.

“Given a choice between STAR TREK having
1. A movie with a scene with Shatner as Kirk, but taking place before his death (therefore no resurrection or
2. A movie with no Shatner as Kirk, but a mention that Kirk was resurrected….which would you chose?”

I’ll take Kirk any way I can get him. I’ve said in other threads, I would accept it and be joyful. A poster above made a valid point that Spock’s death wasn’t exactly believable if you really took it apart. But back then, I didn’t care either about the HOW as long as Mr. Nimoy/Spock was back in the Trek fold.

442. lostrod - June 22, 2008

#441

Amen, what a thread!

Anthony – do you keep tallies on what threads have the greatest number of posts?

This must rank in the top ten!

Love this site and all the fan interaction.

Regards.

443. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 22, 2008

“Anthony – do you keep tallies on what threads have the greatest number of posts?

This must rank in the top ten!”

lostrod, that’s because to this day, Shatner remains one of the most popular aspects of Trek. The fact that we won’t be seeing him onscreen a year from now is notihng less than a huge missed opportunity and a damned shame.

444. Closettrekker - June 23, 2008

After a week, this thread may have finally have run out of steam, but the issue is still polarizing to some fans, as evidenced by the number of comments from both sides of the issue.

I find the current poll very interesting. Out of 425 people who chose to participate, 79% do not feel it is all that important (or not important at all), yet 5% actually say they won’t see the film without The Shat.

I wonder how honest those 5% are being in answering the question, and if they will actually stay home when the film is released in May. Is it just posturing with the movie’s release still so far away, or will 5% of “Star Trek fans” actually not even see it? I find the latter somewhat difficult to believe.

In any case, I think the response to that type of question is quite a bit different than it was 6 months ago.

Personally, I think they’ll still see it, if for no other reason than to be able to post here the reasons that they think William Shatner would have made the movie better. LOL.

445. Roteiristas explicam razão do filme ser prequel « Startrekbr’s Weblog - June 23, 2008

[…] Fonte: Trek Movie […]

446. lostrod - June 23, 2008

#444

Closet – I am also surprised by the number who said they would not see the movie, considering they came to a site devoted to the movie.

Perhaps many those casting that vote simply meant they will not see the film at the theater, but simply wait until the DVD release. The rationale being that they may not see a ST movie without a final Nimoy/Shatner appearance as quite the event as it would be with the pairing. In other words they will still see the movie, just not invest the the money that a trip to the theater cost these days.

As for myself, I completely missed the poll. Yikes.

Regards.

447. Xai - June 23, 2008

445 posts on one thread is not 445 different people all saying in unison, “I want Shatner” nor is it 445 different people saying “I don’t want Shatner”.

People love to argue about a passionate subject. That’s all.

448. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 23, 2008

But there’s a reason for the passion, Xai. Shatner is the most popular actor who ever appeared in Star Trek. Or as I like to say – Trek’s Biggest Phaser.

:-)

449. Closettrekker - June 24, 2008

#446—I think they’re just full of sh*t.

#448—“Shatner is the most popular actor who ever appeared in Star Trek. ”

If you mean the most popular actor in the original regular cast, I could agree. I don’t think he’s the most popular actor ever to APPEAR in Star Trek. I’ll assume you meant the former.

450. Xai - June 24, 2008

448. Shatner_Fan_2000 – June 23, 2008
“But there’s a reason for the passion, Xai.”

The “passion” wouldn’t be there if there was a universal feeling that he should be in the movie. The passion is generated because the fans are split and argue over it.
I enjoyed Shatner’s Kirk in TOS. I enjoyed it through ST:TSFS. After that he decided to play Kirk differently and I didn’t see him as Kirk anymore. The capper was Generations… He still didn’t play Kirk and he was an accomplice to the murder of his iconic character for money.

451. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 24, 2008

#450 I don’t buy that. When other threads attract 40 responses, and every Shat thread for the past year has generated 400 … well, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

#449 and #450 … name me any Trek actor more famous & popular than Shatner? That’s right. There isn’t one!

