Abrams: We Had A Scene For Shatner [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams: We Had A Scene For Shatner [UPDATED] September 8, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Shatner,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Today the latest wrinkle in the never-ending ‘Shatner in Star Trek‘ saga has been revealed. In a new interview with AMC, Star Trek director JJ Abrams reveals that there was a ‘flashback’ scene written for Shatner, but it "didn’t feel right." Abrams also talked more about his approach to fan feedback.

 

Abrams on Shatner’s scene that never was

We actually had written a scene with him in it that was a flashback kind of thing, but the truth is, it didn’t quite feel right. The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn’t want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly, which, frankly, he deserves. The truth is, the story that we were telling required a certain adherence to the Trek canon and consistency of storytelling. It’s funny — a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that.

UPDATE: Not a flashback?
In the comments section below, Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci elaborated on the Shatner scene:

Alex [Kurtzman] and I did indeed come up with a sequence for Shatner that we wrote before the strike, although technically it wasn’t a flashback.

Orci also promised he would ‘post the sequence in question,’ but only after the movie comes out.

Abrams on fan feedback
Abrams also talked to AMC about how he factors in fan input on the Internet

With Star Trek, the audience point of view is very important to me. And you just have to think, "Well I hope I don’t suck." A lot of times people say that they want certain things and they really don’t — they say they want all the answers up front, but then they don’t. Ultimately you can’t write a story or come up with an outline or direct a scene only thinking, "I think this is what they’re going to want." Then there’s no point of view.

Goto AMC’s SciFi Scanner Blog for much more on Trek and Fringe.

 

Comments

1. Rohirim36 - September 8, 2008

It’s about time that J.J. addressed that Shatner stuff more directly! First?

2. marina - September 8, 2008

would be cool if shatner was in the movie.but im in either way

3. Tony Whitehead - September 8, 2008

As much as I hate to say it, Mr. Shatner talked himself out of this movie. I would love to see him again, but he’s had a long and storied career in the Star Trek Universe. Let’s see what his successor has to bring to the part.

4. Steeevil - September 8, 2008

Scotty thought Kirk was alive when Picard’s Enterprise rescued him from the Dyson Sphere. There’s your loophole JJ. Run with it.

5. Steeevil - September 8, 2008

If Scotty thought Kirk was alive, then he might have been SOMEHOW. Sheesh.

6. Ensign Harris - September 8, 2008

Nice to know that he wanted Shatner in his movie.

7. Norman - September 8, 2008

the real issue should be… is HARRY MUDD in this movie????

8. T2 - September 8, 2008

Well this should start an interesting conversation. Shatner wanted more involvement in this film, and it knocked him out of the film. Didn’t something similar happen with him in Enterprise? Well I’m happy it was considered. Shouldn’t be considering what could’ve been when nothing “has been” yet. Maybe this issue could be revisited after the movie comes out, if it’s worth it.

9. Andy Patterson - September 8, 2008

I haven’t been one of the ones saying he MUST be in this movie but canon or not if they wanted to get him in they could have found a way. This is sci-fi.

10. rag451 - September 8, 2008

Forget writing Shatner’s Captain Kirk into the film. It would have been interesting if Shatner could have played a descendant of Denny Crane as an instructor at the Academy… The real question is, would he teach law or target practice?

11. richpit - September 8, 2008

I hope this issue is never spoken of again. Shatner’s not in it. It’s over. I like Shatner, really, but he is a huge ego. I’m sure he wouldn’t do it unless it was totally about him and he was THE star of the movie.

Frankly, I wish it were a totally new story, not using any of the original actors. Nothing against Nimoy…he’s great…but it seems to me that they might be using him (or “old Spock”) as a crutch.

My 2 cents.

12. CanuckLou - September 8, 2008

Shat in a flashback? Damn sloppy that would not work! A cameo at the end is the only option!

…the adventure continues…

13. Bob, the Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - September 8, 2008

This is the ONLY WAY that Kirk could have been brought back. And, it would make a mighty fine movie:

Rand awakens in her cabin and hears the sonic shower. She goes to see who’s in there, when Kirk suddenly appears! We now learn that Spock is a evil dilithium crystal baron, McCoy lives on a cul-de-sac called Seaview Circle, and Scotty fights crime and can breath underwater. Guianan, sensing that something is terribly wrong with the space/time continuum, tracks down Dr. Richard Daystrom, and together they transmorphorate a DeLorean DMC-12 into a time machine and travel back to set things straight!

14. Moonwatcher - September 8, 2008

Being from Wisconsin, the only other thing getting more press than the “Shatner in the film issue” was Favre leaving the Packers! If I can handle seeing Favre in a Jets uniform, you all can all handle Shatner not being in the film. Life goes on….. : (

15. SpikedCanon - September 8, 2008

another movie could be filmed in flash forward from Pine to Shatner……

16. tRUTH iS oUT tHere - September 8, 2008

I think someone’s EGO got in the way….He really had a chance to pass the torch properly but get a few Emmy nominations and boy, did he blow it…I have no compassion for Mr. Shatner on this from what we have heard…He should have been graceful enough to accept whatever JJ and his team had come up with if he was truly in it for the art and not the paycheck….I mean, come on…how much more money do you need when you are in your 70′s….

17. Darth Ballz - September 8, 2008

“I hope this issue is never spoken of again. Shatner’s not in it. It’s over”

Thank you, this is been talked about to death and to shoehorn the Shat into the move is the fanboy wet dream but not so good for NEW viewers who need a fresh start. If you want Trek to survive then it has to grow and be fresh…….

Darth “craptastic” Ballz

18. I'm dead Jim - September 8, 2008

4. Scotty may have been suffering some memory loss from being stuck in a transporter loop for 75 years. I’m usually a bit foggy after waking up from a single night’s sleep. Wait a minute. What? Kirk is dead? ;-)

19. Rod Of Rassilon - September 8, 2008

16. how much more money do you need when you are in your 70’s….

errr, maybe 30 years worth??

20. mojonaut - September 8, 2008

I kind of agree with richpit (#11) in relation to using Nimoy’s Spock as a “crutch” (I think you put it more eloquantly than I could have), but if the writing’s solid enough, it’s not going to seem too contrived. Having both Kirk and Spock in there… it would defeat the purpose of having a new crew at all really. I don’t regret Shatner not being in this movie. Nor do I regret Abrams’ dealing with not releasing the details. It adds to the anticipation as far as I’m concerned. If the director has paid as much attention to making an amazing film as he has done in keeping things secret, then we’ve got a VERY good move on our hands and one worthy of reigniting the Star Trek franchise.

21. N - September 8, 2008

Flashback forget it. I want the Generations death reversed. I’m glad he’s not in it now. I say throw out the cannon & create an alternate timeline.

22. J_schinderlin56 - September 8, 2008

Is it Cannon? Is it a Reboot? Is it both? What’s the deal here?

23. John from Cincinnati - September 8, 2008

I don’t blame Shatner for wanting a bigger role. I also don’t blame JJ for not finding a way to get him in the story while keeping it a good and believable story. It’s all just disappointing. I would’ve loved to see Nimoy and Shatner on screen together again, they aren’t getting any younger.

24. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

More like a flash forward scene…to the 24th century.

So, we get more tid bits from our Trek savior the great J.J. Abrams.
But for newcomers interested in how things might play out in Trek XI,
I laid out my own plot summary on what I’d expect to see. It received some good reviews around here. AND, it included ALL the original actors in a nice, easily understood, closing scene.

Now, I have been asked not to post my synopsis again here (wink, wink.)
But, if your interested in reading my vision of Trek XI’s stoyline, then just Google ‘TrekMadeMeWonder.’ The three page description is intended only for those in need of a TREK fix. Who votes that I should go book form with the plot as a X-mas present to you all?

My guess is that Shatner will be in the next flick. He’s just holding out for more $s. I think he deserves it!!! Especially after watching the ‘Ultimate Computer’ last night. What was that? Three speeches in one episode? The first speech, ‘All I ask is A Tall Ship,’ was great! Perfectly acted in my book. It also reminded me of Shatner’s 70s singing performances.

Kudos Bill!
I go an extra 4 mil for the big boy.

25. Will - September 8, 2008

A smarter group of film makers could definitely have figured it out. They could have also figure out what a phaser, a tricorder, or Uhura’s ear piece looked like… you know, because they paid attention to that which they should have paid attention to…

26. Maurício - September 8, 2008

Everything is very good. The problem is:
Where is that damn trailler we’re all dying to see?
JJ is making this waiting deliberately hard for us die hard fans

27. Captain Scokirk - September 8, 2008

Relics was on recently during sci fi channel marathon, bringing up the whole Scotty remembering Kirk’s death memory, my theory is while there was virtually no signal degredation of Scotty’s pattern, there was some and clearly the part of the pattern that was lost was his memory of Kirk’s death on the Enterprise -B.

Or as Jimmy himself said at a convention in response to an over zealous fan when asked “In Star Trek The Next Generation: Relics you awoke from the transporter whith no knowledge of Jim Kirk’s death yet in the movie Star Trek Generations you witnissed this, please explain this discrepancy…”

To which Jimmy replied “…..Picky, Picky, Picky”

28. Boborci - September 8, 2008

Alex and I did indeed come up with a sequence for Shatner that we wrote before the strike, although technically it wasn’t a flashback.

29. Thomas - September 8, 2008

To which Jimmy replied “…Picky, picky, picky.”

I love that. Especially when having to deal with a fairly difficult question.

I’m willing to take J.J.’s word that they had a scene in mind for Shatner but ultimately he didn’t take it. I don’t think it’s a put-on, I don’t feel like I’m being lied to, I think it’s the truth.
Of course, this story will do NOTHING to calm the belief that Shatner’s still in the movie.

30. Anthony Pascale - September 8, 2008

I know what it was.

SPOILER

Shatner was scene in a 23rd century Priceline commercial!

31. Fatman Bruno - September 8, 2008

Elaborate please Bob

32. Boborci - September 8, 2008

31

After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question…

33. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

“31. Fatman Bruno – September 8, 2008
Elaborate please Bob”

I second that motion!

*Please!

34. John from Cincinnati - September 8, 2008

One thing I don’t understand, if the story deals with alternate realities/timelines shouldn’t that open the door to Kirk being alive in some way?

35. Sean - September 8, 2008

Thanks for the information! If Shatner wanted more than a cameo then it was never meant to be. Like JJ said, his character died on screen. Time for us to move on. I’m gonna take Kevin Smith and Wil Wheaton’s word for it and expect this new Trek movie to be great.

36. ByGeorge - September 8, 2008

Why does none of this surprise me? Shatner egotistical – never LOL!! Hope Chris Pine is of a different breed so I can start to like the character of Kirk again. Shatner’s ego started to degrade my ability to like the character of Kirk.

I’m glad those involved had the guts to stand up to the egotiscal spoiled brat and say no. Besides, Pine is better-looking than Shatner was in the role. I want Kirk, not Shatner back on the screen.

37. trekee - September 8, 2008

Ouch….

“After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question…”

Bad enough we’re on tenderhooks until May for the film, now we have to wait for the post-movie-pre-script-proto-spoiler? I’m getting a nosebleed.

I’m just glad that all the talk of trying to get his Shatnerness in wasn’t in fact just talk and that the deciding factor was being true to the film.

I can live with that quite happily.

38. Morty - September 8, 2008

“Technically it wasn’t a flasback”?!! Mr Orci sure knows how to tease the fans! I would love to know what this scene was but somehow I think I will have to wait until after the movie is released to find out! Still it makes a pleasant change to have a Star Trek production thats entire plot has not been leaked all over the internet! I can’t wait to see this movie and I just hope that when it is released I can go into it unspoilt!

39. Mazzer - September 8, 2008

Ha! Finally, the truth, and it’s much what some of us had suspected!

40. shinzon of TARDIS xd - September 8, 2008

the loophole needed to bring shatner’s kirk back isn’t scotty having thought kirk was alive but in generations, picard initially failed at stopping soran from destroying the Veridian star, which sucked picard into the nexus where he brought kirk out onto Veridian III BEFORE picards failure which means the second time around there shouldve been kirk, soran and 2 PICARDS on Veridian 3…

41. M33 - September 8, 2008

JJ! Dying for a new trailer! Give us something! Please!

42. Joel - September 8, 2008

Kirk’s death in Generations is filled with problems anyways. If he died within the Nexus, can’t you just got back to another point an rescue him? Sigh, the Nexus and Generations as a movie remains a huge problem within Star Trek. A piss poor attempt to bring both captains together for a movie with one cause…..to make money.

43. M33 - September 8, 2008

You know, it’s Janeway’s fault that the entire Star Trek universe will be reset to before the beginning of the original series. The universe was hunky-dory, but Janeway wasn’t happy and went back to bring the ship home early. That caused Mr. Nero to develop his time machine and cause the REBOOT! Aha! Logic!

44. TheLovelyBonesMcCoy - September 8, 2008

Sorry it didn’t work out, Bob. I got a feeling you really wanted that sequence in as much as some of us did.

45. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Considering that Shatner and Co. launched DesiLu succesfully (and which later became Paramount,) I think he deserves a pass on
any disputes. Make it work guys! You ony have one shot at this one.
And by the way. Does’nt a NO KIRK movie mean Nimoy’s appearance
will be (to a degree) uninspired? Being that Spock and Kirk were such close friends.

Also, drop the ‘TIme Ship’ idea please.
Where did that come from anyhow?

27. Captain Scokirk – September 8, 2008
Great comment! Only here can you ever learn such things.

46. Robert April - September 8, 2008

Good luck with this movie Boborci. I hope the buzz for this project doesn’t peak too soon, given the pushed back release date.

47. PC - September 8, 2008

Abrams said it was a flashback, Orci says it wasn’t? Interesting how two of the main players differ in viewpoints.

I do have to say that imho, there is a certain cowardice with the current ST regime with Bill Shatner. The regime blames a video clip where Shatner says “I don’t do cameos” but was it not the regime that leaked the word “cameo” to the press and was not the video about the reaction to a press article?

Also did the regime ever really contact Shatner to see if he was interested or was it convenient that the video clip was out there? I don’t think they did – instead they just used the clip as an excuse. Just seems like they took the coward’s way out of this to save face.

48. Alex - September 8, 2008

Abrams is absolutely awesome. He beats both the Shat (regarding not wanting to do a cameo) and the Shat-entusiasts (regarding Trek canon) with their own weapons In one abstract. He doesn’t even blame anyone. He just gives you the feeling that what they did is absolutely right.

No matter if you like him or not, but he definitely knows how to talk…

49. Bob, the Evil Klingon Frontline Leader - September 8, 2008

45 – ??? Man, I hope you are joking about Desilu and Paramount.

50. Closettrekker - September 8, 2008

Sounds about like what I’ve been saying all along…

51. Green-Blooded-Bastard - September 8, 2008

Hey, if it wasn’t going to work, it wasn’t going to work. Sure I would have loved to see him in the film, but not at the expense of the film itself. I want a great story, thoughtful writing, a bit of drama and a bit of humor, tons of action and the feeling like i got my money’s worth at the end of the film. I’m not giving any of that up for 3 minutes of William Shatner just to satiate some “purists” need to mentally hump his image one more time. I want a good Star Trek film, not a good Shatner film.

52. Ensign Ruiter - September 8, 2008

An easy way to fit him in would have been for the Nexus Kirk to have survived. Don’t count Shatner out of the franchise just yet, however, as was said earlier he may still appear in a future film with a larger role.

53. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Star Trek was right there when Desilu was selling assets to Parmount Television (Sorry,not Parmount Studios.) It was my understanding that Trek was a big part of the deal.

I certainly was not watching for Lucy.

54. Kev-1 - September 8, 2008

Like the Romulan said in ST6, “I don’t know who to believe.” I think they could have found a way, but this is an old horse. Still think that if the movie is about knocking off Kirk family members, and/or Kirk, not having Shatner is problematic. And if the timeline is altered anything could happen. That’s all want to write on this, it’s tired now.

55. Sebastian Meyer - September 8, 2008

I still say these guys (and that would include you Bob) have an understanding of what makes a good movie that the makers of the last movies didn’t, or least largely forgot about. Case in point:

JJ: “Ultimately you can’t write a story or come up with an outline or direct a scene only thinking, “I think this is what they’re going to want.” Then there’s no point of view.”

That’s EXACTLY why the last 2 movies were falling flat. Berman himself said Insurrection was supposed to be like IV and Nemesis was supposed to be like II because those two were the most critically acclaimed (read: $$$).

56. Phaser...where are youuu? - September 8, 2008

Is it just me, or did J.J. sound a little frazzled and/or frustrated in those quotes? He usually comes off as a positive and energetic guy, but those quotes make him sound like he’s a bit tired, unappreciated or ??? Maybe because of all the fussing from various fans, who knows…?

Anyway, canon or not, Shatner or not, I am going to view this movie with an open mind and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. If not, it wouldn’t be the first time I wasted $12/$15/$20 on a movie… :P

57. BrF - September 8, 2008

I’d like Kirk/Pine to be walking by a mirror eating a cheeseburger and out of the corner of his eye, for half a second, he sees Kirk/Shatner. Pine does a double take; Shatner’s gone. Pine puts down the cheeseburger and keeps walking. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

58. navamske - September 8, 2008

Some people have different definitions of “flashback.” If the writers show an earlier era than the main one in which the creative work is taking place, that isn’t necessarily a flashback. For example, “Generations” took place mostly in the 24th century, but we saw extensive scenes taking place in the 23d century. That wasn’t a flashback. A flashback is when a character tells other characters about something that happened in the past, and then your viewing of it is essentially the character’s telling of it. For example, in “Workforce Part I” (Voyager), which I happened to see recently, Chakotay, Kim, and Neelix return to Voyager from an away mission to find the ship empty except for the Doctor. The Doctor begins to explain what happened while they were gone, and then instead of exposition, you get to see it acted out. So the new Star Trek film could have showed a flashback — perhaps Spock telling someone about, or just thinking about, an encounter he had with Kirk, obviously some time before he “died” on the Enterprise-B — or they could have showed Kirk doing something prior to the events of “Generations” (something relevant to the plot, one hopes) with a helpful “2292″ (or whatever) supered on the screen, and then a “78 years later” kinda thing as they did in Generations.

59. TL - September 8, 2008

I hope they can bring Shatner back before the movie is released. I know he has an ego the size of the alpha quadrant and doesn’t want to do a cameo, but sometimes you gotta swallow your pride and do the right thing (for the fans). If Captain Kirk can make peace with the Klingons, than surly JJ and Shatner can find a way to bring some resolution to this dilemma!

60. JKP - September 8, 2008

Who cares about cannon, it’s a reboot. They can flush everything that was before right down the toilet as far as I’m concerned and start over… I just want the Shat in the flick as old Captain Kirk one last time!!!

61. John from Cincinnati - September 8, 2008

Still, if Nero wanted to knock off Kirk to help the Romulan empire, wouldn’t it have been easier to time travel back to NCC-1701 during ‘Balance of Terror’ flip a switch, and watch the whole ship go up in the biggest ball of fire. Instead of going back to Kirk’s youth on Earth and trying to kill him as a kid or at Starfleet academy?

62. navamske - September 8, 2008

#13: “Rand awakens in her cabin and hears the sonic shower. She goes to see who’s in there, when Kirk suddenly appears!”

During Voyager’s run, I followed discussions about it on Usenet. Apparently at one point there were rumors that Shatner was going to make an appearance. Immediately the condemnation began — “There’s no way it could be done believably within canon.” I said, “Well, there is one way. Janeway could find herself in a situation where she needs the advice of a specific former starship captain, so she goes to the holodeck and summons up the image of James T. Kirk.” Someone posted, “That could work. But how would they explain that it’s the old, fat, bald Shatner — instead of the young, fat, bald Shatner?”

63. Ken Hoyas jr - September 8, 2008

Even if Shatner is not in the movie, the Kirk character may still be given a better ending.

I still wish they could find a way to put Shatner in the end of the film. I guess it was his greed that kept him out of the film. It hurts the film, Shatner and most of all the fans.

64. CanuckLou - September 8, 2008

@32 Boborci

“After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question…”

Excellent! Thank you sir!

My money is on the scene being Spock returning to his timeline to find Kirk alive!

Anthony time for another poll with worthy scenarios for this scene!

…the adventure continues…

65. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

61. John from Cincinnati

That’s the problem with time travel plotlines.

It will never make sense and I think questions along these lines will NEVER be fully answered or understood by any of us.

Scrap the Time Ship!!!

66. tRUTH iS oUT tHere - September 8, 2008

I keep hearing “alternate time line” brought up. Has this been established? I did not think the details of the movie had been revealed. Everyone keeps talking about Shatner appearing because of this but if it is not a part of the plot, then he is dead and gone…..and please do not bring the Nexus into this….If you do then anything is possible and that really is no fun…In my earlier post, I did get a little harsh on Bill and his Ego…I really think it boils down to making the movie work and to try and not violate a huge peice of canon….Thanks to JJ and his team for working so hard to bring Star Trek back into our lives…we have many years to discuss the details of the movie and wrangle over what was right/wrong, canon/non canon…just like we do now about all the other movies…Thank goodness we will have something new to discuss….

67. Sallah - September 8, 2008

John from Cincinnati>

Hey, I’m in Cincy too! Nice to see a fellow Trek fan in town…shoot me an-email sometime!

thepowersword@hotmail.com

68. montreal paul - September 8, 2008

Someone said this earlier, and I agree… Bill Shatner talked himself out of the movie saying he wanted a substantial part and no cameo. It’s too bad that the scene that was written for him wasn’t shot. Would have been nice to see Shatner as Kirk again. BUT… not having him in the movie won’t deter me from seeing this movie a few times. I am really looking forward to what JJ and Bob and Alex come up with the new Trek.

Bob… thanks for at least considering a part for Shatner at one point. I think the Trek universe is in good hands with you guys at the helm. I’m 41 and am not worried i the slightest about minor changes with uniforms or anything that will bring TOS into this era.

69. Wolf Trek - September 8, 2008

For what it’s worth:
I’d rather have a great movie without Shatner, than a so-so one with him. If it doesn’t work, well . . . a wise man once said “The needs of the many . . . “

70. Commander Data - September 8, 2008

#42 Joel

I totally agree, apparently within the Nexus you can go anywhere, to any time. Why the hell did he not go all the way back to the armagosa observatory and once they rescue Soran they just throw him straight in the Brig. Better still they can go over before the observatory is attacked they can save all the people who died in the Romulan attack. That way the Enterpise – D isn’t destroyed and Kirk is still alive within the Nexus.
The past is past but it just shows huge storyline issues with the film, I liked Generations when i watched the first few times but then thought about it more and i now rate it worse than Nemesis.

71. classictrek - September 8, 2008

this comment by JJ is direct contrast to shatners ‘i know nothing’ stance. this was an opportunity to clarify the situation but it doesnt quite do it im afraid.

#69 i dont think that a brief flashback cameo by anyone would have made this movie ‘so so’ -least of all mr shatner.

Greg
UK

72. WannaBeatle - September 8, 2008

I still say that Bill’s book, “The Return” should be made into a film. It was so well written.

73. Dennis Bailey - September 8, 2008

#71: “this comment by JJ is direct contrast to shatners ‘i know nothing’ stance. this was an opportunity to clarify the situation but it doesnt quite do it im afraid.”

It clarifies the situation as much as possible without one of the producers asserting that Shatner’s recollection is…inaccurate. That wouldn’t make anyone happy. ;-)

74. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

32. Boborci

“After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question…”

Was it a speaking role?

I would have considered a a nice long winded speech that summarized what a committed friendship Kirk and Spock share, what friends do for each other, I general, everything that Spock had just accomplished in the new movie. That could be funny.

Then we would all be sharing an inside joke on Kirk.
One that Kirk would/could not ever realize in this movie.
At least until Spock tells him.

75. Energize - September 8, 2008

Too bad the scene couldn’t wind up in the deleted scenes on the DVD.

76. Trekkie16 - September 8, 2008

Hmmm underlying theme is, “Shatner wanted to be in the spotlight”. Maybe if he was a bit more humble, they could have made it work.

77. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 8, 2008

#72

The Reeves-Stevens’ will be pleased to hear that. I don’t think it would be that great of a movie, though. Anything that references Generations and the misguided notion that we needed to have Kirk die in the first place is bad, bad, bad.

Anyway, I hear that Shatner is in the movie playing a character named Timmy. He and Leonard fought over the part.

78. Xai - September 8, 2008

What I don’t get is why Shatner can’t recall a thing about any of this.

79. 241 more to go - September 8, 2008

They shoud have had a scene with young Kirk meeting old Kirk. Maybe then young Kirk would decide to lay off the Romulan dough nuts and stay in better shape.

80. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

78. Xai

Even Shatner has spin control.

It’s for the money fellas. Sad but probably true. And can we blame him?
Do you blame Shatner? I sure don’t.

How much would you ask if you were in his shoes?
Realistically.

If I were Shatner, I’d go as high as 4-5 mil.

81. Alec - September 8, 2008

I think that J.J. is wrong to stress the tension between canon and putting Shatner in this film. In a film concerning time-lines, it is very easy to resurrect Kirk. Kirk’s death is not defined in canon as final and irreversible. And, of course, that a character dies, does not, in itself, mean that he must stay dead—especially not in science fiction. By this reasoning, we must conclude that Nimoy ought not to have appeared in ‘The Search for Spock’: his character died in ‘The Wrath of Khan’; and we must respect canon!

The important point is that Shatner, by all accounts, cannot have any kind of role in this film which would interest him. Therefore, Shatner cannot be in this film. Unless some, or all, of these facts change, that really is the end of the story. I have moved on, now. And I hope others have, too. If not, re-watch ‘The Undiscovered Country’, which was a fitting ending to Kirk’s story.

82. AdamTrek - September 8, 2008

Hear ye, hear ye, all Trekkies and Trekkers:

Even though we may not agree with the decision of the powers that be for Killing Kirk and even William Shatner for taking part in Star Trek Generations, hence killing Kirk on screen for all of our hu-mon eye-balls to see, having Kirk resurrected in this new film would in essence make it a sequel to Generations. That movie came out nearly 15 years ago, basically forgotten by the masses, believe it or not, and this new film needs to stand alone as a new creation for the most part. I hope no specific references are made to it or any other previous film, as it would cheapen the experience for me. If older Spock vaguely mentions something about a past event in his life, then to me that would be exceptable exposition that the hardcore audience gets, but still would make sense to the general audience as if it’s an old “war story” to explain a situation, or moral, to the young Spock or crew. To me that would keep it in line without having any kitsch, as was esplained by JJ at one time before.

That is my honest opinion of the matter.

83. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Nice point about Generations, AdamTrek.

But it could be easily explained to the general audience in one line from Spock. Regardless of whether it is a voice over or actual spoken word. Spock could let us know that he intends save his friend. No explaination needed from anyone, or any other movie, to the general audience.

But at the same time it would heal alot of angst in the Trek universe.
In brief, Spocks actions in the past change the future. No extra literal explaination is needed.

But then maybe the studio is looking to replace all of us Shatner-Kirk fans too? Yikes!

84. John from Cincinnati - September 8, 2008

Hi Sallah, will do.

Can’t everyone see this is all of us fanboys trying to get the plot out of Abrams and Orci? Come on guys, just a hint?

85. VOODOO - September 8, 2008

Shatner is not very good at being subtle.

When he kept going on and on about about “not doing cameo’s” and “being worth the money” you didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on.

Shatner’s ego combined with his desire to be paid was his undoing here. It’s too bad that both sides couldn’t get it together and give the fans one last chance to see Shatner and Nimoy together again.

That said I still hope that Kirk is given a better ending.

86. CanuckLou - September 8, 2008

The problem with making Shatner a bigger part of the next movie is that like Star Trek 3, it would take a whole movie to do justice to bringing Kirk back.

And that is not what the purpose of the ST XI is about.

@66 – read the posts, check out the video interview clip from the FoxMovieChannel with the writers, etc. Its obvious that there is an alternate time line. Makes sense dramatically if nothing else.

87. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

BONK!! BONK!! On the head of Mr. Lovie-Dovie if he does tell us why!

BONK!! BONK!!

TELL ‘EM JIM!!!
TELL ‘EM JIM!!!
TELL ‘EM JIM!!!
TELL ‘EM JIM!!!

88. John from Cincinnati - September 8, 2008

I have to say Kirk’s death in Generations was the WORST! Rick Berman should’ve been fired for that alone.

89. tHE tRUTH iS oUT tHere - September 8, 2008

#86- Thanks. I did not realize that had been established. If that is the case, then all bets are off aren’t they? Oh well, any Trek is generally better than no Trek…even if it is full of holes…that being said….I agree with you….this movie is about origins, not resurrections, and bring Kirk back ala his Generations demise would make this a sequel and that is not what is needed in my somewhat biased opinion….lol…

90. Viking - September 8, 2008

Jeez……I had that whole plot singularity worked out……no quantum disturbance in canon……..nobody listens to me……..*GRUMBLE*……*GROUSE*……..

91. Xai - September 8, 2008

80. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 8, 2008

“If I were Shatner, I’d go as high as 4-5 mil.”

It might as well be a billion now…. Looks like he priced himself out of the market and killed his signature character.

92. Mike T. - September 8, 2008

The Denny Crane idea is funny. That way, Kirk isn’t in the film, Denny is.

93. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

90 Viking.

Where did you post that?

91. Xai
So much time before premier.

But, can’t the producers just use old footage and old lines from Shatner that have been signed for already? I am sure there are some CGI artist out there that could make a convincing digital “cameo scene” work.

94. Ralph F - September 8, 2008

Re/”GENERATIONS”.

Have said it before, will say it again: the powers that be should have recognized that the script for YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE would be the perfect crossover vehicle for the TOS/TNG crews, and shelved it until it was movietime.

95. Robofuzz - September 8, 2008

I agree with a previous post. I watched The Ultimate Computer – and I will be extremely disappointed if Shatner is not in the movie at all. I think the line about “smarter filmmakers” being able to figure it out is a pretty sorry excuse.

96. Xai - September 8, 2008

93. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 8, 2008
I got burned out on William Shatner when he helped kill Kirk for a paycheck. It was a needless death.
I don’t believe in shoehorning a character into a story just to satisfy fans. If this was a Kirk-centric story and Nimoy was on the outside I’d feel the same way.
I want a good Trek movie, not a profit opportunity for an actor. Kudos to JJ and the writing team for attempting to pull a Shatner out of their hat. It just wasn’t meant to be.

97. Ralph F - September 8, 2008

Not to delve into a GENERATIONS thread, but I always wondered why Picard didn’t just go back further. A few days’ time; he could have warned the observatory about the pending Romulan attack, and saved his brother and nephew from the fire. It was pretty shortsighted to just go back to the planet.

Lots of possibilities missed in that storyline, all that could have worked with the Nexus.

98. Dennis Bailey - September 8, 2008

#94:”Have said it before, will say it again: the powers that be should have recognized that the script for YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE would be the perfect crossover vehicle for the TOS/TNG crews, and shelved it until it was movietime.”

You may have said it before, but it still doesn’t make any sense.

“We’re really strapped for stories, have very few scripts in preparation, and this one – ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ – promises to be really really great.”

“Oh, well then by all means let’s not produce it for our TV series.”

“Why not?”

“Well, because someday the studio might produce a Next Generation movie. We might be the producers, or it might be an entirely different group of people by then. And we – or they – might decide to do a cross-over with the original series. So of course they’ll want to base it on a script purchased years ago for a tv series that was put on the shelf and never produced.”

“Okay. When you put it like that, it makes all kinds of sense. So what do we do for a script in two weeks?”

“Well, we can either pull something out of our asses or miss an air date. Should we flip for it?”

99. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2008

#94

I’ve been saying that for years!

100. Xai - September 8, 2008

98. Dennis Bailey -

LOL

101. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2008

#98 “we can pull something out of our asses”

And that week’s episode would have been different HOW?

102. Dennis Bailey - September 8, 2008

“#98 “we can pull something out of our asses”

And that week’s episode would have been different HOW?”

Well, it would have been “Tin Man” a couple of weeks early. ;-)

103. Joe Schmoe - September 8, 2008

It’s too late now, I know, but how about this scenario:

Old Kirk and Spock of the future discover that there is plot by a Romulan to change history. So they BOTH go back in time in order to correct the situation.

At this point, the audience is somewhat confused, because isn’t Kirk supposed to be dead? To add to the mystery, the dialog between Kirk and Spock indicate that they have maintained their friendship and that it appears that Kirk never really died.

Somewhere along the way, back in the prequel era, it dawns on Kirk and Spock that Kirk is not supposed to have lived as long as he did. And that in order to “make things right,” a decision will be made that will mean Kirk will die as he originally did. The decision could be made by old Kirk or Spock, or even young Kirk or Spock, that they realize will condemn Kirk to death in the future.

So you get William Shatner alive and well as Kirk, but by the end of the movie history is corrected and old Spock goes back to the future with the knowledge that his old friend is now dead. The last scene of the movie could be Spock visiting his old friend’s gravesite.

Or perhaps, he could be at the spacedock watching the Enterprise B departing — realizing that the first time he was on that mission and had saved Kirk (but this time he stays back on purpose in order to correct the timeline).

There doesn’t need to be any rehashing of what happened with the Nexus, how Kirk died, etc. Just by the end of the movie, things are back to the way they need to be. For even non-fans, I think they could understand the concept that Kirk was supposed to have died, and they need to do something different in order to make things right. They didn’t need to see Kirk’s demise the first time in order to make sense of the plot of this story.

Yeah, it’s kind of the same rift as Yesterday’s Enterprise, or even City on the Edge of Forever, but it still could have worked with the right execution.

P.S. I think the Priceline gig went to Mr. Shatner’s head. He named his own price for a part in the movie, and the offer was refused.

104. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

96. Xai

Shoehorning?

I see Nimoy’s involvement in Trek XI as bookends to the story.
Where we were, to where we are going. I can’t see it any other way.
And without Shatner at the end, they are going to have to come up with something elase as a payoff.

I’d love to place money on the Shat and/or Kirk appearing at the end
of the pic along with Nimoy, to complete the storys’ arc.

Its gotta happen.

105. Boborci - September 8, 2008

TrekMadeMeWonder – September 8, 2008
96. Xai

Shoehorning?

I see Nimoy’s involvement in Trek XI as bookends to the story.
Where we were, to where we are going. I can’t see it any other way.

A: Then you will be pleasantly surprised.

106. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Surprised?

I wonder.

And, as you can probably tell, I can’t wait!

107. Xai - September 8, 2008

thanks for chiming in Roberto

108. Lostrod - September 8, 2008

I am disappointed that it wasn’t possible to work Mr. Shatner into the movie (for whatever reason). Those blaming on it on the actor’s ego obviously have higher ESP insight than I will ever have.

Of course I will still see the movie. However, it will not have the ‘impact’ or ‘wow’ factor it would have had if Mr. Shatner and Mr. Nimoy stood side by side on the silver screen for (possibly) one last time.

Regards.

109. the king in shreds and tatters - September 8, 2008

ZOMBIE KIRK

110. Xai - September 8, 2008

108. Lostrod – September 8, 2008
“Those blaming on it on the actor’s ego obviously have higher ESP insight than I will ever have.”

ESP? I’m sorry, but did you read the first quote up above?

“The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn’t want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly…” – JJ Abrams

111. New Horizon - September 8, 2008

Sadly, for me, it feels like Paramount really killed the momentum of this movie. I truly believe it would have cleaned up during the holiday season…I was pumped for it. Just think, 3 months from now we could have been watching a new Trek movie. My heart sunk when they pushed the release up to May.

Good luck to them if they can manage the promotion for it.

112. JP - September 8, 2008

I’ve lost most appreciation of Shatner after what he said about Gene. But that’s just me.

I interpret Star Trek my own way. I thought Trip dying was stupid, so in my mind, he never did. Same with Data. Heck with B4. They were just devices to bolster the show or movies rating, or in some bizarre way, make it more dramatic.

113. krikzil - September 8, 2008

“After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question”

That would be nice Mr. Orci.

I always love seeing deleted scenes, both filmed and not. I collect the various script versions to see the evolution of the storyline. The creative process is very interesting.

“Didn’t something similar happen with him in Enterprise?”

It wasn’t screen time (he was going to play Kirk’s father) but $$ that was the stumbling block for Enterprise according to producers in a print article. Then of course Enterprise was canceled so nothing ever got worked out.

“It’s funny — a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that.”

I still think he’s selling himself and the writers short. They ARE a very clever group of filmmakers. And it’s Science Fiction. Anything is possible.

“With Star Trek, the audience point of view is very important to me. ”

And of course with Trek, there are a million different viewpoints. No way to please everyone. But he should know that given his experiences with his other projects — heck the Lost fandom is quite vociferous in its likes and dislikes!

114. VOODOO - September 8, 2008

Xai #96

How can you blame Shatner for taking a paycheck in Generations and not hold Nimoy to the same standards for his role in his characters death in ST II?

That said I do agree that Shatner’s large ego most likely kept him out of this film….. to this point.

115. Einstein Jones - September 8, 2008

Shatner wanted too much screen time for Star Trek. Trying to think of ways he could have been in the movie is moot. We know who to blame. The answer is, he could have been in the movie if he’d been willing to take a smaller role. It wasn’t the obligation of the producers to write him a big part. Just because Nimoy got one, doesn’t mean there has to be parity.

Nimoy has been second banana for decades. He deserves the top spot. I personally think his Spock is still more true to character than Shatner’s Kirk.

Please don’t flame me for this opinion, because it is just that – opinion. I don’t want to get into another juvenile shouting match. I’m too easily baited into immature histrionics.

116. Dan - September 8, 2008

Hahahaha they need better writers to come up with a way to bring Kirk back, alternate universes!!! Spock could have brought Kirk back from an alternate Universe where he’s old and retired who craves excitement. Then the two of them off to the adventure!!

117. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 8, 2008

#110 … There are oviously two schools of thought re. the question of “ego”. Some fans feel it need not have been an issue, because the role Shat was offered should’ve been as significant as Nimoy’s to begin with…

118. Xai - September 8, 2008

114. VOODOO – September 8, 2008

I’ve never said Nimoy was right in coming back in ST3. And read #96…I said something to that effect there.

I do think that another resurrection of a major character would not be an ideal situation.. especially after 15 years

119. Xai - September 8, 2008

117. Shatner_Fan_2000 –

why?

120. Xai - September 8, 2008

#117
There’s nothing that says parts need to be equal.

121. dalek - September 8, 2008

Instead of posting it here, how about you make good on your “maybe” teasing and send the scene to Shatner, ask if he’s game, then film it ;)

122. dalek - September 8, 2008

#118 It’s not 15 years ago. Star Trek is set in the future. None of it has happened yet :)

Star Trek’s 2 til 5 were filmed over the course of 7 years and were set over a period of months in the timeline. Many assumed Kirk to have had several more 5 year missions in the space of the movie timelines between head of Starfleet and retirement.

The timelines of filming the movies never followed the trek timeline consecutively.

I know people say “he doesn’t look like he did” but so what? They aren’t going to be showing clips of Generations to compare it to, and it doesn’t have to be in synch with his death to resurrect him. Also Frakes appeared as Riker when he was 10 years younger. The whole cast of TNG appeared in all Good things 7 years younger and looked nothing like they did back in the day especially Yar. Suspension of disbelief is key. It’s actors and actresses.

I’m also of the opinion to save Kirk’s life you don’t need Shatner. Pine could do it in older make-up. Kirk’s life is more important than Shatner’s screen time.

But they make out it’s all Shatner’s fault. It seems clear that the two parties never directly talked. I’d guess the problem was lack of communication: the cause of many problems on this planet ;)

123. dalek - September 8, 2008

Oh I’d like to apologise to Bob Orci, for implying in previous discussions that they had no intention of ever writing him in the script. My apologies Bob. I see that wasn’t the case. Peace and long life :)

124. Xai - September 8, 2008

122. dalek – September 8, 2008

“But they make out it’s all Shatner’s fault. It seems clear that the two parties never directly talked.”

They never talked directly? Where’s that from?

125. Jackson - September 8, 2008

Oh for crying out loud already….
Enough with the cry-baby Shatner stories!!!
Hey JJ, enough with the no-info fluff pieces…….
Also posted on TrekMovie today was a story about how 42 years ago today “Star Trek” premiered on NBC.
For 42 years, Trekkers or Trekkies (or whatever we feel like calling ourselves these days) have kept this franchise alive through thick and thin, through the lean years and the “over-saturated with Star Trek” years.
The fans are the ones who have made it happen.

So, JJ…. throw us a bone already. Enough kiss-ass fluff publicity pieces…..How about some real substance—-

A REAL trailer for the film.
Some group cast photos.
Photos of the NEW Enterprise.
Photos of the NEW sets, primarily the bridge.
Photos of Mr. Nimoy in character from the new film.
Snippets of the score written by Mr. Giacchino.

And I really hope when “Star Trek XI” is released on DVD one of the Bonus Features will be a 3-hour documentary about why Shatner shouldn’t be (and isn’t) in the film.

126. dalek - September 8, 2008

#124 I’m referring to the implication they didn’t approach Shatner directly with the scene they wrote. Last we know, the last Shatner spoke to JJ was a phone call shortly after Nimoy was confirmed in and he was out, and Shatner apparently told JJ that he wasn’t angry like the media were making out.

That’s circa July 2007. As far as we know the two parties haven’t spoke since, possibly before Mr Orci wrote that scene.