452. Xai - June 24, 2008

451 Shatner_Fan

First… you don’t have to “buy” that. It’s my opinion based on the fact that if everyone here universally thought Shatner should be in it you’d have 40 posts.
No dissent= little discussion = few posts
Lots of dissent= lots of discussion = lots of posts.
There is smoke and fire because it’s a back and forth discussion about opposing points of view, not because Shatner is universally loved. No one is.
You cannot use the raw number of posts on a Shatner thread as gauge to measure his popularity.

453. Robert April - June 24, 2008

452 “You cannot use the raw number of posts on a Shatner thread as gauge to measure his popularity.”

LOL, of course you can! At least in a non-scientific, general way.

454. Closettrekker - June 25, 2008

#451—You obviously misunderstand my post. Of the regular cast members in any Trek series, Shatner is likely the most popular (although Nimoy is just as recognizable). As for “the most popular actor ever to appear in Star Trek” (which is what I was responding to), I would say Jean Simmons, Joan Collins, Corbin Bernson, Kelsey Grammar, Teri Garr, Christian Slater, Christopher Lloyd, Whoopi Goldberg, ….and I’ll stop there.

#452—Agreed.

455. Shatner_Fan_2000 - June 25, 2008

#454 … I understood. I wasn’t counting guest stars. They do not represent Star Trek in the minds of the public.

So you agree with me that Shat is the most popular actor in Trek, and #452 did not dispute it, yet you’re both also telling me that the huge #s of posts in Shatner threads have nothing at all to due with that popularity!

I find your logic most faulty. You guys can argue that he need not be in the new movie; that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But to deny that Shat is a big draw for Trek fans is, as Spock once said to Scotty, a “wild leap of illogic.” ;-)

456. Closettrekker - June 26, 2008

#455—“yet you’re both also telling me that the huge #s of posts in Shatner threads have nothing at all to due with that popularity!”

Actually, I wasn’t much part of that debate. Where I agree with him is in that there are just as many of us arguing either against his inclusion or for the writers’ creative integrity as there are those who demand his appearance, and that is every bit as significant to the number of posts on this thread (probably 40 or 50 of them are mine!).

“But to deny that Shat is a big draw for Trek fans is, as Spock once said to Scotty, a “wild leap of illogic.” ;-)

It’s perfectly natural that there are a significant number of fans that have yet to embrace the idea that you can have a Star Trek movie (in the TOS-era) without Bill Shatner.

As it is, 95% of those polled will still see the movie, and I’ll bet that the 5% who say they won’t will decrease in number as the film’s release gets closer and the promotion gets going.

457. Xai - June 27, 2008

455. Shatner_Fan_2000 – June 25, 2008

“So you agree with me that Shat is the most popular actor in Trek, and #452 did not dispute it, yet you’re both also telling me that the huge #s of posts in Shatner threads have nothing at all to due with that popularity!”

#452 has a name and I did not comment on that, so don’t put words in my mouth. My logic is fine. Yours keeps including information that you think I said or think I should say.
If you want numbers, I’ve added the last Shatner poll. Based on that I think your statement is not very strong.

How important is it to you that Shatner appear in Star Trek?
• Vital, won’t see film without him (5%)
• Very Important (16%)
• Would be nice, but not that important (44%)
• Don’t care (16%)
• Don’t want him in it (18%)
Total Votes: 500.

And please don’t assume I’ve said something or mean something just because I didn’t comment on it. I hate that.

458. Closettrekker - June 28, 2008

Wow. Still going?

459. Shatner won’t be in 2009 “Trek” flick; here’s why, and his reaction | MINE - September 17, 2008

[…] Now Shatner is legendary for his ego … and while this might be a performance/persona he puts on for outsiders, there’s no arguing he has that rep. And according to TrekMovie.com, Shatner has publicly stated that he doesn’t do cameo roles. […]

460. andrea - October 22, 2008

if they bring back old kirk, they will color the shatner eyes to keep the same colour of Pine? pine have blue eyes, shatner have brown eyes!
what do you think, minor or major problem?

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