127. Closettrekker - September 8, 2008

I believe that Shatner had an exaggerated sense of his own worth to the future of the franchise, and Abrams’ explanation of these events only reinforces my opinion of why his presence in the film never actually panned out.

“We actually had written a scene with him in it that was a flashback kind of thing, but the truth is, it didn’t quite feel right. The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn’t want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly…”

As if that was going to aid their goal of convincing the average moviegoer that this is not the Star Trek about which they have developed such preconceived negative notions for years! Shatner just didn’t get it, IMO, or he would have been happy with the potential for any role in the film whatsoever.

There is an element of nostalgia already present in this film. His name is Leonard Nimoy. His character is not dead, and his presence in the late 24th Century makes much more sense due to the lifespan of Vulcans (or even half-Vulcans). Moreover, his presence is apparently necessary to the story, and therefore does not require sacrificing any of it.

The writers chose to tell a specific story, one which, presumably, they believed to be the best one they could think of. The fact that it did not involve a significant role for William Shatner does not surprise me one bit. Frankly, I was relieved at finding out that this film would not be hindered right off the bat by something so contrived. I thought including him in Generations was contrived, and erasing the character’s unfortunate fate in that film would be worse, IMO.

Personally, I felt that a “flashback scene” might work, but I’m not on the inside. Abrams said it didn’t, and Bob says now that it wasn’t exactly a “flashback” anyway. It will be interesting to hear what it was and determine for ourselves if it would have worked, once Bob makes it available for us (Bob is great guy!).

128. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 8, 2008

#117 “There’s nothing that says parts need to be equal.”

I wasn’t looking at things from a legal perspective. I’m looking at it as a fan who loves Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk. And Shatner’s Kirk partnered with Nimoy’s Spock. There are many others in that camp.

129. Neal - September 8, 2008

Around town you can hear a new catch-phrase used to indicate ironic appreciation: “Shatnersnotinit.”

As in: “You gotta try this dessert. Shatner’s not in it!”

130. Martin Pollard - September 8, 2008

I, for one, know that I will refuse to see the new movie unless JJ Abrams reanimates DeForest Kelley’s corpse for us to enjoy on the screen one last time. BRING BACK McCOY!!! BRING BACK McCOY!!! BRING BACK McCOY!!!

131. P Technobabble - September 8, 2008

I wonder if there is any way to find out if the “Shatner” topic has gathered the most posts??? The subject seems to know no end…

I will always love Kirk, as played by William Shatner, and nothing will ever spoil that for me. If Mr. Shatner is a demanding actor, that’s his prerogative and none of my business. Alas, he won’t be in the new film, and, though that is a disappointment, I am still looking forward to ST XI. I truly hope this film will be the shot in the arm Star Trek needs, to make it relevant again…

132. Crazy Guy - September 8, 2008

Regarding the “Scotty thought Kirk was alive” problem, I’d say that maybe Scotty was a little disoriented after being pulled from that transporter beam pattern thing. Being in suspended animation for nearly a hundred years whilst technically not existing anymore might affect you that way. So the key phrase here would be that he THOUGHT Kirk was alive for a moment, but KNEW otherwise.

133. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

105. Boborci

A: Then you will be pleasantly surprised.

Wow! I think you mean it!

ARGHHHH!

I can’t wait!
Throw us another bone!

134. Xai - September 8, 2008

dam this is really getting to be an old conversation.

126. dalek – September 8, 2008
#124 “I’m referring to the implication they didn’t approach Shatner directly with the scene they wrote”.

Ok, where is that from? Who implied that?

135. Xai - September 8, 2008

125. Jackson – September 8, 2008

“For 42 years, Trekkers or Trekkies (or whatever we feel like calling ourselves these days) have kept this franchise alive through thick and thin, through the lean years and the “over-saturated with Star Trek” years.
The fans are the ones who have made it happen.”

True…up to a point.
We got our “payoff” when movies came out or we saw the weekly episode. We don’t own it.
We’ll get a peek, when we get a peek.

136. NoRez - September 8, 2008

There are a few special souls out there who are allowed to have all the ego they can carry. The man that breathed life into the character of James T. Kirk is one of them. At LEAST Shat balances that ego with an obviously tremendous sense of fun, curiosity, and generosity. The man seems acutely aware of the cosmic joke and also that his Kirk is beloved and worshipped by a hell of a lot of people. My feeling is that his comment about a cameo comes from the knowledge that no one would be satisfied with that, at least not for very long. It would go quickly from ‘all RIGHT!!!’ to ‘why didn’t/couldn’t they give him more time on screen?’ He knows, doctor.. he knows…

137. Balok - September 8, 2008

Nothing tops Shat in TOS, but I don’t mind that he’s not in the movie… Now the original big E, in all its glory from the outside, they shouldn’t mess with that…

138. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 8, 2008

#135 … Good post!! I agree.

139. Anthony Pascale - September 8, 2008

RE: Nimoy’s role/ not just bookends
In previous interviews with TrekMovie, both Bob and Nimoy have made it clear that his role is more than just a bookend, being described as integral to the plot of the film.

140. newman - September 8, 2008

JJ probably made a smart move on this one. Slapping in a quick “flashback” just to get Shatner in there feels…cheap.

It would have been awesome to see Shatner in this movie, but Berman wouldn’t let Nimoy change the script of Generations so Nimoy chose not to get involved with that flaky project.

Blame Berman.

You have my vote of confidence, JJ.

141. newman - September 8, 2008

Boborci – I think it is absolutely awesome that you choose to interact with us fans like this and make yourself so available.

Thanks for listening to us.

142. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 8, 2008

Dang! My post #138 was directed at 136 by NoRez, not 135!!

143. Roy - September 8, 2008

I’ve noticed a lot replies to this article about Kirk dying in “Generations” and a way to get around Kirk dying in this picture. I have also followed the articles about the new movie coming next May and one thing I have noticed is no one is saying of what year Spock’s (Nimoy) character is being involved in this film.
Why can’t Spock & Kirk (Nimoy & Shatner) be involved from a time period between Star Trek XI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek XII: Generations???
If J.J. keeps stating that the Kirk character died in Generations why didn’t he just revise the script to a time BEFORE Kirk died???
I watch “Lost” every week and everything that show throws at you to make your head spin or reach for a bottle of Asprin that J.J can’t come up with some way to resurrect James T. Kirk is pretty unbelivable if Nimoy’s appearance is susposed to be after Kirk died in “Generations”.
I have read a lot of replies to this article and some people have good, sound ways to resurrect Kirk. If the readers can do it; I don’t see why J.J. and his writers (who sell Movie & T.V. Scripts to Studios for big, big bucks) can’t do it. I have a feeling that J.J. DID NOT want Shatner in this film in anyway possible. Maybe it’s because of Shatner’s ego, Shatner wanted big bucks, Shatner wanted the new movie to focus on him, or maybe something else. I believe that J.J. could have logically put Shatner in this film if he wanted to have William Shatner involved.
Of course this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.

144. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Perhaps I may still be spot on with my plotline synopsis.

In my treatment Nimoy/Spock has plenty of time to appear in flashback to the younger Spock, (post Kobayashi) as he recalls more and more of the mind meld, throughout. the flick.

We’ll see.

141 was right. This has been a facinating experience.
Thanks Bob!

145. Tog - September 8, 2008

Shats not in it, nor was he ever going to be in it; It’s my opinion this is another elaborate ploy by the Bad Robot crew to stir the pot, pull our strings, keep us all yakking…
On the brighter side, I thinking about the delayed release – Thinking back to Star Wars and first time I saw that enormous ship flying overhead; Star Wars was completed but had no or very little special effects according to LUCAS – it was all done after the fact, perhaps Bad Robot can do the same. On the other hand perhaps the rumor mill was correct and Paramount doesn’t have the $$$ at the moment, hence the delay.

146. Boborci - September 8, 2008

141. newman – September 8, 2008
Boborci – I think it is absolutely awesome that you choose to interact with us fans like this and make yourself so available.

Thanks for listening to us.

A: Thank you for caring about Star Trek.

147. Harry Ballz - September 8, 2008

Bob

I know it’s a long shot for you answering this, but……

The scene written for Shatner, if not a “flashback”….tell us, would it have involved using CGI to make him appear younger than he is today……for ANY reason?

148. frank munz - September 8, 2008

I live in the Bay Area. Someone told me there is a totally CG character on the bridge. Anyone hear anything along these lines?

149. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 8, 2008

Mr Arix?!

150. jhoward - September 8, 2008

I admit that I’m one of those that all along had been hoping the denials had been a smokescreen.

It’s looking less likely that that is the case.

Since the movie deals with time travel and potential changes in the timeline, my hope was that end of the film would have Spock returning to the future (assuming he does), and old Kirk would be there waiting for him, alive and well – no convoluted explanation required.

I have little doubt the film will be great and am eargerly awaiting to see what Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman have in store for us. I had just had hoped that in addition to breathing new life into the franchise, it would have done the same for Kirk.

151. James Heaney - Wowbagger - September 9, 2008

Everything out of the producers’ mouths simply inspires confidence that this movie is going to be great.

Quickly, someone lower my expectations!

They -certainly- know how to interact with a fandom and respect said fandom without submitting themselves to the fandom and its many silly whims. The team here is probably better at that than any other team I’m familiar with, come to think of it.

Looking forward to the bonus material post-movie. Thanks, Mr. Orci!

152. spooky - September 9, 2008

To all Shatner fans, relax. So he isn’t going to be in this one, maybe he’ll be in the next one.

How to explain away his death in Generations. You don’t have to… just have him there as Kirk in the 24th century.

153. spooky - September 9, 2008

To all Shatner fans, relax. So he isn’t going to be in this one, maybe he’ll be in the next one.

How to explain away his death in Generations. You don’t have to… just have him there as Kirk in the 24th century. Never have it mentioned when he does appear. Maybe what happens in this first movie corrected or changed that one event from happening. Hence, he lives in the 24th century. He and Picard defeated Soran and now he is alive. Does not need to be stated. Besides, explaining it onscreen will not appease the fanbase either way.

154. ImmortalBones - September 9, 2008

jhoward–I think you nailed it.

No need to go into detail–in the epilogue, old Shatner Kirk could tell Spock something like “Thanks for telling me not to hesitate on that rickety bridge….to think a chump like Soran might’ve gotten the best of me is…embarrassing.”

To which Spock would reply with his standard, “Indeed.” ;)

155. Paulaner - September 9, 2008

This is a movie for everyone, for the masses, not only for hard core Trek fans. Abrams wants a clear, understandable starting point for the TOS crew. Having to explain the mess about Nexus/Kirk/Veridian and so on will kill the whole project. Please, let Kirk rest in peace.

156. ImmortalBones - September 9, 2008

156. Paulaner-

That’s what the last few posts are saying–don’t make a big deal about it, but you can make a brief reference to it (i.e. the Shat appearance) as a heart to the fans of Trek’s previous incarnations.

Of course that’s all moot anyway, as the Shat didn’t want a brief scene like some of us would have been content with, so as we say on Earth–”C’est la vie.”

157. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

How hard can it be to bring Shatner’s Kirk back from the dead? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JeKeVynbY&feature=related

158. Bobfred - September 9, 2008

I can think of one billion 2 million five hundred and thirty one thousand forty one ways to bring shatner back.

if the writers couldnt find away they should be writing science fiction!

Even shatner himself had written an audio book where someone used borg technology (nanites) to resurrect him from the dead. And we all know what a mediocre writer shatner is! lol

159. Paulaner - September 9, 2008

#158 “Even shatner himself had written an audio book where someone used borg technology (nanites) to resurrect him from the dead.”

The lamest thing ever written, in my opinion :)

160. Hbasm - September 9, 2008

Hahahahah.. Madness, how a small minority can make such noise over an actor. It’s much more important that the new movie lives up to the name Star Trek, by adhering to Roddenberry’s ideals by and large. It’ll be a first. None of the movies have ever done that. But it’s about time, if you want people to understand the true nature of Trek.

161. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

160 – Hahahahah…. o enlighten us, o wise one. Fact is, Star Trek is inherently trivial, much as I love it. No part of it is really more or less worthy of making a noise about than any other.

You’d also be hard pressed to argue that ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ isn’t, like ‘The Cage’, a blast of pure Gene R unfettered by almost any other constraints.

162. Klatoo - September 9, 2008

I would like to see Shatner play the child Kirk’s grandfather. The potential scene would be nothing but a goldmine for the movie, and would give Shatner what he needs to make his performance seem relevant… Perhaps sharing his own dreams with the boy, and hinting at his great destiny. (Perhaps an origin to Kirk’s Firm belief that he will die alone?) A flash to his grandfathers death and how he dies perhaps? Like I said, its a scene that could easily be still shot and added.

163. TK - September 9, 2008

unless the scene was an integral part to the main storyline, I can see that a flashback type apprearance by bill shatner would have felt wrong, too distracting, and I can see why Bill would have wanted a bigger role, his presence on the screen is too big, in many ways ;) , to be just a cameo.

So, as painful as it is, i have come to the conclusion that its probably a good thing that he isn’t in it, if the old Kirk doesn’t have a major role in the plot.

164. Clinton - September 9, 2008

32. Boborci

“After the movie, I’ll post the sequence in question…”

Cool. A nice bonus after the movie. Looking forward to it. Thanks!

165. Hbasm - September 9, 2008

#160 If you want to understand Star Trek you’ll just have to watch the series (any and all of them). All the movies are weak in comparison.

166. Upset - September 9, 2008

Considering the scene doesn’t exactly sound very good, and wouldn’t have helped with Generations, it would have been irrelevant. However, now that the Generations excuse has been exposed for being super weak, they are turning to comments made well after he was informed he was not in the movie (by Nimoy).

The timeline doesn’t match the excuses.

The bottom line is that there is no excuse for their failure to TALK WITH THE GUY. They NEVER approached him. So they are using MEDIA comments as an excuse? That is weaker than Generations. This isn’t kindergarten. Pick up the phone.

And for a movie that from what we have seen involves time travel, and Spock travelling back in time to stop a bad guy from killing Kirk, you would think that a one scene appearance could involve a restored Kirk at the very end of the movie.

So again, this is just backpedalling and trying to use Shatner’s name to promote a movie that many Shatner fans are upset about. This was a huge screw up.

167. Dom - September 9, 2008

I’m disappointed that Shatner won’t appear in the movie as Kirk, but respect the reasons. Generations is the point at which I truly ‘disengaged’ with Star Trek to the extent that I simply ignored the film afterwards.

I believe in Generations’ events about as much as I believe Federation citizens go to work unpaid! If it had been me making the film and I knew there weren’t lunatic ‘fans’ who’d declare a fatwa on me, I would have had Kirk and Spock travel back to the past and simply ignored Generations! The mainstream audience probably wouldn’t remember Kirk’s death in a cheap almost-TV movie from 15 years earlier anyway! :p ;)

168. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

165 – While that’s fair as a qualitative personal opinion, it’s pretty hard to argue that Star Trek The Motion Picture (Produced and Co-Written by GR) somehow ‘adheres to Rodenberry’s ideals’ less than something made without his involvement and ten years after his death.

167 – It’s clearly established in both a) ‘The Voyage Home’ and b) ‘The Neutral Zone’ (both made before ‘Generations’) that a) money and b) material needs generally no longer exist within the Federation by the time of Star Trek.

To be fair, why would they? Material needs, the concept of ‘pricing’ and the exchange of tokens for services and goods only exist because of the finite nature of such materials. The replicator renders the whole notion of capitalism moot. If food can be made out of energy on the spot and moved to anywhere in the world basically instantaneously the notion of ‘sophisticated barter’ essentially stops working more or less instantaneously too.

It’s interesting that you should mention your own disengagement with the franchise as it was DS9′s odd refusal to accept this aspect of Star Trek (particularly Jake and Nog’s mocking of Picard’s comments about it) that made me lose interest in the spin-offs.

Equally, I find Ron Moore’s inability to accept the idea of a money free future in which human beings exist largely to ‘better themselves’, rather sad. It’s too negative a view of human nature, for me.

169. Schiefy - September 9, 2008

I would like to know if J.J. based his decision on whether to even try to include the Shat or not on the trumped up press stories or actually talked with Bill directly about a possible role in the new movie?

I totally understand and can accept that the story simply didn’t lend itself to including Shatner as “old” (or current Shat version) Kirk but this comment makes it sound like he was listening to the crap passing for journalism and assuming that Shatner really wouldn’t accept a “cameo” without talking with him directly.

Am I the only one that sees it that way?

170. Daoud - September 9, 2008

Boborci, thank you for the promise to share that sequence sometime in May 2009. It’ll be a nice coda to the movie to have that to read….

I just wish it involved a time-returning Spock at the end of the movie, undershooting from the time he left, with his gravity boots engaged, on Veridian III catching a falling Kirk. (Which we’ve seen him do once before…)

What a sequence THAT would be to bring back Kirk, one that would end with Shatner, Nimoy and Stewart all in a frame together…. and a line from Stewart’s Picard along the lines of “I couldn’t have done it without you two…”

171. star trackie - September 9, 2008

Well, Shatner is right in that he is certainly worth the bucks, even for a cameo. Because it’s not a matter of being compensated for “acting.” It’s a matter of lending his name to a “Star Trek” project, and in this instance, a TOS based project, which in turn gives the studio some mighty big cards to play when it comes to advertising the film. NImoy and Shatner..the original Spock, the original Kirk. Together again. The final film for the original Kirk and Spock, etc etc etc.

Shatner KNOWS the studio would benefit well beyond the “acting” compensation he himself would recieve for a cameo, so I can’t blame him at all for that.

It’s just a darn shame the studio wouldn’t fork over the $…. assuming, of course, that he’s not in the film. :)

172. AdamTrek - September 9, 2008

Anyone here read the Star Trek novel where Kirk was “brought back” to life? What did that entail and would it work as a 5 minute ending to this film?

173. Marshall McMellon - September 9, 2008

Well, since they couldn’t get Shatner, maybe they can do the next best thing and get Nazareth to score the movie. Spock’s theme will be a re-written version of ‘Hair of the Dog’

“Now yo messin’ with a green-blooded SON OF A —–!”

Hey, it could work.

;)

174. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#32. Gracias! Can’t wait.

Poysonally, I’ll miss seeing a glimpse of Shat in the movie. (*If* in fact he isn’t; I’m still holding onto a shred of hope for an easter egg.)

But I appreciate the filmmakers’ desire to steer clear of gimmickry — that bodes well for the screenplay. On balance, I’d rather see a terrific “Star Trek” w/out Shatner than a tacky one w/him.

And I can understand Shatner’s point of view, too. The man is 77. He’s been a professional actor since what, his teenage years? Of course he wants a bigger role. After all these decades, he naturally feels he deserves one. (Remember “Sunset Boulevard”?. . . “I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.”)

Anyway, as I’ve said all along, I’m pumped for this movie regardless. Everything I’ve read from Abrams & Orci et al makes me believe they’re dead serious about honoring the franchise by making — first and foremost — a good film. As a Trekkie, that’s all I want!

175. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

JJ, Bob, and Bill meet in Bill’s house to discuss Bill’s role in XI:

JJ “Ya know, the funny problem we’re facing is…ya died.”
Bill (friendly) “Go…climbahill, I’ve already resurrected Kirk when you were still in your diapers.”
JJ (desperately) “But novels are not canon – and I must stick to canon.”
Bill (emphatically) “But WHY, WHAT FOR, WHAT canon?”
JJ (slightly confused) “The canon those damned Geeks keep talking ’bout.”
Bob (eagerly) “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”
JJ “Sshh, be quiet, will ya.”
Bob “Sorry”
JJ (hopefully) “But I’m desperately trying to put you in, Bill.”
Bill (giving him “the look”) “Never say “try” to me.”
JJ “Well, actually Bob has written a flashback scene for you.”
Bob “Well, technically, it isn’t a flashback.”
Bill (bangs his fist on the table) “Sod you, I don’t want some goddamned flashback scene even if it isn’t a flashback scene, I don’t want a piece of the action, I want THE ACTION, and I want it NOW.”
JJ “Yes, frankly, you deserve this, Bill!”
Bill “So…what’stheproblem?”
JJ “To be honest, this is not the film we’re going to make.”
Bill (very slowly) “I.did.not.quite.catch.that.”
JJ “What I meant is, you created Kirk, you deserve this movie to focus on you significantly, but we’re not gonna make this movie the way you deserve it and apparently we’re not smart enough to resolve this.”
Bob (eagerly) “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”
JJ “Shut up”
Bill “WTF??”
JJ “As soon as we’ve cracked it, we’ll call you Bill.”

JJ and Bob clear off, never call again, make some scifi film with some funny kids, adhering to and violating some canon. Bill cannot remember anything. JJ & Co. blame Bill for..well..whatever.

This is the script so far – I’m desperately trying to sell it.

176. Tony Whitehead - September 9, 2008

175. Iowagirl – September 9, 2008

Nice work!

177. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

60. Why do we need to see Shatner one more time? He’s already had two encores with THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and GENERATIONS. Three would just be silly and stupid.

178. star trackie - September 9, 2008

177 “Why do we need to see Shatner one more time? He’s already had two encores with THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and GENERATIONS. Three would just be silly and stupid.”

Only if you don’t like Shatner as Kirk.

179. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

112.

Yeah, I agree. Most times when I see a writers “stunt”, killing a character to make the story more dramatic, I start thinking it must be a poor story to necessitate killing a character off.

180. Alec - September 9, 2008

Shatner is the stumbling-block here, which is a shame. Shatner has said that he is disappointed with the way his character was killed-off. Many fans have vocalised their displeasure, also. Now, in a feature-film, Shatner has an opportunity to correct this. He should take it.

I do not understand why, instead, Shatner is taking issue with the film-time that has been offered to him. Even if he only had a five minute cameo, you can bet that it would be a main talking-point among fans, critics, TV hosts, etc. His role would, thus, seem larger than it is…

181. trekboi - September 9, 2008

in my mind i could see spock in some darkened room, contemplating his plans regarding their younger selves- thinking to himself and then kirk would step out of the shadows speaking to him, a voice from the past then still very much a part of him…

182. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

153.
To all Shatner fans, relax. So he isn’t going to be in this one, maybe he’ll be in the next one.

Please don’t put Shatner in the next film–assuming there is one. Time for TREK to move forward and let another group of actors take command.

183. trekboi - September 9, 2008

but shatner is too self-important for just a cameo- he obviously doesnt care too much about the fans and the film- just money- like he doesnt have a comfy retirement fund at this point.

184. Daoud - September 9, 2008

Alas, we furthermore should all agree that Future Guy is really a time-travelling Bill Shatner, attempting to change the past… and in the process creating the Star Trek universe…

Seriously though, Future Guy could be a Nexus-mad immortal Kirk. That could be interesting.

185. twolf904 - September 9, 2008

i know a way they could have did it…they could have made a 2 part movie and you could bring kirk in using parts of a book i remember mr shatner writing that i cant seem to remember the name but i know that in the story which was a good read by the way was that the romulans had went to the planet that kirk was buried in and use some sort of dna technology and brought kirk back to life and spock found out and it was a good story that brought kirk back to life and you have the romulan involment which they are in the new movie and you even had some next generation characters so you could have made a movie bridging the gaps again like generations. you have the new cast…with the original cast ….and the next generation all in one…..everybody leaves happy campers.

186. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#175 … LOL. Yay, Iowagirl is back!! :-)

“We’re stronger with you than without you!”

187. ensign joe - September 9, 2008

“Alex [Kurtzman] and I did indeed come up with a sequence for Shatner that we wrote before the strike, although technically it wasn’t a flashback.”

A sequence for Shatner is not necessarily a sequence for Kirk.

Don’t fake the funk on a nasty dunk.

188. Upset - September 9, 2008

Generations was not an encore. It was an assassination. If Generations didn’t exist, Shatner returning would not be as big of a deal. Kirk is now the main character again. But we know that no matter what, he dies stupidly. The character’s life is important to the franchise. But now, thanks to poor decisionmaking and even weaker excuse making, Shatner will not be in this movie. The character of James Kirk still has no future. No hope. That goes against everything Trek stands for. You can’t revitalize the franchise when the main character ends up dead against a mountain.

I lost interest in Star Trek a long time ago. My love for the franchise died with Kirk, and I clung to it on the hope that somehow, some writer would get the point that the death was ridiculous.

But instead of that, we have weak excuses based on events that happened AFTER the decision was made to not include Shatner. If Abrams was so desperate, then why didn’t he get on the phone? Desperate people don’t give up based on newspaper clippings–especially when they happen AFTER the decision was made (a point that needs to be repeated since that cameo line holds no water).

I’m not the only person passing on this movie because of this issue, and they certainly cost themselves people who would have gone to that movie JUST to see an Shatner return to his iconic role.

They need to show Kirk alive after Generations whether they use Shatner or not. Without that, there’s really no point in watching Star Trek anymore. We know the ending, and it stinks.

189. William Kirk - September 9, 2008

I think a flashback cameo would not work. I wouldn’t like to see Shatners Kirk as a flashback pre-Generations cameo. Why to bring Shatners Kirk from the past, if his characker will stay dead? If Shatner refused this, I think he was right. It wouldn’t change anything. I’d like to see old Kirk alive. Many charakters in Trek died, some of them for many times, several times even in one episode, so why not to have old living Kirk? Maybe Shatner would accept such cameo.
The Nexus problem was dicussed here above for several times.

190. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

#176
Thanks.

#186
Thanks, my friend – one more compliment and I’ll faint. :)

191. Vedek Anon Wymus - September 9, 2008

From some of the posts in this thread, there seems to be an opportunity to please a lot of constituencies given the right touch of writing and a great deal of imagination.

First, you have Spock (Nimoy) return to his own time and find THE SHAT waiting for him, much to Spock’s own fascination with infinite diversity (also wondering how he could have f’d up so badly given that he knows EVERYTHING about time travel, at least when it comes to the volume and mass of whales).

Second, this sets up two different Star Trek franchises. One that can continue in the 24th Century with Shatner getting a Kirk movie all his own with Nimoy scuttling about trying to undo the new damage that has been done by Kirk’s continuing womanizing and destruction into a new century. Plus you have the kids running around within the context of the original series timeframe.

Third, canon is BOTH violated and preserved. We know something has changed, in order for Kirk to be alive. This means that what happens with the ‘kids’ can have some changes (not many, but enough to give writers some serious wiggle room within canon) and still remain faithful to the accepted universe prime.

At the same time, the Shatner movie can show the effects of the change in the timeline and make the necessary adjustments to canon, or use them in the plot to have Kirk/Spock figure out what the hell happened and how that has put the universe in peril and Kirk’s ship is the only one in the quandrant to save it.

Now, this wouldn’t be a cameo for Shatner, rather a chance to get back in the (now much) big chair for at least one more go ’round. And we may even find out that one of the vast unknowing numbers of offspring of the great Denny Crane might have ended up in Iowa marrying someone of the surname Kirk???

Just my feeble attempt, as your spiritual guide to make peace with the fanboys, purists, shippers and all else who find things to kill A LOT of time before next May. Also, since Marvel seems to be making a lot of hay in starting multiple movies with threads that converge later – “Imagine the Possibilities.”

May the Spirits of the Celestial Temple bring you peace and prosperity
The Vedek.

192. paustin - September 9, 2008

I love Shatner first off. But he made his bed when he went with an uninspired death in Generations…dead is dead, he’s not a vulcan theres no “katra” hidden in Picard or in a rock (maybe the horse – that’d be fun). As much as I’d love to see him in it, he pretty much closed the book on him.

193. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#168
I think it’s the degree, the near absolute implication and exaggerated tone of Picard’s comments that borders on fantasy. It was humorously mocked by DS9 and Moore and I agree. Even you doubt it’s totality, which is why you stated, “… material needs ‘generally’ no longer exist, or your statement, “…’sophisticated barter’ essentially stops working more or less …”, recognizing that Picard’s blanket statement was, to some degree, silly. It’s realistic to recognize that some barter or exchange system will exist and that is the point of the criticism. I can recall at least one TOS episode that talked about the use of credits, so it would appear to me that TOS and DS9–my two favorite TREK series–were more realistic and believable.

194. Andy Patterson - September 9, 2008

I would like to say something in defense of Shatner. I’m not excusing his frailties as a human. Maybe he is the ego people say he is, and maybe he has all or even some of the petty traits he’s accused of. But I really believe his concern for the character is factored in his decision making about how big a roll he will accept. Even when he was stepping on other people’s lines or taking away lines in the old show or whatever the allegations are, I always felt like he was doing it in large part for a genuine regard and interest in his character’s well being. I mean, really this character is his legacy – despite the varied career he’s had…this is what people will always remember him for. He knows that. So in that regard I don’t blame him for not accepting any little thing offered him

195. sean - September 9, 2008

I’ve said this before, but constantly bringing dead characters back from the dead in increasingly convoluted and ridiculous ways tends to kill the dramatic tension for this viewer. Frankly, I’m glad they didn’t waste an entire movie trying to rework Generations. Yes, we’re all a little frustrated with that film, and it wasn’t executed (no pun intended) in the best way. Frankly, I think a dramatic fight between Soran and Kirk would have made more sense, but apparently that’s the one test audiences didn’t like. Go figure. Of course, I also recognize that the writers were rushed, rushed, rushed into writing that picture, and Rick Berman was really putting the screws to them to get it done quickly, not to get it done well. Hey, the past is the past. Can’t change it.

Clearly there are fans out there that feel Shatner deserved to have the entirety of this new movie about him, and about fixing this terrible injustice that Generations created. I guess I can respect that, even if I don’t understand it. Frankly, I’ve been waiting years for a Spock-centric movie where Leonard Nimoy could really shine, so news of this movie was like a dream come true (and no, TSFS doesn’t count – he’s in all of 5 minutes of it!).

I love TOS, but one of the things I always disliked was the necessity for every single story to center around Kirk. Even stories that were really about the other characters still had to have Kirk strutting through every scene. I know it’s considered sacrilege, but I think some of the later shows like DS9 had the right idea with the ensemble. Sure, Sisko is in most of the stories, but we did get a break here and there. I would have liked that in TOS, but it was too radical an idea at the time to exclude ‘the star’ from a story.

Kirk’s death can also lend the story a bittersweet flavor that could raise the emotional stakes for Spock. He’s living in the 24th Century, most of his friends are dead, his parents are dead – this might mean he’ll turn into something of a daredevil in this attempt to ‘repair’ the timeline. After all, what does he have to go back to? Maybe he’ll start taking some ‘unecessary risks’ like his old friend Jim Kirk. Or perhaps Starfleet has to offer some special inducements to get Spock to go back. Or he may even be going to back to fix Kirk’s death, but along the way realizes how many unwanted changes that will make in the timeline a la COTEOF. Who knows. But it does open up all sorts of storytelling possibilities.

196. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

178
Only if you don’t like Shatner as Kirk.

I do like Shatner as Kirk, but he has had two times to say goodbye! It’s time to move on! Okay. His last goodbye was in a bad movie, but it’s NOT the job of ST:XI to correct a bad film. TREK is dead, and the job of this film is to attempt to fix that. That is a lot more important.

197. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

193 – I know what you’re saying but it does seem that GR’s intention was that Star Trek was set in a post capitalist society (in the same way he intended it to be a post theist society).

I don’t think the abandonment of capitalism is silly, in the right circumstances. Those are not the ones in which we live now but the replicator would render the whole system unworkable and pointless more or less straight away. All you’d need is one altruistic person with a replicator and a transporter and the concept of payment is rendered moot.

Capitalism only functions because of the finite nature of resources. When resources are infinite, it simply won’t work. Which sets up the idea of humans living ‘to better themselves’. Which I like, personally.

TOS is my favourite ST series, but I think TNG is a more clearly thought through version of the programme, one in tune with the older, more reflective, less traditional GR.

IMHO, of course.

198. Upset - September 9, 2008

Kirk is not the character that you draw the line with when it comes to bringing characters back from the dead, especially in a movie like this which is built entirely around future Spock time travelling to prevent Kirk’s death.

So it’s ok to save young Kirk but not old Kirk?

Yes, the job of this movie is to fix the franchise, but the franchise will never be right as long as Kirk is dead.

Spock would NEVER stand for Kirk’s death as it was. LOGICALLY, he would save his friend. It’s illogical to travel back in time and save Kirk one way, but not another. But the plot standpoint isn’t even important at this point because the producers CHOSE not to do it.

For them to claim Generations was the barrier is simply ridiculous. One final scene at the end of the movie with Shatner and Nimoy together, post-Generations would not change their story one bit.

Kirk’s survival in Generations would be the result of Spock’s time meddling and the audience would see that and applaud.

But instead, Kirk remains dead, and the franchise remains tainted.

199. sean - September 9, 2008

Let’s please not bring up Shatner’s books, because other than the first two, they’re all the same plot over and over and over again – Kirk wants to retire, the ‘universe’ won’t let him, he goes out on a personal mission and miraculously crosses paths with every Star Trek character EVER, and is somehow the only one in the entire universe that has any common sense and coincidentally is the only one that can fix the problem because of some random experience in his past.

200. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#178—”Only if you don’t like Shatner as Kirk”

I don’t buy into the notion that you cannot enjoy Shatner’s portrayal as Kirk and still feel that he doesn’t belong in this film. Those are two very separate issues.

201. star trackie - September 9, 2008

#16 “178
Only if you don’t like Shatner as Kirk.

I do like Shatner as Kirk, but he has had two times to say goodbye! It’s time to move on!”

Only if you’re tired of watching Shatner play Kirk.

Apparently, from many of the posts in this thread, many fans don’t care for the man….but by the same token many fans dig Shatner’s Kirk and would love to see him play the character again. In a rebooted timeline that clearly has been altered and suffered some contamination, previous “goodbyes” are irrelevant.

If the man truly isn’t in the film, I think it was all about the $. The studio simply wouldn’t pony up the cash. Too bad, if true. To quote Kor, it would have been glorious.

202. Cervantes - September 9, 2008

It’s great that Bob Orci has agreed to reveal the actual sequence that was imagined originally for William Shatner for this whole big budget Star Trek ‘revival’! It will be very interesting to see, if it somehow ‘reversed’ the poor removal / ‘canon’ death of such an iconic fictional character, or not.

Good fictional characters are hard to come by, and it’s a pity this particular one was effectively disposed of. What a chance this upcoming Movie seemed to be initially, to somehow UNDO this travesty of a decision on the part of a previous generation of Star Trek makers, including William Shatner for agreeing to that decision at the time too. Unfortunately, even though this TOS-based storyline has gone with the old chestnut of ‘time-travel’, it seems this iconic character is doomed to so-called previous ‘canon’, and will not be brought back from his premature ‘death’ in ANY way whatsoever.

However, post #21 N has given me new hope, and an idea! I am going to just imagine that whatever so-called ‘canon’ is featured in this Movie, is NOT, but just a total ‘alternative time-line’ no matter what…. The ‘main’ timeline is just TOS and the Movies that come before TNG! Yes, TNG and everything that came after it, is just an ‘alternative timeline’ too, which doesn’t effect the ‘main’ / ‘proper’ timeline (TOS), and therefore the fictional character just ‘lives on’ adventuring in my imagination somewhere. Kirk still lives! And this Enterprise can be purple with 3 Nacelles for all it matters!

203. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

Will Shatner appearing in this film bring a more mainstream audience into the theater or bring in any new comers to the franchise? I doubt it. Seeing a fat old puffy faced actor shoved into a role for just to satisfy some off kilter, die hard Trek nerds may have the opposite effect. If I were new to Trek and heard all this hype from a very vocal minority Trek fans about Shatner in all his greatness, then saw the real Shatner, I’d run from the franchise as fast as I could thinking how out-of-touch with reality Trek fans must be.

204. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#188
You are right. GENERATION wasn’t an encore. I never said it was. Shatner’s appearance as Kirk in GENERATIONS was an encore… his second one, and let’s hope, his last.

You wrote:
The character of Kirk is important to the franchise.

Yes. I agree, which is why a new Kirk is appearing in ST:XI.

You wrote:
The character of James Kirk still has no future.

You’re right. Because he is dead as played by William Shatner. Worst, it happened on screen. It happened in a bad movie and wasn’t the best way to die, nor the the worst, but those are the breaks in Hollywood: sometimes movies are good, sometimes bad. Once again, it’s not the job of ST:XI to correct the mistakes of a bad film. That’s not the function or purpose of this film.

You wrote:
They need to show Kirk alive after Generations whether they use Shatner or not. Without that, there’s really no point in watching Star Trek anymore. We know the ending, and it stinks.

Speak for yourself. I’ve watched lot of TREK without Shatner or Kirk and a lot of it, at times, has been far superior. If you need a Shatner-as-Kirk fix, watch TOS movies and films; read the TOS novels; write TOS stories yourself. Many of us feel it’s time to move on to new and hopefully better things.

205. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

> If I were new to Trek and heard all this hype from a very vocal minority Trek > fans about Shatner in all his greatness, then saw the real Shatner, I’d run
> from the franchise as fast as I could thinking how out-of-touch with reality
> Trek fans must be.

Well, no. You don’t know how you’d react to this if you were new to Trek, because you aren’t and you therefore carry within you knowledge you can’t discount.

There will be questions in the mainstream press about Shatner’s absence, I’m sure – and that won’t be fans, that will be that the broad cultural consensus about Star Trek is that it = Kirk and Spock, and despite the younger versions herein there is a very real sense in which this new movie has one and not the other.

Now, maybe that was unavoidable but it’s still arguably true. It’s like the Doctor Who story ‘The Five Doctors’, there will always be people who wonder why Tom Baker wasn’t in it. That was unavoidable too, despite the the efforts of all involved. This is basically the same situation.

206. ElrondL - September 9, 2008

At this point, I’ll be happy if we get a throwaway line that Kirk’s fate is once again open-ended because of whatever happens in the movie. We don’t need Shatner for that.

Boborci, thanks for the teases. Argh, one more thing to wait for … :-)

207. Xai - September 9, 2008

Star Trek has done a great job at “cheapening” the heroic actions achieved by the characters that die to save others. We all know the score card on who’s dead, been dead, etc.

Kirk saved millions in Generations, (although it was an unneeded death scene) and now some fans want to diminish that effort with yet another resurrection.
—————————————————————-

175. Iowagirl – September 9, 2008
Great job…I think you were trying for parody and managed to insult all three men. Wow.

208. Cervantes - September 9, 2008

Just to clarify…. The ‘future’ / ‘older’ Spock that appears in this Movie is actually from the ‘alternative timeline’ that is TNG and thereafter! Whatever he does by travelling back in this Movie ONLY affects that particular ‘alternative timeline’ he has come from. He is NOT the TOS / ‘main’ timeline Spock! Although he looks quite like him…. ;)

I can watch this ‘re-introduced’ Star Trek Movie with no worries now, as it’s not ‘linked’ to TOS in any way. I’ll be quite happy to watch this ‘alternative’ timeline crew now, and whatever production design the current makers throw at me. Bring it on!

209. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#201
previous “goodbyes” are irrelevant.

It is relevant because at some point constantly saying goodbye by putting Shatner in a TREK movie just becomes silly pandering and an example of people who just can’t move on and want to live in the past. TREK fan base is old. New blood is needed. Shatner can’t play Kirk forever. A new film, dealing with Kirk, with a new, young actor, is one of the many points of this film, not Shatners’ Kirk who died.

210. Steeevil - September 9, 2008

Last.

211. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#201 … “In a rebooted timeline that clearly has been altered and suffered some contamination, previous ‘goodbyes’ are irrelevant.”

Hear, hear!! Writing The Shat in should’ve been easy.

#207 … “Great job…I think you were trying for parody and managed to insult all three men. Wow.”

Some humor keeps these threads fun. I know it is not logical. Is your blood green? Speaking of which…

#209 … “New blood is needed. Shatner can’t play Kirk forever.”

I don’t think anyone has asked for that. I am totally down with the idea of a new cast. After 40 years, it’s time. All I and many others wished for was Shatner in a supporting role along with Nimoy.

212. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#211—”All I and many others wished for was Shatner in a supporting role along with Nimoy.”

The key word being “supporting”. That seems contrary to what Shatner wanted, according to Abrams statement above.

213. EM - September 9, 2008

The Shat could have played Mirror Universes evil Kirk. He would want to stop the Romulans because messing with any Kirks time line could mess all the Kirks!! Pure Genius!!!!!!

214. ElrondL - September 9, 2008

#195 sean: Great post. I can’t wait to see Nimoy and what they have planned for Spock.

215. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

I do wonder what the people here who’re actively saying that Shatner being in the movie would be a bad thing (and no one has come up with a reason for that that stands up in the slighest) will think when the man is gone. Will they suddenly then understand, emotionally and intellectually, that an opportunity has been missed here?

It’s clear that the production team would have preferred Bill to be in the movie but they know it’s not/was not to be. That’s radically different to the, frankly, utterly bizarre assertion that it would be in some a bad thing to have him in it.

216. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#201—”Only if you’re tired of watching Shatner play Kirk”

I never tire of watching Shatner play Kirk from about 1965-1986 (TOS-TVH)…I prefer not to watch Shatner portray Kirk as himself though (TFF-GEN).
I have no reason to believe a portrayal in STXI would have been any different.

#202—”What a chance this upcoming Movie seemed to be initially, to somehow UNDO this travesty of a decision on the part of a previous generation of Star Trek makers, including William Shatner for agreeing to that decision at the time too.”

I did not ever feel that Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams, Lindelof, or Burk had any responsibility to clean up someone else’s mess. In fact, it would be rather insulting (professionally), IMO, for them to erase what the other writers had done.

217. Jim Smith - September 9, 2008

>> In fact, it would be rather insulting (professionally), IMO, for them to erase >> what the other writers had done.

Speaking as someone who has worked in (more than) one, part of the process of writing in a shared universe is that you sometimes have to pick someone else’s stuff apart to do what you want to do. The flipside of that is that you accept that the next guy will probably do that to you. That’s shared universes. It’s what happens.

218. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#215—”It’s clear that the production team would have preferred Bill to be in the movie but they know it’s not/was not to be. That’s radically different to the, frankly, utterly bizarre assertion that it would be in some a bad thing to have him in it.”

I don’t know what’s bizzare about it. Shatner as Kirk today does not have the same appeal to me as Shatner as Kirk did 25 years ago. Shatner (in Generations, for example) acted more like the guy in the Priceline commercials than he did Captain Kirk. I don’t want to see THAT guy in STXI.

219. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#212 “The key word being ‘supporting’. That seems contrary to what Shatner wanted, according to Abrams statement above.”

They apparently offered him one scene. If they had offered him something akin to what they’d written for Leonard, he might have appreciated that.

220. Dr. Image - September 9, 2008

My prob with the whole Nexus scene is that it was SO badly written.
It’s a damn shame that Picard and Kirk had such lame interaction.

So… Shat not in movie. Case closed! Get over it!

221. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#217—”It’s what happens”

Not so much in Star Trek. There is too much protectiveness over “canon” in that “shared universe” on the part of the fans. Of course, the novels, comics, etc. do not encounter those same restrictions, since none of that is canon to begin with.

222. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#219—”They apparently offered him one scene. If they had offered him something akin to what they’d written for Leonard, he might have appreciated that.”

One scene for a guy who has been “dead and moldering” for quite some time is alot, don’t you think?

How can you blame these guys for wanting to protect the integrity of the story they all decided was the best one to tell?

223. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#211
All I and many others wished for was Shatner in a supporting role along with Nimoy.

Even at the possible expense of the movie itself? Personally, I don’t think it was a good idea to have Nimoy in the film. A clean, fresh break from all past TREK–and all it’s baggage–would have been better in the eyes of the general audience and possible new fans. The appearance of Nimoy will initially give the impression this is not new TREK, but the same old dog.

224. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

“…but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly…”—Abrams

225. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#223—I love that Nimoy is in the film, and he comes with far less baggage.

226. Viking - September 9, 2008

93. TrekMadeMeWonder – it was about 40 or 50 threads ago. LOL I’ll see if I can ferret it out…….

227. Decker's Stubble - September 9, 2008

FTA: “It’s funny — a lot of the people who were proclaiming that he must be in this movie were the same people saying it must adhere to canon. Well, his character died on screen. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that.”

Mmmm, that’s some tasty, tasty snark.

And absolute truth.

228. falcon - September 9, 2008

#45:

Desilu Productions was around long before Shatner and Roddenberry and Trek. Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz founded the company to produce “I Love Lucy.” In the late 1960s, Desilu and Paramount Pictures merged under the Paramount name. Shatner never “launched” the studio.

In fact, Roddenberry shopped the series around to several studios, most notably MGM, but they all turned him down. Desilu was looking for new properties, GR was looking for a studio, and the rest is history.

Much of that info is from Stephen Whitfield’s book “The Making of Star Trek.” Even though it was highly sanitized (and in its own way might be a bit of a work of fiction) it is recommended reading for anyone looking to learn more of the history of Trek.

Now, back to the thread – I’m glad Shatner’s not in the movie. I think it’s time to move forward. Imagine if Richard Hatch had shown up in Battlestar Galactica…um, oh, wait, he did. Well, not as Apollo, though. Shatner could have been any other character in Trek XI, but his ego and desire to be Kirk once again shot down that achance.

229. Blowback - September 9, 2008

@228 – Thank you for correcting the Desilu comment. It spared me from having to do the work…

230. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 9, 2008

226. Viking

Thanks!
I’d love to read it.

231. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#225
I doubt that those who find TREKs past efforts wanting will make the distinction. He will just remind them of all that past baggage: Trekkies; TV-type movies; wanna-be STAR WARS FX/CGI/production; over-saturated products (TV & movies) to drug feed geek-fanatics. I would have stayed as far away from past efforts as possible and that includes Nimoy.

232. Blowback - September 9, 2008

#153 – Spooky

” To all Shatner fans, relax. So he isn’t going to be in this one, maybe he’ll be in the next one.

How to explain away his death in Generations. You don’t have to… just have him there as Kirk in the 24th century. Never have it mentioned when he does appear. Maybe what happens in this first movie corrected or changed that one event from happening. Hence, he lives in the 24th century. He and Picard defeated Soran and now he is alive. Does not need to be stated. Besides, explaining it onscreen will not appease the fanbase either way.”

My thoughts exactly. Maybe this is the part Shat turned down… If it’s close to the mark then there is at least a way to work him into the next film that is less awkward…

233. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

#207
- I think you were trying for parody and managed to insult all three men. –

Great job…So much thinking and still you managed to get it wrong. Wow. :D

234. Another Shatner Fan - September 9, 2008

Why have my first two posts disappeared???

235. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#225—–I think that Abrams’ inclusion of Nimoy in this project lends Trek credibility to the film. Drawing newer and younger fans is only one of the project’s goals. Another is to make a movie that “established fans” will enjoy as well. Yet another is to “tie it all together”. Nimoy is the fabric which does that. If you think about it, he is the lone surviving cast member from the original series who actually appeared in “The Cage” (at least as the same character), and portrays the one character who actually remains alive in the post-Nemesis era of the late 24th Century.

I love the idea of a “Spock-centric” story.

236. cellojammer - September 9, 2008

I’ve always been a big Kirk fan. Have been since the mid-70s when I first got into Trek. I was sad to see his character have such an ignominious end–my preference was that his fate remain ambiguous.

However, once I saw him die in “Generations”, for better or worse, I said my goodbyes to a beloved character and moved on. Not for an instant did I think Shatner as JTK would have a place this movie. “It’s science fiction” is NOT an acceptable loophole to shoehorn Shatner-as-Kirk into the new movie. They barely got away with a resurrection when they brought Spock back. A second one would be a pandering cheat. I’m glad they have the integrity to not do that.

Now I’m patiently looking forward to the new movie. I can feel it in my bones–it’s gonna rock!

237. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#207, Xai, you make the best argument I’ve ever read for the validity of Generations.

I never thought of it that way before, but you’re right: the film has Kirk (once again) saving the universe. To re-write that “history” would mean denying that heroism & the millions of lives saved.

Hmm. Food for thought.

238. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

Your Honor, I present exhibit A—this thread— as an example of why anyone who decides to helm a Star Trek picture is insane.

Mr. Abrams can get away with murder as it is certain that his sanity is in question.

The fans are the life force of the Star Trek franchise. They are also the biggest detriment.

You can’t ignore Generations. It’s there. It’s part of the whole story thingy. For better or worse.

239. DEMODE - September 9, 2008

For the love of God… just do a movie whereSpock figures out Kirk is still alive in the Nexxus, and have him go and rescue him. The Nexxus is a place where anything can happen, so you could have a really cool movie with a good chunk of it taking place in it.

For one, you could have Kirk reminising about the past and getting Forrest Gump style flashbacks of him with the younger crew. You know Kirk would “re-live” adventures from time to time. You woud also get to see some of what goes on in Spocks mind when he arrives… the fantasy worlds and wishes that didn’t come true.

240. DEMODE - September 9, 2008

By the way… if the powers that be worry that a Shatner/Nimoy movie wouldn’t be huge in the theatres, make it Direct-to-DVD. It would be the #1 Direct-to-DVD movie of all time!

241. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#239—Let’s not EVER revisit the Nexus….please. Kirk is buried on Veridian III. Besides, my understanding is that any version of Kirk in the Nexus would be a mere shadow, and not an actual human being.

#240—If Star Trek goes to dvd movies, it will stay there….no thanks.

242. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

#237
- To re-write that “history” would mean denying that heroism & the millions of lives saved. –

Who says XI would “re-write” the events of GEN? In GEN, Kirk saves millions of people, and his heroism is being consolidated once more. If XI told us about his resurrection, it would declare at the same time that GEN’s history of Kirk’s heroism remains untouched, because it would tie in with the events in GEN. Kirk would still have saved the people, he would still have confronted death for them, and he would still be the hero -only that now Spock would keep at finding a way to save his Captain and best friend. I don’t think this would deny anything – on the contrary; if Spock doesn’t try to save Kirk, it will deny all we know about Kirk’s and Spock’s unique friendship.

243. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

We are all aware that the movie has completed filming, right? It is unlikely in the extreme that anything more will be filmed. Shatner won’t be in the movie. Its just not going to happen. It’s Shatner’s fault for not accepting what he was offered. It’s Abram’s fault for not offering more. It’s Orci and Kurtzman’s fault for not writing it. It’s BBM’s fault for killing Kirk in the first place. And it’s the fan’s fault for expecting it.

244. Alec - September 9, 2008

Another Shatner thread: another gargantuan post count. Whether you love or hate Shatner, or something in-between, people clearly have strong feelings, one way or t’other.

If only Shatner could be convinced to take a cameo part…

245. star trackie - September 9, 2008

238 “You can’t ignore Generations.”

Oh yes I can, and it’s so easy to do. lol

And it continues to amaze me how many people can’t seem to grasp the storytelling possibilites that an alternate timeline presents. You’ll accept a revamped Enterprise, a revamped bridge, new uniforms..new faces on old characters…Kirk serving with Pike, all supposedly explained away by an altered timeline…yet in that same timeline, one that does feature Leonard Nimoy as Spock, you can’t accept a Kirk played by William Shatner.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.. some people just don’t like Shatner…period. And that’s ok. But how they can groove onTOS without liking the central character and the man that played it for 40 years is beyond me. Shatner’s inclusion in this film, especially considering the inclusion of Nimoy as Spock, could have only helped the film and could not have hurt it in any way.

Unless, of course, you don’t like Shatner. Thus, with no real logical or creative reason to leave him out…despite all the verbal tap dancing…IF Shatner doesn’t show up, it’s all about the benjamins.

246. Boborci - September 9, 2008

188.

Starfleet does not impose a draft or compel anyone to serve who does not have their heart in it. Therefore, you may feel free to relieve yourself of duty.

247. The Lensman - September 9, 2008

“It’s illogical to travel back in time and save Kirk one way, but not another.”

Uhhhhh……No, it isn’t. Change “Kirk” to “Davey Crockett” and it makes perfect sense. If someone went into the past and altered Crockett’s history, someone would go back in time and make it so that, tragically or not, he ends up meeting his fate at the Alamo.

Thanks to William Shatner signing on to Gen, Kirk’s fate is to die on Veridian 3 as Crockett’s is to die at the Alamo.

If they are adhering to canon….then Spock will be ensuring that that will happen. It’s already history and there are rules about messing with history. It adds a certain “City on the edge of forever” vibe to it….although it’s nowhere near as tragic because by the time Kirk was sucked into the Nexus he had already had a full life, was no longer the captain of the Enterprise and was heading either for a desk job, or retirement from Starfleet. At any rate he felt like a relic who’s time was over in Generations…..and everybody dies. He got to die saving millions, something he had no right to expect at that particular junction of his life.

If they are NOT adhering to canon, then I don’t know why people have this weird notion that we WON’T just see old Spock fade away from the POV of the younger crew, and the camera STAYS with the POV of the younger crew as the credits roll. Thereby indicating that we are in a completely new timeline and will no longer see the other original one. That the future in this new timeline is unwritten…..think the ending to Back to the Future 3.

248. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#242. Okay – well-argued, Iowa girl.

But I think you may have misread my point. . . I was just responding to Xai’s insight regarding “Generations,” a movie I dislike and would like to discount completely. I realize I can’t & shouldn’t, from a narrative stand-point & the standpoint of Kirk’s character.

My head hurts. Someone remind me this is only a movie based on a TV show we’re talking about, here. Right?

249. Trekmaster - September 9, 2008

Am I the only one who thinks this is all smoke and mirrors on the part of Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman?

These ARE some of the same guys that worked on ABC’s “Lost” right? Have any of you Trek fans followed the unbelievably layered, on-line, viral MARKETING for Lost?

I’m not even talking about how the show and it’s mythos has layers…I’m talking about entire television ad campaigns, billboards and websites (along with skits at Comic Con panels, etc.) that were created with the sole purpose of messing with fans’ heads for “Lost” in the past few years. The Hanzo Corporation and the Dharma Initiative have websites and ad campaigns that don’t even MENTION the TV show “Lost” but are very much a part of the show’s universe.

Trek fans have never, and I mean NEVER had to deal with anyone as clever as Mr. Abrams and his posse when it comes to interacting with the public in general and fandom specifically.

Trust me, I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if Shatner is all over the screen in this film in May. And I think we all know Bill well enough that we can expect he’s in on the scam and running with it FULL BORE. The man doesn’t know how to do anything but FULL BORE, does he?

Okay, that’s my prediction, right here in September of 2008. And now the long wait to see if I’m right or wrong or otherwise.

250. Dom - September 9, 2008

Jim Smith (168) You’re using words like ‘intellectually’ rather a lot, as if you have a monopoly on intellect! I’d offer to buy some off you, but you don’t believe in money. ;) Funny how that one line off-cuff remark I made upset you more than anything else I said!

Capitalism clearly existed in the Federation of TOS and it’s bizarre that the Federation would ban its citizens from making money: it makes me suspect that a lot of people will have the interstellar equivalent of off-shore bank accounts in the 24th century.

I understand you believe in the Soviet Federation of Planets put forward in Roddenberry’s one or two ‘pure’ Treks (TMP and early TNG). You’ll find very few TOS fans who worship Roddenberry alone as some sort of anti-religious demi-god the way TNG’s publicity portrayed him, though.

Most TOS fans who prefer TNG will say that they consider the countless contributions to that universe by other people to be just as important. I see the Federation as the United States and the West gone into space, a Wagon Train to the stars.

Ron Moore’s mocking of the supposed lack of money in the Federation points to the confused ‘intellect’ which came up with such a nonsensical idea. I mean, how does a Federation citizen order a beer in a non-Federation bar, if that bar requires currency? Maybe they have to put on a short skirt and hang out in a dark alley!

Your rejection of DS9 over a pointed joke about an idiotic contradtion in the show exemplifies the scary lack of humour many people have associated with fans of later Trek (unless it’s mocking races the high-handed Federation considers less evolved!) Star Trek isn’t a religious cult aimed at bringing about a communist utopia or a lifestyle guide, y’know: it’s a fun action-adventure series about humans travelling in space!

TOS and its fans never held with the ‘evolved’ human nonsense. The only way humans could be so ‘evolved’ as to prefer food from a replicator (a jumped-up office coffee machine!) rather than made by a chef with his or her particular style is if they were brainwashed.

The impression you get from TNG is that all undesirables in their universe (artists, rock stars, political agitiators, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, for example) had been systematically persecuted, imprisoned and executed!

In TOS, humans had done their best to stop fighting amongst themselves. But they weren’t superior beings. They didn’t go into space to tell people what to do. They were there to learn. In TNG, everyone is so ‘Right’ (or should that be left? ;)) that the human race was too arrogant to learn anything! You kept on expecting security officers to ask people for their papers and to cirfirm that they’re party workers.

Hopefully we’ll see a move away from all this overly-serious lunacy in the new Trek film and get back to the fun action adventure romp that Trek was always meant to be!

251. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#242—-”on the contrary; if Spock doesn’t try to save Kirk, it will deny all we know about Kirk’s and Spock’s unique friendship.”

Actually, it would simply confirm that Spock has chosen to act appropriately in regard to the existing timeline. Even if Spock were aware of the events and how they transpired on Veridian III (presumably, he is still on Romulus), it would be out of character for him to risk disrupting the timeline for the sake of personal feelings of loyalty or friendship. IMO, writing the character of Spock to behave so unscrupulously would destroy the integrity of the character I most enjoy in all of Star Trek.

No thanks….:)

For me to accept such behavior, Spock would have to be confronted with a threat so great, that he would be justified in putting billions of lives and fates at risk, and the notion that only a resurrected JTK could help him solve that particular problem would have to be equally convincing.

Furthermore, what JJ Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof/Burk would have to decide is,

“Forget doing the fans true justice by telling the best story we could think of…

Let’s just contrive a mediocre one about bringing this guy back to life, and maybe we’ll get a shot at drawing new blood into the fanbase later…Maybe.

Oh well, even if we don’t, at least William Shatner gets one more ST movie that shines the light on him.”

Again, no thanks….:)

252. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#249. Trekmaster, I’ve been saying that all along.

253. British Naval Dude - September 9, 2008

SPOCK: I’d love to save the universe by going back in time and preventing a horribly detrimental event caused by villains from my current timeline… but it’s so goddammed expensive to travel back in time. Not to mention finding accomodations with people who don’t worship you for being able to make fire or having a phazor ten times better than their current piece of crap. This one can circumsices at fifty yeards.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: You can still save us all, Spock… save the ship… again! Just point and click at priceline.com and look!

SPOCK: Wow! I can book a cheap but rust-free timeship AND a cabin on the Fiesta Deck of the Enterprise! It’s so easy.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: It’s so easy, Denny Crane can do it.

SPOCK: Well, guess I’ll go prevent a truly terrible disaster.

PRICELINE NEGOTIATOR: You mean “T.J. Hooker?” Well, have fun seeing Kirk’s new adventures… which really are my old adventures… Oh, well. Bring me back some of my thriving follicles please.

SPOCK: To hell with that. I’d bring them back soley for myself as I’ve had the same damned hairstyle for centuries.

254. Greg2600 - September 9, 2008

I really am begging Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman to just stop talking about Shatner already. Especially Abrams, because this nonsense about canon does not fly. Yeah, blame the fans now. So now this guy is making decisions only based on what the fans think? He’s afraid of the fans now? Give me a break J.J. The Shatner/Kirk fans have been very vocal. I don’t remember hearing about a canon or else crowd? There’s no way they are going to go without people flipping out on canon. Who cares!

Ah, but it’s also the fault of Shatner. You don’t make a Star Trek movie, and only have Shatner or Leonard Nimoy in a cameo. That’s an insult to them and the fans. All Shatner wanted was to be James T. Kirk, and that means a role pivotal to the movie. It’s friggin Kirk! He can’t just waltz in, tell a joke or a stupid catch phrase, and leave. This is not Stan Lee!

You know what J.J., when the movie gets ripped to shreds, you’ll have only yourself to blame. Which is fine by me.

255. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

#245

“And it continues to amaze me how many people can’t seem to grasp the storytelling possibilites that an alternate timeline presents. You’ll accept a revamped Enterprise, a revamped bridge, new uniforms..new faces on old characters…Kirk serving with Pike, all supposedly explained away by an altered timeline…”

We accepted a lot of that with TMP. I don’t mean to sound snarky, but to use your own phrase, why can you not grasp the fact that a storytelling possibility was offered to Shatner and he declined it? When offered a storytelling possibility in 1994, he jumped at it and created this whole mess.

And for the record, I thought it was a bad idea when Nimoy insisted on having his character killed off in TWOK. If there had been an internet back then I probably would have raised holy hell about it.

256. Kruge - September 9, 2008

The only thing I find surprising is how the shatner obsessed continue to go after Abrams and Orci. They tried, Shat’s ego got in the way, end of story. On top of that they are cleary trying not to ‘reboot’ the canon. All of this should be welcome news, but for a few who just cant let go.

I would have loved to seen him in the movie, and think he should have taken their offer. He has no one to blame but himself. He let Berman kill him, then he let his ego get in the way of one last hurrah, because it wasn’t ‘big enough’ . This sounds like the decades old petty squables between the size of his role vs. Nimoy’s role…at 77 shouldn’t he have been a big enough man to put that behind him.

257. British Naval Dude - September 9, 2008

back in 1988:

ADAM WEST: They’re making a Batman movie… without me?

MR. MOM: That’s really not analoguous to the William Shatner issue coming up in twenty years.

present day…

PATRICK STEWART: I would insist on naked ladies in every scene. I’d see everything, of course.

BND: No argument thar’, mate. But what aboot yer Pick-Hard bloke?

PATRICK STEWART: Look, my character didn’t die in the desert. My character had enough sense to go cry on a rock. Hmmm… why am I not in the bloody movie?

BND: Arrrrr… maybe ye’ are… ye’ know Spockie be in your character’s era…

LEONARD NIMOY: Look, I’m not just a cameo. I’m fully integrated into this film.

PATRICK STEWART: Can I see that picture book you have there, Leonard?

258. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

#254

You of course entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Read the article.

259. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

#215

“Will they suddenly then understand, emotionally and intellectually, that an opportunity has been missed here? ”

But it is not there for the majority of the audience they wish and need to attract to revive the franchise. The main stream/never seen Trek audience has no attachments to Shatner. Seeing Shatner in a cameo fills nothing emotionally for them. That said, the hard core Shatner/Kirk lovers would get something emotionally out of his cameo, and apparently Abrams knew this, but Shatner’s demands outweighed his benefit. He was not necessary for the plot like Nimoy was, and his demand for a bigger role probably would have been a greater detriment to the story than his cameo would have added for those few viewers. In addition his $$ demands were probably greater than the $$ his cameo would have generated. In spite of an imaginary future Universe where there is no money, this movie has to make lots of $$ or the Trek franchise will dwindle into further obscurity. They are doing what they do to make the franchise earn money. If Shatner costs too much or ruins a good story he is a detriment to the future of Trek. This movie has to make lots of $$.

The mainstream audience will come to see this movie because it promises to provide them with a few hours worth of good entertainment – and regardless of what the media says about Shatner — many of them don’t know who Shatner is though they probably have heard of Kirk. The audience will focus on Pine and Quinto as Kirk and Spock.

260. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#245—”You’ll accept a revamped Enterprise, a revamped bridge, new uniforms..new faces on old characters…Kirk serving with Pike, all supposedly explained away by an altered timeline…”

Who said Kirk will serve with Pike? There has been no indication of that whatsoever…

#254—-”I don’t remember hearing about a canon or else crowd?”

Then you don’t spend much time here.

“Especially Abrams, because this nonsense about canon does not fly”

Sure it does. The biggest fears of many fans about this film is that the canon they’ve invested in for so long will be discarded. You may care less about that than the appearance of William Shatner, but don’t presume that those who vow to protect canon at all costs are any less significant in number.

” All Shatner wanted was to be James T. Kirk…”

If that were true, he would have probably accepted a cameo (and probably would have listened to his friend, Nimoy, and not agreed to that horrible death scene to begin with). Instead he, “was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly…”

Sorry Bill, it’s not about you… This film is “Spock-centric”, and I think that’s great. He was always much more interesting to me anyway. Alpha-male heroes are a dime a dozen in fiction. Spock was much more unique (even “fascinating”).

“You know what J.J., when the movie gets ripped to shreds, you’ll have only yourself to blame. Which is fine by me.”

He will indeed have only himself to blame if that happens, but it will have nothing at all to do with Shatner. Putting Shatner all over a ST film does not make it a good movie (see STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89). If the movie fails, it will be because the story and/or acting/directing was poor.

I don’t think any of that will be the case.

.

261. Mike 1701 - September 9, 2008

#235
Nimoy’s presence mostly serves the fans. Despite what TREK fans say, most of them are going to see this film. Shatner or no Shatner; Nimoy or no Nimoy. Therefore, from my POV, credibility isn’t an issue. By putting Nimoy in this movie, the film makers unnecessary create three weaknesses and question marks: 1) a reminder of TREK baggage from the past with Nimoy’s appearance (and with Shatner, who was almost in the film); 2) a derivative, overused device called time travel; and 3) an accusation of stunt casting with Nimoy’s appearance possibly done to appease older TOS fans. Why invite problems?

I love the idea of a “Spock-centric” story as well, but was an elder Spock in the mix–including interaction scenes with a younger Spock and crew, a device already played with in the BACK TO THE FUTURE movies, really needed?

262. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

ay caramba, the impact of Generations still being felt 15 years later. Personally, if I am Sir JJ and the Orcster, I want to make my own movie. Let these guys make their movie, not fix the problems of one from 15 years ago.

Yo Orcster, can you tell us if the scene that you wrote “fixed” Kirk’s death? Nah, probably not and my feeling is that unless the movie cannot function without that one scene, it’s probably better that it was never filmed. Go with what you guys have. Its working well enough.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

263. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

#238
Ok, I know what you mean.

- My head hurts. Someone remind me this is only a movie based on a TV show we’re talking about, here. Right? -

A TV show – are you kidding me?? Now *my* head hurts…:)

#251
- it would be out of character for him to risk disrupting the timeline for the sake of personal feelings of loyalty or friendship. –

It says in the script he would have to “disrupt” the timeline? :)

264. British Naval Dude - September 9, 2008

Alternate ending to “Generations”

PICARD: We’re doing it… we’re stopping Soren!

KIRK: You mean I’M stopping Soren. You know, for all I know he could be the good guy. I mean you show up in my Nexus and I’m supposed to just believe everything you say? Look, I’m not going to just kill a guy I never even met based on your word, pajama boy.

PICARD: No- he is evil! He will destroy a planet we never even get to see!

SOREN: Hey gov’ner why don’t ye juzt plug his old froggie arse? take oot dis here bald nutjob real good then.

KIRK: Maybe I will…

::: a midget runs out with a pink dagger:::

MIDGET: Take that!

:::Midget stabs Kirk in his gut, Kirk falls over cliff, dies on impact after landing with his raer hiked in the air, the midget tosses used condoms and nude photos of Bea Arthur all around corpse :::

SOREN: Blimey! That’s tha’ very very very worst death I’ve ever seen. Least he’s not on tha loo, though.

PICARD: Take that!

::: Picard throws bootie at Soren, Soren falls of cliff right on top of Kirk’s corpse in a rather unflattering position of seemingly mounting him :::

PICARD: Holy crap! Rick! Rick, look we have got to re-shoot this! I mean, this is just going to upset all the fans…

265. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

#260

“Sorry Bill, it’s not about you……
Putting Shatner all over a ST film does not make it a good movie (see STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ‘89).”

You aren’t the only one who feels this way:

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

266. star trackie - September 9, 2008

#255 ”
We accepted a lot of that with TMP.

Sure it was easy. It was a movie, with familiar faces, logically taking place 10 years or more after the end of their TV series. The Enterprise refit was part of the story and after witnessing the progression of the ship from Pike’s years to those of the 5 year mission, it all makes perfect sense.

Having an elderly Nimoy, as Spock, going back in time and witnessing Pike’s bridge…the bridge he served on during the Cage, and finding a bridge that is radically different manned by complete strangers is just a little more difficult to buy into. Fortunately, this altered timeline business makes it all plausible.

“why can you not grasp the fact that a storytelling possibility was offered to Shatner and he declined it?”

Well, actually I’m not sure where you got that impression. All I ever said was IF, in fact, he was offered a part and the deal fell apart, it was due to studio negotiations. Hell, I’m not 100% convinced he’s not in the film. I hope he is.

267. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#263—”It says in the script he would have to “disrupt” the timeline? :)”

I said “risk disrupting the timeline”….:)

Introducing such a random element (a live Jim Kirk) into the past he knows would be as irresponsible as allowing Edith Keeler to live, knowing she was supposed to die the way she did.
Any interaction between Kirk and anyone else could cause any number of such “disruptions” which might affect the lives and fates of billions in the Alpha Quadrant.

268. star trackie - September 9, 2008

#260 “Who said Kirk will serve with Pike? There has been no indication of that whatsoever…”

I thought Knowles over at AICN said that after JJ showed him that footage. I may be wrong though…in any event, Kirk on Pike’s ship, or a mirrored bridge with a disco ball in the center…they are all changes incurred by the altered timeline that we are asked to accept. And we do. Accepting Shat as Kirk, alive and well, in a corrupt timeline is no different.

269. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#266—”Having an elderly Nimoy, as Spock, going back in time and witnessing Pike’s bridge…the bridge he served on during the Cage, and finding a bridge that is radically different manned by complete strangers is just a little more difficult to buy into. ”

Not to me. It was very easy to accept that Saavik all of a sudden looked like Robin Curtis a few weeks later. What’s the difference? And Spock will see the same people he knew over a century before (not complete strangers), only played by different actors.

270. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

i’m personally still holding out hope that they will write a scene where JC™ is Kirk. JC™ is the only Kirk to me. Pine might be fine, and Shat was all that. But JC™ is JTK® to me.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

271. star trackie - September 9, 2008

#269 “It was very easy to accept that Saavik all of a sudden looked like Robin Curtis a few weeks later. ”

I accepted it, but, no, it wasn’t easy! lol

272. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

#271

I bet it would have been a lot easier for you to accept if it were the other way around — Saavik suddenly started looking like Alley?

273. Another Shatner Fan - September 9, 2008

I’ll say it again or at least i’ll try to; once again it’s the Shatner topic that brings out all the posts and strong feelings. Gee Bill is pretty powerful and able to generate buzz about the movie even when he isn’t in it. Makes you wonder what would have happened if he was in it?

274. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

I hate to sound superficial, but Shatner is too fat and bloated to play a respectable Kirk anymore. There, I said it.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

275. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

#273

If STV is any indication………………………..

276. The Last Maquis - September 9, 2008

Okay I’m here, What did I miss………..Oh,……….. I better go Get a Beer.

Ahh, There we go….Maybe the film Will Be Good, But JJ or Shatner Blew it
by not having His Kirk in This Movie even for a quick Scene.

277. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#268—”Accepting Shat as Kirk, alive and well, in a corrupt timeline is no different.”

I’m willing to bet that Spock has been successful enough in preventing the Romulans from disrupting the past to protect the outcomes of major events, but just not successful enough to prevent subtle changes (like asthetic appearances in the set designs). Preventing changes in the outcomes of events from the five-year mission would, to me, indicate failuer on the part of Nimoy’s Spock. I don’t see that happening.

Resurrecting Kirk would require a THOROUGH explanation for me to accept it. I have no wish for any changes to the outcomes of events we have already seen depicted on screen through the existence of an altered timeline. That will ultimately be disappointing to me if it happens.

278. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

Damned typonians….”failure”, not failuer.

279. Iowagirl - September 9, 2008

#267

I’m grateful that Kirk was more willing to take risks and save Spock – otherwise we wouldn’t have this discussion. :)

Have to take a short Shore Leave now. Good night.

280. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

To his credit, Shatner would have insisted that “failuer” was the correct pronunciation and that “failure” was just how YOU say it.

That dude was the captain, was he not?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

281. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#279—-”I’m grateful that Kirk was more willing to take risks and save Spock – otherwise we wouldn’t have this discussion. :)”

You’re pretending to not see the difference, and that’s cute… :)

Kirk risked his career (losing his son and ship was an unforseen consequence), not billions of lives and fates which he had no business putting in jeopardy. When confronted with a similar circumstance (regarding a woman he was in love with named Edith Keeler), he made the right choice.

282. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

so Kirk’s love for Spock was stronger than his love for Edith Keeler. This much we already knew. So what are you saying about this new movie? So what if Spock’s love for Kirk is not strong enough for him to alter the timeline? Spock is a Vulcan, and while he has emotion, it is suppressed to err on the side of logic. Love is not logical. THerefore this movie makes sense without Kirk.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

283. David (Flaming Wings Forever, Peter Cullen for the Computer Voice!) - September 9, 2008

OMG – Reading this debate again, is making me nauseous.

1.) Very happy that Mr. Orci will give us insight into the what might have been.
2.) Very happy it’s not in the movie, as by their own judgment, it just didn’t fit.

Now lets get back to what’s really important.

Please show us the ship. Please.

Thank you.

284. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 9, 2008

The “ship” is in the teaser trailer. Will it actuially be in the movie?
That’s plenty enough for me to see (for now.)

I’d rather hear a brief plot description. Very brief.
Too much conjecture around here, based on so very little intel.

It would blow all our minds if Kirk and the crew were to steal the Enterprse before its actualy ready for launch.

Now that’s been staple in Trek movies already. The big E heading out before anyone is ready to go.

285. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

#282

Spock already died for Kirk & others in STII. He, like Kirk, would risk his own life to help the other but would not necessarily sacrifice the lives of others to help eachother. As McCoy said in ‘Return to Tomorrow’ “I don’t peddle flesh”.

286. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#285—-Exactly, and that’s the difference. It’s one thing to risk yourself, and something completely different to put at risk those who have no choice in the matter. I don’t believe that is within the character of either Kirk or Spock, and I wouldn’t want to see either of them portrayed that way.

I want to see the heroes portrayed the way they were in “City On The Edge Of Forever”, as being able to make the tough decisions despite their personal feelings.

287. asc1138 - September 9, 2008

I hate to sound superficial, but Shatner is too fat and bloated to play a respectable Kirk anymore. There, I said it.

THE WOMEN!!

Application of Star Trek values at its finest. Do you even know what Star Trek is? Judging someone by their appearance is anything but Star Trek.

People get old and fat, get over it

288. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

If I am wrong, why is every chick in this new movie hot and skinny?

There’s not a fatty to be found. All the peeps are good looking.

It has nothing to do with Star Trek and the values. That’s Hollywood, which is a reflection of society.

Don’t shoot the messenger. We were all THINKING it.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

289. justcorbly - September 9, 2008

What Abrams didn’t say is that Shatner wanted a paycheck in keeping with the expanded role he sought.

The problem with putting Shatner in a movie set before Kirk took the Enterprise out for his first 5-year mission is that Shatner is about 50 years too old to play that version of Kirk.

You could do some weird mumbo-jumbo and bring Kirk back in time, either instead of Spock are along with Spock. My guess, however, is that Abrams wanted to do a movie about Spock with Nimoy, and that the studio looked at the cost of hiring both Nimoy ans Shatner and said no. (Remember, the studio wants this movie to make a lot of money, something the Trek franchise hasn’t done for some time.)

290. Kirky - September 9, 2008

I’ve come up with a way to bring Kirk back, alternate universes!!! Spock could have brought Kirk back from an alternate Universe where he’s old and retired who craves excitement. Then the two of them off to the adventure!!

291. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

#287

“People get old and fat, get over it”

They die as well. And then they don’t get to be in the story anymore.

Sauce for the goose.

292. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 9, 2008

288. rehabilitated hitch1969©

In two hundred years we will all be good looking and in perfect shape.
Evolution is playing its hand with natural selection. That’s the beauty of the future!

293. Kirky - September 9, 2008

Add in the Gurdian of Forever, and they could have brought Kirk back from an alternate universe, where he’s old and retired who craves excitement.

294. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#283.

A propos nothing, did you know that the first definition of “nauseous” is actually “CAUSING nausea or disgust”? Seriously.

Yours in arcane non sequiturs,

TNC

295. justcorbly - September 9, 2008

While I’m at it, let me just say that Starfleet is at least some kind of military organization. Today’s Shatner in no way resembles a Kirk who could pass an annual military physical. Neither did Doohan, for that matter. So, you can’t being Kirk back as a Starfleet officer. Frankly, I can’t imagine a credible Kirk that Shatner can play that Shatner would actually want to play, or that Kirk’s fans would accept. At least Nimoy looks like he might get through the Starfleet physical, although Spock became a civilian again long ago.

Notions of playing games with the Nexus to resurrect Kirk are exactly the kind of thing this movie should avoid at all costs. You’d need to retell the story of Guinan and the Nexus and Picard and who knows what else. The audience would be confused and bored to tears.

296. Trek Nerd Central - September 9, 2008

#295. Good grief, this debate is getting strange. Hypothetical 23rd-century military physicals?

How do we know standards of beauty won’t change entirely between now and then? Hmmm? Maybe, by the time Kirk is in his mid-70s, the universe will be back to a Renaissance conception of beauty — Rubens’ saftig nudes, and all that. Surely the Shat would fit in there.

297. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

At the end of this movie when Spock goes back to the future, he could stop at Veridian III JUST before Kirk dies, grab the dying Kirk, puts him on life support, jettisons back to the future in time where Spock came back from, and have their modern day medicine save him.

No time lines disrupted, and we get back Kirk.

Of course I want a young, handsome, energetic Kirk. so I vote for a reboot with an altered timeline and new 5 year mission with these new actors at the helm. Would be Glorious

298. ByGeorge - September 9, 2008

They want to put fat, old, ugly people in the movie and then they wonder why the franchise is dying and can’t attract the younger crowd.

299. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#287—-”People get old and fat, get over it.”

Not that I think Shatner’s weight should play any part in the decision to leave him out of the film, but do you really believe that people will still be overweight and unhealthy (particularly in what will likely be the “middle aged” category by then) in the 23rd and 24th Century (especially in Starfleet)?

I would think there would be leaps and bounds in the realm of medical, nutritional and health science in practice by then…wouldn’t you agree?

You might see the occasional Harry Mudd or Cyrano Jones who obviously does not care, but a ranking Starfleet officer? I find that hard to believe.

Just some “non-fat” food for thought…

300. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

300th?

301. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

#296

Do the changing standards of beauty include the deceased? Because even if the Shat were in his prime, he’d be gettin’ a might bit ripe under them rocks.

302. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#295 “Today’s Shatner in no way resembles a Kirk who could pass an annual military physical.”

Who says he’d have to? Kirk has already retired at least twice that we know of. But when needed, he returns to provide the expertise few others can.

Honestly, every post about Shatner being too old/out of shape is pointless. Nimoy is thinner, but also more frail looking. They’re both the same age, and Bill has always looked like the younger of the two. If Nimoy isn’t too old to reprise the role, Shatner isn’t. Period.

303. star trackie - September 9, 2008

#295 “So, you can’t being Kirk back as a Starfleet officer.”

Of course not, the whole idea is absurd. If Shatner DID come back, I always thought it would be in the capacity of that character, somewhere in his 60′s or 70′s, long retired. Aging the characters has been one of the strengths of the TOS movies. Surely if Shatner was cast in a Trek movie you wouldn’t expect him to play an officer still in Starfleet? Or would you? After reading some of these posts I have to wonder if some people expect Shatner to fail because he can’t roll downhills and deliver flying jumpkicks anymore. Like they actually believe the story would even call for something so absurd. A 77 year old Shatner would be wonderful as a 77 year old Kirk, playing oposite a 77 year old Spock. Nothign more, nothing less.

304. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#303 … Great minds. :-)

305. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

My point is that Kirk is too dead. For my taste in heroes, at least. I don’t want another movie explaining how we brought back someone from the dead.

And trackie, it wouldn’t be a 77 year old Kirk with a 77 year old Spock, it would be a 77 year old Kirk with a 150 (or whatever 100+ years it is) Spock.

306. justcorbly - September 9, 2008

#296: Military physicals are not about beauty. They’re about fitness.

#299: Good point. People — humans — in the Trek universe commonly lead active lives well past 100. They can’t get there if they are overweight and pear shaped. Consider: We are to accept that Picard is in his 70′s and remains a very active captain. Shatner is actually in his 70′s. Look at Picard. Now, look at Shatner. See the difference.

#303: See also my assertion that Shatner would not want to play any version of Kirk that Shatner can now reasonably play. Catch 22: If you wrote a credible Kirk for Shatner, he would balk at playing it.

And, like I said, Abrams obviously wanted Spock in this movie, for reasons we will need to see the movie to evalulate. Bringing in Shatner would have bumped the payroll beyond the studio’s tolerance. I’ve seen no indication that including Shatner, or Nimoy for that matter, will have a meaningful impact on ticket sales. All us Trek freaks don’t really count for much to the accountants and bankers.

307. spooky - September 9, 2008

182. “Please don’t put Shatner in the next film–assuming there is one. Time for TREK to move forward and let another group of actors take command.”

How is is retreading old established territory with new hip actors moving forward?

If they wanted to move further, the could have made a movie taking place further in the future. The star trek future is looking less futuristic and more nostalgic these days. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still excited about the movie but when I see it and if it feels right. I will let you know if its a huge mistake or not.

308. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

Why should the new guys have to fix Generations? I mean if they wanted to, then cool. But obviously they came up with a story that was theirs. Generations stands by itself, and should be considered canon. Kirk’s been dead for 15 years. The Trek franchise for atleast 5 years.

It was nice for the new guys to even consider Shatner and Nimoy, and gracious to include the one that was less problematic. It’s going to be a glorious movie. I look forward to the sequels with new cast only.

It’s time to say goodbye to Shatner and Nimoy. Just as we started to in 1991 with Undiscovered Country – it’s been long and drawn out. But after this movie, it should be complete.

YOU WIMMINZ ON YO MIND!!

=h=

309. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#306 “See also my assertion that Shatner would not want to play any version of Kirk that Shatner can now reasonably play.”

Explain that one if you can?

310. AJ - September 9, 2008

BND:

For some reason, I had a vision of a new Kirk death scene based on “Lethal Weapon,” where Danny Glover’s loo blows up thanks to you.”

Soran: “Hey, fatso! How about a little of the old Ludwig Van?

Kirk: “Hey, son. I’m on the can. Can you keep the noise down? And I’m not that fat. I’m just bloated.”

Picard: “Not good enough, dammit, NOT GOOD ENOUGH!”

Soran: “You Trek Captains are too weird. Me droogies and I are gonna blow up the fatty’s bog.

Kirk: “Who took the Sports section?”

BLAMM!

311. spooky - September 9, 2008

298. “They want to put fat, old, ugly people in the movie and then they wonder why the franchise is dying and can’t attract the younger crowd.”

It worked for Grumpy Old Men, Cocoon, and The Golden Girls TV Series. The reason the franchise died was the same show runners stayed on too long without taking a break from the same formula being utilized over and over and over again. As for attracting younger crowds, if it doesn’t involve sex, drug use and slow motion cgi violence then I seriously doubt they’ll be coming in droves.

312. justcorbly - September 9, 2008

#309: Shatner’s ego. I think he’d want to play Kirk as a dashing dynamic hero, and he can’t. He could play Kirk as a slightly gone-to-seed, tired and troubled character. Frankly, that would have a lot of narrative value, but I just don’t see him doing it.

313. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 9, 2008

#307

“I’m still excited about the movie but when I see it and if it feels right. I will let you know if its a huge mistake or not.”

You do that, chief. I tell ya’, we’ll be waitin’ on pins and needles til then.

All Hail Zombie Kirk.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
BTW, if you like the idea of bringing back Kirk from the dead, and didn’t like how he died in Generations, don’t read The Return. It will fix nothing.

314. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 9, 2008

#312 … An assumption on your part. Kirk didn’t do anything particularly physically demanding in TWOK, but boy was Shatner great in the role. He always shines just as brightly in Kirk’s quieter moments as he does in the action scenes.

315. Nightmare - September 9, 2008

“Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that.”

>I Agree, They should found a smarter filmaker.<

316. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

Does anyone know if Chris Pine wears one of those “promise rings”? All the kewl kids these days are doing it. This I learned from the Jonas brothers. Ok, at first I thought it sounded really lame. I mean really lame. But then I figured out what these kids game was. It’s a variation on the old “wearing the wedding ring to the bar” scam. Like tell me these young rocksters aren’t knee deep in leg on the road. SO that’s what it is – an open challenge to all the groupie chicks. Yo, check out my virginity ring! Who wants to be the first????

Its a great scam and I hope that Pine and Quinto are doing the same thing on the set of the Star Trek. Old Quinto going on and on about the “stillness” of the center of his characters but the promise ring saying “love me wrong, love me right… I dont care baby, just love me tonight!” Oh yes. Oh yes. Those dudes are playas.

YOU GOTS WIMMINZ ON YO MIND!!

=h=

317. Jeffries Tuber - September 9, 2008

The obsession with Shatner is actually turning me off Shatner.

The writers, art directors and cast as a whole are what made TREK so great.

The fact that it was invented in the post-Kennedy, pre-68 1960s is also a huge factor. The events of ’68 and then Watergate changed our sense of ourselves. SciFi became increasingly bleak thereafter.

Anyway, Shatner’s work is done. We love his contribution, but enough with the idol-worship.

318. Boborci - September 9, 2008

315

OUCH

319. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 9, 2008

Yo Orcster™, got a promise ring too?

You’re mac in the pants, bro. Don’t EVEN worry.

=h=

320. Kirky - September 9, 2008

#317 Get over yourself!

321. justcorbly - September 9, 2008

#312: Everything everyone says here is assumption. Also, I wan’t talking about the physicality of Shatner’s early roles. I believe Shatner would want to play Kirk as a dynamic and active hero, just like he was decades ago. Whether Kirk is sitting in a chair or running down a bad guy, Shatner cannot convincingly play a dynamic and active hero anymore.

Nimoy has an edge because we watched Spock age into a senior diplomat and sage. All Nimoy needs to do to remain convincing is walk and move his hands on occasion. :-)

322. Dom - September 9, 2008

People in the future could presumably look as they want to! Grow old gracefully or see a plastic surgeon! Got an enlarged heart? Buy a plastic one! Getting fat, nip down to the clinic for liposuction. Breasts not big enough? Get a boob job! Having an identity crisis? A man can get turned into a woman or vice versa!

Vanity or lack thereof will always be here! I’m sure lots of people in the future will happily pay for all sorts of body redesigns! That said, Kirk might be a hefty guy in his later years and simply have accepted his old age.

Also, I regard the TNG universe one as a separate one from TOS that simply uses some bits of TOS for backstory! That way, for me, the last time I properly saw the TOS crew together was on the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A in Star Trek VI. Kirk, Scotty, Spock and Chekov in Relics, Generations and Unification were simply the TNG universe versions!

323. Andrew - September 9, 2008

How about Shatner returns in this movie only to die again?

Whatever events in the story bring old and young Spock together cause a change in the timeline, one in which Kirk is alive because it means Veridian III never happened, but to rescue the day, Kirk must restore the timeline at the cost of his own life.

Yes, that’s right, I just ripped off the TNG episode Yesterday’s Enterprise and cast Kirk in the role of Tasha Yar.

Actually, I prefer a timeline shift during the course of the movie that allows Kirk to be discovered alive at the end as a cliffhanger set up to the sequel.

324. VOODOO - September 9, 2008

Yet another 300 plus post story about Shatner as Kirk.

325. British Naval Dude - September 9, 2008

I still wanna see this movie…

It’s not yerrr Shatnarrrrr’s Oldsmobile…

And that be OK…

Now I thought Baird’s Nemmy-sissy wuz good… not great… bad ending… but still good…

Starry Trek films need a bigger canvas than what tha’ show intended…

Tha’ TOSsy crew could fill it up… and that’s what JJ and Orci try ta’ be doin’…

But I’m no Trekkite… I just like tha’ setting o’ it all… a better tomorrow full o’ folks tryin’ to be right by thar’ fellow man and alien… I’ll pay and I’ll like it I believe… Much like a man who visits a rather round hooker… I’ll get what I want I need, not what me fevered brain wants… and if it be bonny, I have me videotape ta’ enjoy later…

326. Nightmare - September 9, 2008

>I Agree, They should have found a smarter filmaker.<

318. Boborci – September 9, 2008
315
OUCH

I’m sorry Bob, but any true fan of James T. Kirk would not let him die in such a manner. If given the chance to correct this injustice and satisfy millions of fans and become a instant hero himself, I would have FOUND A WAY !!

I don’t know what the script is, but I hope this is what you are doing.

Just have Shatner and Nimoy together one last time, that’s all we are asking. Even if it’s for a couple of minutes.

327. MAT - September 9, 2008

Maybe Shatner has an EGO or maybe not. I am starting to believe that Abrams arguably has an EGO. Lets face it, cloverfield sucked in terms of $$ for entertainment value. I think that it is possible Abrams is only in filmaking for himself and not really considering his audience as such with previous TREK movie producers. It really strikes me odd that a writer has writers block or a director has a self-imposed continuity issues with paying homage to a previous cast member of the franchise who played an important role.

328. Green-Blooded-Bastard - September 9, 2008

**318. Boborci – September 9, 2008

315

OUCH**

Bob, forget about that crap. Not bringing Shatner back has nothing to do with brains, rather, taste. Amazing how many “purists” cry about canon, then whine when Kirk isn’t brought back to life, thus ignoring…what’s that word? CANON. He’s dead. forget it. That’s first. Second, Shatner himself said he wouldn’t do it if the movie essentially didn’t revolve around him (Kirk), and this movie from all told isn’t about Kirk, it’s about Star Trek, so even if he would do a cameo, it’s to please who, a few posters here who never got to kiss Kirk goodbye in Generations? Sit-down and behave. Enough already. If ANY of you think you could do it better, approach Paramount with a script and ask for funding. Bring Shatner on board and show us how you would have done it.

In the mean-time, I’m sure Abrams and the rest of the crew thought for a long time about how they could have done it without making the film look like schlock, and it just wasn’t in the cards. Can’t you just be happy a Trek film is coming out, or would you rather there be no Trek films ever if Shatner can’t be in them?

Movies are art, and a director and the writers and their people paint a picture. Star Trek is going to be seen from the perspective of a great group of artists, and I can’t wait to see their interpretation of what’s already a masterpiece.

329. Energize - September 9, 2008

There’s millions of Kirk stories around. Can’t we get something new?

330. MAT - September 9, 2008

328 – You’re Selfish.

331. Smike van Dyke - September 9, 2008

Well, I really think it’s cool of Bob to come here and interact with the fanbase.

That said, I really believe there must be some point to staying true to canon in the OLD timeline. The events of GEN won’t be changed in the old timeline, the timeline that lead to a future of which Nimoy-Spock will embark on his greatest adventure of all.

Now, with the NEW timeline…it is a completly different story. We are actually heading in a bright new future were everything you’ve seen is just one possible outcome. In this timeline, Kirk might not die that way at all. But that is not part of the this film’s story!

While this movie possibly interacts with Timeline 1 (TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-Nimoy-Spock going back) it will most certainly result in a profoundly changed Timeline 2…but giving away the (modified) circumstances of Kirk’s death will take away a lot of the newly invented suspense! In this second reality, we don’t know what will come. Kirk may die in Reboot Movie 3 or he may live forever and become a Q. But that is for the future to decide!

The old timeline is set, the new one isn’t. Otherwise that new movie series would be pointless…so no older Kirk just yet…

332. MAT - September 9, 2008

329 – Its not about a Kirk Story. It should be about a Trek story focused on TOS with a little respect to the original Kirk.

333. AJ - September 9, 2008

My opinion, as a fan, is to include the classic narration and theme. Hell, take the theme from ST Remastered, and let Shatner’s voice “Take us where no man has gone before” as he did in 1966. Bookend it with Pine’s narration. In fact, Nimoy’s from the trailer sounds a bit strained.

It would give a bit of that nostalgic feel like Dick Donner did in Superman as the curtains open at the start.

This debate is so toxic and so old. JJ Abrams left himself open to Nightmare’s response with that comment, but the response itself was rude and insults Mr. Orci whom I, and many here, have come to respect and enjoy as a contributor.

Like many here, I want to give “Fringe” a look because of his contributions to these forums, and I hope Anthony will allow comments on the show tomorrow.

334. PW - September 9, 2008

Do the powers that be realise that by not including Shatner as Kirk they are hurting their story dramatically as Spock would never ever abandon Kirk as he is like a brother to him. Kirk risked everything to save Spock and even lost his own son & destroyed the Enterprise in doing so. This is well documented & a central theme in many TOS episodes & movies.

Surely you cannot ignore this as it leaves more questions by doing so especially if Spock is aware of Kirk’s death he would do anything to save him.

Its still not too late to just get Shatner’s agent on the phone and say you have a cameo. I’m sure he would not turn it down to give the character a better ending and all the fans would be fully onboard to have their last Shatner/Nimoy scene.

Please make it so.

335. Smike van Dyke - September 9, 2008

That “debate” is pointless.

SHATNER is a cranky old man whose ego is in the way of making some really great Trek. I stopped caring about him along time ago.

Now, KIRK is a great character, decently portrayed by Shatner in his prime, that will on in some form or another forever!

Stop that Shatner Kult at once! There are ten Doctors so far, six 007s, six live-action Batmans, seven live-action Supermans and counting…and yes, there will be more Kirks…Pine AND Cawley are just the beginning!

If Chris Reeeve was still with us would you really want him to star in a Superman reboot??? There is absolutely no difference between Kirk and Superman apart from the fact that Kirk was born on TV and Supes in a comic book. But besides that, they are both fictional characters in intriguing universes and the actors can be replaced!

AND THAT IS A FACT…A FACT OF LIFE!

336. MAT - September 9, 2008

335 – I can see you how you wish to cast Trek in the light of other films. Obviously somewhere you lost what TOS was about. Where is the respect?

337. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#326—-”I’m sorry Bob, but any true fan of James T. Kirk would not let him die in such a manner.”

What does that have to do with Bob?

Bob didn’t write Generations. You have no idea what Bob wrote. Why should he bear the responsibility of “correcting” what you feel was (someone else’s) mistake?

He (and Alex) should be free to tell the story he wants to tell and feels is the best one out there. For all you know, it is. Wait until you see it before you pass judgement.

If, after that, you still feel like a “bring back the Shat” story would have been better, at least you won’t be ignorant in saying so…

338. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#328—-Well said, you green blooded bastard!

339. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#334—see post 251.

340. Mike Thompson (UK) - September 9, 2008

Just read the story, still dissappointed.

Did they not talk to Bill about it.

Funny thing is he does do Cameo’s…………. HORRORWEEN (2009).

341. Xai - September 9, 2008

327. MAT – September 9, 2008
“Maybe Shatner has an EGO or maybe not.”
_We all have an ego, but if you’re not sure of the size of Shatner’s, you aren’t the Shat-fan I thought you were.

” Lets face it, cloverfield sucked in terms of $$ for entertainment value.”

_Someone must have thought it had some value. It grossed $170+ million in box office and $29 Million in DVD sales.

” I think that it is possible Abrams is only in filmaking for himself and not really considering his audience as such with previous TREK movie producers.”
If you truly believe that, you’ve just climbed out from under a rock or haven’t really kept up with things.

” It really strikes me odd that a writer has writers block or a director has a self-imposed continuity issues with paying homage to a previous cast member of the franchise who played an important role.”

_ That “previous cast member” had a scene written with him in mind, but wanted a much larger role in a movie that was essentially done or in a draft stage. He didn’t want the “homage”, he wanted chunks of screentime and likely a much larger paycheck.
—————————————

233. Iowagirl – September 9, 2008

You have the insults down pat, keep working on the parody.

342. PW - September 9, 2008

#339

The human part of Spock often made illogical decision where his feelings for his captain were concerned.

Did you ever watch ST4?

Kirks echo is still alive in the Nexus anway how hard could it be for Spock to retrieve him from there for a happy ending. Does not even need an explanation onscreen as most true TOS fans know this anyway.

343. Nightmare - September 9, 2008

337. Closettrekker – September 9, 2008

#326—-”I’m sorry Bob, but any true fan of James T. Kirk would not let him die in such a manner.”

What does that have to do with Bob?
Bob didn’t write Generations. You have no idea what Bob wrote. Why should he bear the responsibility of “correcting” what you feel was (someone else’s) mistake?

>Call Me Ignorant !!!
Hey Idiot, read more than the first line why don’t cha.

I never said he wrote Generations, but he has the chance the correct what was wrong with it.<

Go back to you closet. THPTTTT!

344. Robofuzz - September 9, 2008

All I can say about putting Shatner in the film is: “He would have found a way. If there was that much at stake, Spock would have found a way.”

345. Anthony Pascale - September 9, 2008

Nightmare
warning for flaming

And in general I think people need to calm down and stop getting personal

346. Alec - September 9, 2008

It is canon that Kirk died. It is not canon that Kirk must stay dead. Kirk can be resurrected whenever a filmmaker decides to do so; and, given that Star Trek is a science fiction film, this is very easily done. If we adopt a case of ‘He’s dead. Forget it.’, we should object to the resurrection of Spock in Trek III: he died in II. Clearly, neither Spock nor Kirk’s death is, or was, final. ‘There are always…possibilities’. We hear that the Trek team has watched ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’. I wonder what they thought of Tasha. After all, she died, in cannon, did she not? Hmmm…..fascinating. If only Shatner did cameos!

347. Alec - September 9, 2008

I apologise for my typo in my previous post: yes, the embarrassing extra ‘n’ I put in ‘canon’.

348. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#343—Tone it down, buddy. “Ignorant” is not an insulting name, but an adjective to describe someone who lacks enough information. You haven’t seen Bob’s film, so how can you have determined that someone better should have undertaken the project? That is an “ignorant” conclusion. Once you have seen the film, you will have the proper information to pass that judgement. That’s all I said.

This is a mature discussion. It’s not personal. Try to adhere to that, huh?

And I read your entire post. It is apparent to me that the only prudent option to you was for them to write a story that “corrected” the death of Kirk in Generations. My point was that since Bob didn’t write it, he shouldn’t bear the burden of “correcting” it.

“I never said he wrote Generations, but he has the chance the correct what was wrong with it.”

And you used that as the basis for the conclusion that someone (better) else should have undertaken the project. I find that lacking the proper information to make that assertion. In other words, I find it “ignorant”.

349. MAT - September 9, 2008

341. Xai – September 9, 2008

- Certainly Shatner has an EGO, I will wait for his answer in a news release to balance out how skewed we are lead to believe it may be.

- $170 + $29 in todays’s dollar is pawltry.

- I did state that it is possible not verifiable and i base that on how he releases his decree’s on this movie.

- I will wait for a response from Shatner, I am sure it is forthcoming.

350. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#342—-Illiogical decisions are one thing. Irresponsible ones which put billions at risk are something else.

Let’s say Spock didn’t go back in time to do it (and thus did not put the timeline and the fates of billions in jeopardy)…

Spock is on Romulus at the end of “Unification”. It is clear that his intention is to stay there to facilitate political change in the RSE.

How would he even know about what happened on Veridian III?

I doubt the Romulans would allow subspace communication between Picard and Ambassador Spock anytime Jean-Luc wishes to chat during tea time. By the time Spock learns about Kirk’s appearance and death on Veridian III, those events would likely have been several years in the past.

Like Nimoy says, “He has been moldering for some time.”

351. Xai - September 9, 2008

I know some find it fascinating to think that another Shatner thread went over 300+ posts. It only proves people like to argue.

It’s time for a new subject.

352. MAT - September 9, 2008

Abrams should have just stayed quiet on the matter of Shatner. Instead he chose to fan the flames and this has pushed the Pandora’s box of Trek fans wide open. This movie might or might not be remembered for what it will be without a definite mention of who did not appear in it.

I don’t think this topic will die anytime soon and its a long way until May… on my birthday no less.

353. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 9, 2008

328. You-Green-Blooded-Bastard

I took a shot at it. Bob liked it too.

Google TrekMadeMeWonder and let me know what you think.

354. rosequartz - September 9, 2008

318. Boborci

Ouch.

I don’t comment much, usually just read. But I am sometimes embarrassed by the rudeness of some people.

Bob, thanks for writing the script and for coming here to let us know we count.

355. MAT - September 9, 2008

354. rosequartz – September 9, 2008

That is because we are the internet marketing department for the movie.

356. Alec - September 9, 2008

#352:

Perhaps J. J. feels that the ‘is Shatner in the film’ debate sparks even more interest in his movie. We Trekkies are very much preoccupied with it, even though we do not all agree on the matter. Also, reporters, critics, etc., seem quite interested, too. As such, he may be quite happy to ‘stoke the fire’ in the knowledge that, when the film nears release, this issue will most probably be on the back burner…

357. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#352—-That’s hilarious!

People have been clamouring for months for JJ to explain what was done!

Now he gives the fans the explanation they want….ok.

Here you are saying he should have kept quiet about it!

It seems that no matter how open or closed he is about the subject, he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place…Someone will be disenchanted…

Try being fair to the man.

358. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 9, 2008

I’d give Spock a pass on dyng (or, for Nimoy choosing for Spock to die) in Trek II as they actually had it in mind that he would be comming back in Trek III.

Remember.

Not so with Generations.
But still this movie does seem to have all the right pieces in play to see old Kirk again, one more time.

359. rosequartz - September 9, 2008

#357 Closetrekker

Exactly. These guys are opening up the francise again. Give them a break…They wrote it and are being condemned before they are even out of the box. Debate is great; but that’s no excuse for just being mean to a guy who came here to talk about his project.

360. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#358—-I’ve yet to hear of anything that will work without seeming too contrived to me, or requiring my favorite character (Spock) to behave inappropriately.

Someone will be upset either way.

Let’s wait until May top decide whether their story was the best one which could have been told. It’s impossible to make that determination now either way.

361. Xai - September 9, 2008

349. MAT – September 9, 2008

“Certainly Shatner has an EGO, I will wait for his answer in a news release to balance out how skewed we are lead to believe it may be.”

_We have recieved far more information from the Bad Robot team regarding Shatner’s possible participation than from the man himself. I know that he’s been quoted from months ago that he didn’t know what JJ wanted when they met. Perhaps now he will recall the part he turned down.

“$170 + $29 in todays’s dollar is pawltry.”
_ Really? Not bad for a movie that only cost $25M. I’d take $175+ million gross for a little monster flick. Sorry if it’s not enough for you.

“I will wait for a response from Shatner, I am sure it is forthcoming.”

I’ll be interested to hear what he says this time too. I also think the most telling information will be forthcoming just before or just after Star Trek’s opening in May. It always seems to happen that way.

362. Daoud - September 9, 2008

Well, isn’t this Shatner in Trek discussion almost…. viral!?!?!

Hmmmm, bonus Doritos for Boborci :)

363. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

Typonians again…”top” should have been “to”. Sorry.

364. rosequartz - September 9, 2008

Shatner wasn’t at the Creation Ent. Las Vegas Convention this August. It was Nimoy and Quinto. As soon as the 2009 site went up for August 2009 Convention, Shatner was up as the first guest, Nimoy as the second. Back together again. Showing solidarity…

365. New Horizon - September 9, 2008

>342.
>Kirks echo is still alive in the Nexus anway how hard could it be for Spock >to retrieve him from there for a happy ending. Does not even need an >explanation onscreen as most true TOS fans know this anyway.

That would be grasping I think. The only reason Guinan left an ‘echo’ in the Nexus is because she had been ripped out of it when Scotty beamed them out, as she explained earlier in the movie. Probably a lot more people ended up like that. Kind of like the transporter accident that split Riker. Kirk left the Nexus of his own free will…he wasn’t split in two.

Shatner had a choice as to whether or not to kill off the character, he took the money and ran.

What would resurrecting the old Kirk achieve anyway? It’s another chance to see them on the screen together, yadda yadda, I know…but come on…let go already people, let go. Star Trek 6 was a proper good bye and Shatner chose to ruin it by being in Generations. Leave it.

366. Xai - September 9, 2008

Bonus Doritos for Bob Orci???

Hell! Combat Pay for Bob Orci!!

I couldn’t sit at my screen and read what some have written about him, his writing partner, JJ or their “baby” without telling someone “Up your shaft”.

I commend Bob for being a regular poster here.

367. MAT - September 9, 2008

357. Closettrekker – September 9, 2008

What does being fair have to do with open discussion of subject of Shatner not being in this film? Regardless of my thoughts on the matter the movie will be what he wanted it to be. Nothing wrong with a harsh critique of this movie. I would never say that Abrams should stop making films. I just think he only seems to make films for the $170million worth, what about the $500million worth that unites us all in the project.

368. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#367—-You need to go back and read my post and recall the one you made to which I responded.

You can share all the opinons you want about Shatner’s absence from this film. That’s not what I said was unfair.

You said, “Abrams should have just stayed quiet on the matter of Shatner. Instead he chose to fan the flames…”

I said, “That’s hilarious!

People have been clamouring for months for JJ to explain what was done!

Now he gives the fans the explanation they want….ok.

Here you are saying he should have kept quiet about it!

It seems that no matter how open or closed he is about the subject, he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place…Someone will be disenchanted…

Try being fair to the man.”

369. Xai - September 9, 2008

367. MAT – September 9, 2008

I’ll jump on that one.
Try $397.5 Million +$49.6 Million (DVD) on Mission Impossible 3 and without William Shatner.

But I’m sure that’s small potatoes too…

370. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#367—”I just think he only seems to make films for the $170million worth, what about the $500million worth that unites us all in the project.”

That’s what ‘Cloverfield’ made at the box office…. He also made ‘MI3′ and ‘Transformers’, both of which topped that significantly. Now he has been given a budget larger than the box office intake of the low budget ‘Cloverfield’.

Let’s reserve judgement on what JJ can do at the box office with an appropriate budget.

“Nothing wrong with a harsh critique of this movie.”

No, there certainly isn’t. But there isn’t a movie to critique yet. Or have you seen it?

371. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#369—Thanks, Xai. I had a feeling you weren’t far behind!

372. Xai - September 9, 2008

You just type so dam fast man…

373. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#372—Actually, the only reason I didn’t look up the numbers for MI3 was the fact that I KNEW you would be right there with it…

374. Xai - September 9, 2008

what’s that furniture company name, while we sit here in the foxhole waiting for the next salvo?

375. MAT - September 9, 2008

369. Xai – September 9, 2008

Your a knucklehead, but i thought it was funny.

376. MAT - September 9, 2008

Transformers the Movie = Director:Michael Bay

377. Xai - September 9, 2008

ok, so you’re an SOB, but I’ll laugh with ya..

378. Jabob Slatter - September 9, 2008

I love all the convoluted and non-canonical ways you guys want to bring Shatner back. But somebody earlier in this discussion was right:

Nimoy is more true to Spock today, than Shatner is to Kirk. After Wrath of Khan, Bill kind of gave up and played the character as himself. I personally think he betrayed what Kirk really would have become.

Nimoy, on the other hand, has almost always done justice to Spock (except for Final Frontier, but the script was awful.) But it doesn’t matter, Shatner didn’t want a cameo, which so many of you are suggesting. He’s out, and I, for one, will still see this movie eagerly.

379. Xai - September 9, 2008

you mean Michael “BooM” Bay?

380. MAT - September 9, 2008

Source Credit: Box Office Mojo circa 2006

‘Mission: Impossible III’ Doesn’t Thrill
by Brandon Gray
May 8, 2006

This franchise will self-destruct in three movies.

Count Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible among the mega-movie series that faltered by the third outing, joining Beverly Hills Cop, The Matrix and The Terminator among others.

Mission: Impossible III detonated with $47.7 million, below such other recent spy pictures as The Bourne Supremacy and Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

381. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

I’ll post my private email in the chatroom for you. I’ll give you the particulars in private, if you don’t mind. I’ll hook you up with our website and phone number via email. If you want a “custom” couch, I can probably work that out for you.

It won’t cost you anything to get a quote.

I’ll post it now, but then I’m going to watch “Fringe” on TiVo, I think.

382. Xai - September 9, 2008

ok, thanks Closet

383. MAT - September 9, 2008

I think I fell asleep in MI3, also in Narnia 2.

384. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#380—Who the heck is Brandon Gray? Never heard of him.

MI3 did far better than MI2…and I found it to be the most entertaining of the three.

And where does this $47.7 million come from? That’s about $300 million off…

385. Xai - September 9, 2008

#380 MAT

Mission: Impossible III

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $133,501,348
International Gross $264,000,000
Worldwide Gross $397,501,348
Home Market Performance
US DVD Sales: $49,646,591

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/MISS3.php

386. MAT - September 9, 2008

Source: Wikipedia

“In Ebert’s print review, he gave the film a score of two and a half stars (out of four), saying: “Either you want to see mindless action and computer-generated sequences executed with breakneck speed and technical precision, or you do not. I am getting to the point where I don’t much care.”[“

387. MAT - September 9, 2008

The Dark Knight

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $512,374,922
International Gross $437,200,000
Worldwide Gross $949,574,922

LOL Almost 1 Billion and no DVD Sales yet!

388. MAT - September 9, 2008

MI2

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $215,409,889
International Gross $330,800,000
Worldwide Gross $546,209,889

… and had a budget $30 million less than MI3

389. Xai - September 9, 2008

Holy Warp Core Breach, Shatner wasn’t in that one either!

390. MAT - September 9, 2008

lol, give Shatner a little respect, after all you would not have this forum today were it not for his popularity yesterday.

391. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#386—”Either you want to see mindless action and computer-generated sequences executed with breakneck speed and technical precision, or you do not. I am getting to the point where I don’t much care.”

He just summed up the whole MI series of films. MI3 was precisely what it was supposed to be.

Imagine what Abrams can do with something that has the substance of “Star Trek”, with the effects and action sequence capabilities displayed in MI3…I can’t wait.

#389—lol…

392. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#390—-This “thread” represents a “polarization” more than sheer “popularity”. If it was just a series of fans posting, “Shatner should have been in it”, it would have been finished already. There seems to be just as many posters in favor of his absence as there are those in favor of his inclusion.

It’s a passionate subject of debate, but not one-sided by any means…

393. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

Ok….now I’m really going to try to watch Fringe!

“Just when I thought I was out….They pull me back in!”—From the worst installment of the Godfather trilogy, by the way. Even Coppola couldn’t pull off a great number three (LOL)!

394. krikzil - September 9, 2008

Heh, what an interesting thread.

“We actually had written a scene with him in it that was a flashback kind of thing, but the truth is, it didn’t quite feel right. The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn’t want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly, which, frankly, he deserves….”

It doesn’t sound like this cameo went beyond the Supremes and actually to Shatner. Orci wrote it — and I can’t wait to read it next year!!! — but JJ says it didn’t feel right. So given that Shatner is saying he never talked to anyone beyond those original meetings in 2006, I’m still thinking it was all over back then in 2006. Shatner made it clear he wanted a bigger role and as JJ says, he deserved it, but the storyline couldn’t support because of Generations. (Also, if without Generations, Kirk might still be dead due to natural causes, right? I mean Spock, simply due to Leonard’s age, is going to be ancient for a Vulcan.)

Shatner’s “I don’t do cameos” was in October 07 so I still can’t see how that had any effect. Yes he was flip on that Shatnervision video but he wasn’t as adamant in the AP & Movieweb’s stories that same month (you know the one where he makes his notorious “bad business decision” remark!) —

“I would be reluctant to do something that had so little value as to be a cameo. I’m disappointed that the story that they chose to do does not include the character I play, having been in on the birth of Star Trek, I would love to have been in on the rebirth or the resuscitation of it….”

Reluctant isn’t a firm “no”. But whatever. Once we get to see what was written, we all might totally agree it just didn’t fit in the movie.

“again it’s the Shatner topic that brings out all the posts and strong feelings. Gee Bill is pretty powerful and able to generate buzz about the movie even when he isn’t in it. Makes you wonder what would have happened if he was in it?”

AnotherShatnerFan — and just wait. We fans may burn ourselves out on this topic by May but it will implode all over again come next Spring when the film’s campaign starts and the media weighs in. Shatner and everyone attached will be asked and asked and asked again.

395. krikzil - September 9, 2008

“You might see the occasional Harry Mudd or Cyrano Jones who obviously does not care, but a ranking Starfleet officer? I find that hard to believe.”

James Doohan as Scotty in the movies.

396. VOODOO - September 9, 2008

” I don’t do cameo’s” = I want the story to be about me and my overblown ego.

“I’m worth the salary” = Mr. paint ball videos would do a cameo if they paid him what he was asking.

While I am upset that the film makers couldn’t find a way to give Kirk a better ending (at least Shatner’s Kirk) I am more upset with Shatner for not accepting the role he was offered.

” The film would be better if William Shatner was in it”
- Leonard Nimoy

397. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#394—”Shatner’s “I don’t do cameos” was in October 07 so I still can’t see how that had any effect. ”

Maybe not that public statement, but Abrams comments to AMC certainly imply that he had become aware of Shatner’s feelings on the matter. Otherwise, what does this mean?

“The bigger thing was that he was very vocal that he didn’t want to do a cameo. We tried desperately to put him in the movie, but he was making it very clear that he wanted the movie to focus on him significantly…”

398. Littlenatey - September 9, 2008

Well, these comments will be going into the 400s it seems. So, here’s my contribution:

For Star Trek to continue it needs NEW FANS. I think we can all subscribe to this notion.

I am a rather new and young fan. I am almost 22 years old, and never cared one bit about anything Trek until about two years ago when my roommate had me watch TNG.

Now yes, I then fell in love with Trek and to date have watched everything except the last two seasons of Voyager.

My point: sticking a 70-something year old Shatner into this movie and going to great lengths to explain how he is there would be terrible. It would be convoluted, and those new fans we are looking for . . . well we’d lose them for sure.

Secondly, as I’ve seen it come up on this site many times, is the look of the movie. There seems to be a small faction of folks who won’t accept this movie unless all the original sets and props are used. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Look, I like TOS. I like some of the stories. However, overall, as a young and new fan of Trek, it is cheesy as hell. If you were to put that dated and obsolete set up on the screen those new fans we’re looking for would walk out of the theater laughing like crazy or wanting their money back.

Personally, I can’t wait to see TOS “re-invigorated.” I take that to mean the same characters, the stories we know and love, just with a beautiful face lift. Shag carpets and spaceships that look like a fun house are a thing of the 60s, and that’s where they should stay.

399. Jabob Slatter - September 9, 2008

I wouldn’t point to the mindless action of MI3 as a warning sign, because JJ’s TV shows have emphasized not only action, but deep character development as well. MI3 was a victim of its script, and Tom Cruise. JJ was a novice director. Nicholas Meyer wasn’t too experienced either when he directed TWOK.

You haters just don’t have a shred of Vulcan logic when it comes to your reason to hate the Star Trek film, which hasn’t even come out yet.

400. SDF - September 9, 2008

Why not use Shatner in a sequel? The Scotty thinking Kirk is alive loophole could work very well. The enterprise crew could use time travel to help Kirk in the 24th century and save him and bring him back to the point where he disappeared and Scotty finds Kirk near the gapping hole in the Enterprise B still alive. Then the first enterprise can go back to their own time. This could work without them ever being discovered because the Enterprise C is crashed therefore no sensors plus the Nexus could have also knocked out sensors on the B. This could be an interesting sequel if this were to happen because Shatner would have a bigger role since Nimoy either wont be in it or he could be more gracious than Shat and do a cameo that would send the enterprise on their mission to save Kirk. Any thoughts?

401. Andy Patterson - September 9, 2008

Wow! This has become some thread.

402. VOODOO - September 9, 2008

Upset #188

I hate to admit it, but there is a part of me that agrees with what you are saying. I lost nearly all interest in the franchise after Kirk was given the single worst death of any major fictional character in history. I agree with you 100% that “the characters death was ridiculous”

That said how can you hold this creative team responsible for a 15 year old film that they had nothing to do with?

Could they find a way to right that wrong? My guess is yes, but their goals here are clearly bigger. They are trying to re-launch a billion dollar franchise to a new generation. Clearly a 70 something William Shatner is not the future of the franchise. Shatner seems to have been his own worst enemy here.

He is the one who keeps going around saying that he doesn’t do cameos and that it is a “bad business decision” for him not to be in the movie.

My guess is that if Shatner was not dictating to them what the size of his role should be they could have and would have put him in the film. Maybe they thought he wasn’t worth the trouble if he was going to tell them how to write their own movie?

As to your last comment “we know the ending, and it stinks”
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that Kirk (Pine’s version) will somehow get a better ending than Shatner’s version?

403. krikzil - September 9, 2008

Heh Closettrekker — How the heck are you?

“Maybe not that public statement, but Abrams comments to AMC certainly imply that he had become aware of Shatner’s feelings on the matter. Otherwise, what does this mean?”

As I said, I believe that was about all about those early pitches in 2006. I image Shatner was his usual ball of energy, with a million ideas and wanted Kirk to have a good sized role. Heck, it worked on Generations — I think they did accomodate him there (sadly!!!!!!!!!). And I’m sure they heard the October remarks given how wide the AP story went but what could it possibly have mattered by October if they hadn’t spoken to him and JJ had already dismissed this new cameo scene as “not feeling right”? (I want to read it SO badly.) But to me, “reluctant” isn’t a complete “no”. Who knows if JJ had thought the scene worked and if they had actually called him what might have happened.

Ack! I reread my Scotty comment above and I want to clarify. I meant absolutely NO disrepect to Mr Doohan. I loved the guy and I honestly don’t care what anyone looks like. It was just an observation.

404. Jabob Slatter - September 9, 2008

#400 – But James Doohan is no longer with us. How can Scotty be on the EB in this movie you propose.

Thanks but no thanks. I want my next Trek movie to just use the new actors. I think Leonard will hand it off to them. If Shatner in Trek movies sold tickets, they would have kept making them with him. It wouldn’t matter his age or weight or his acting, if they were profitable enough we’d have seen more.

His role in another Trek film would only attract diehard fans, of which there already weren’t enough to support new films. That’s why they have to attract new people, and those people don’t want to see Shatner.

Otherwise, they’d have seen the other films.

Just my stupid opinion. I’m not a Shatner basher. I love his Kirk, and I love Denny Crane. I just think his time for Kirk has passed. Just as Adam West no longer plays Batman.

405. Dr. Image - September 9, 2008

Newsflash…
Fringe= Torchwood+Outer Limits (new)+X Files.

In other words- not only a disappointing mash-up, but one that seems rushed and uneven. Expected better.
Can’t say I’ll bother to keep watching.

406. ARGTREK - September 9, 2008

Shatner’s kirk died ! deal with it! yes, it was a crappy death, but resurrecting his kirk is a really bad idea , doing so would take half the screen time . And the old sets of TOS would look insanely cheap and horrible on the big screen . the kirk has died, long and prosper life to star trek!

407. sean - September 9, 2008

#405

Hot off the presses – I totally disagree! It was a fun and intriquing romp. I didn’t see *any* elements of Torchwood really, I think that’s a misplaced comparison. Torchwood – much like its parent show – is far more OTT. I’d say Fringe = Kolchak/Alias/Twilight Zone.

408. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#395—I think you missed the point. I was speaking strictly of plausibility in the future (in my opinion of course). I’m well aware of both Mr. Doohan and Mr. Shatner’s overweight appearance in some of the films, and frankly, I never cared about that much.
I was only speculating on whether things would actually be that way in the 23rd Century.

409. Closettrekker - September 9, 2008

#407—I agree. It was just a pilot, and we all know how that works.

Both TOS pilots were in the same “work in progress” mold, as are most of them. I think Fringe has alot of potential. I’ll be watching…I expect the character relationships to gel better, which was, IMO, the weakest link in the pilot.

410. krikzil - September 9, 2008

“I was only speculating on whether things would actually be that way in the 23rd Century.”

I hope science progresses to the point where we can conquer what currently ails us. Given how far we’ve come just in the last hundred years, I think there’s hope.

411. ShaNaynay - September 9, 2008

Oh come on, JJ. Don’t even play like someone being dead is a creative obstacle for you. That’s your bread and butter on LOST.

412. ShaNaynay - September 9, 2008

i like how in almost every TREK movie/tv show, there was some form of flashbacks invovling dead characters (with the same actors) and in this one, there just can’t be one!

413. MAT - September 9, 2008

399. Jabob Slatter – September 9, 2008

Nicholas Meyer was the best thing that happened for the Trek Movies and the two movies he directed always seemed to right the wrong direction Trek made prior to it. (Sorry Gene, great concept, bad uniforms)

414. Jabob Slatter - September 9, 2008

Mat – TWOK is amazing. Undiscovered Country didn’t do it for me. So I guess I’m 50/50 on Nick Meyer. Still, if it weren’t for him, there wouldn’t have been other ST movies.

415. WTF - September 9, 2008

Well I hope they can fit in Shatner in the next movie then!

416. Thomas - September 9, 2008

Anyone else think this thread may top 500 posts?

I think a problem we’re facing is that we as Trek fans (this is in general)can’t look outside our niche to look at the big picture. I have felt, as others have, that Trek has badly needed new creative blood. We have that now in the form of JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, etc. Now, fans are clamoring for them to fix the “mistake” of Kirk’s death in GEN. That’s not their problem, and frankly, it’s more than a little unfair to think they must be tasked with fixing it. I certainly think they could’ve done it if, and this is a big IF, that had been the story they wanted to tell. However, indications seem to be that it wasn’t and that Shatner wouldn’t take what was offered.

Also, we have to consider the fact the mainstream audiences, whether anyone will come out and say it or not, are going to be the main target audience for this movie, not the pre-existing fans. If that were the case, we would just get another weak film like Insurrection or Nemesis. Yes, this movie will have things that will appeal to Trek fans but when the time comes and the promotional machine ratchets up, you can be sure it will play directly to the Non-fan crowd. That means no convoluted plot points that require an in-depth knowledge of Trek in order to wade through them (i.e. No Spock journeying to the Nexus to save Kirk and stop Soren on Veridian III).

We have been fortunate that someone working on the film will come here and talk to us, and occasionally respond to a comment. He doesn’t have to, and after some things some of us have said, he doesn’t have to come back. But he will, because he is interested in what we have to say.

(leaps off soapbox)

417. ShaNaynay - September 9, 2008

i still have not heard if they dont bring him back to life, why can there not be a flashback of the character? like they do on LOST all the time?

418. Boborci - September 9, 2008

366

Too kind.

Te truth is, we are SO LUCKY that we can’t complain, even about negative stuff.

419. Boborci - September 9, 2008

366

Not at all. We’re trying to be as open as we can without spoiling anything.

420. Boborci - September 9, 2008

354
Thank you, but don’t be embarrassed for others… healthy, strong debate is AOK.

421. Boborci - September 9, 2008

One last thing on this thread:

If we indeed manage to re-whateveryouwanacallit the Star Trek franchise (which I grant is a big IF), doesn’t that turns Kirk’s death into “a fighting chance to live?”

422. The Lensman - September 9, 2008

“doesn’t that turns Kirk’s death into “a fighting chance to live?””

Kirk’s chances are fine….it’s Shatners that aren’t great

423. Nightmare - September 10, 2008

Bob, I would like to apologize for the comment I made earlier. I realize it was rude of me.

I am just a humble fan of Shatner and Kirk, But when I see all of these posts bashing and slamming one of my childhood heroes, I just had to strike back. Unfortunately it was at J.J.

Like I said earlier, all I wanted was to see my Kirk & Spock (Shatner/Nimoy) together one last time, and this thread pretty much hit me hard.

424. Boborci - September 10, 2008

423

I hear ya…

425. Iowagirl - September 10, 2008

#281
Thanks for the “cute”! Actually, I know the difference (go figure), I just wanted to make clear that I think it should be possible to find a solution for Spock to save Kirk without having to risk the lives of millions and with random chance operating in his favor. Ya know logic sometimes actually is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. :)

#341
Thanks for the half-compliment! As the others did understand the parody, I suggest next time you wait until one of the wise guys laughs and join in. :)

426. MAT - September 10, 2008

424. Boborci – September 10, 2008

Bob, I liked Transformers, good movie, but why do writers and directors overlook details of the military if they are using it in their films?

427. MAT - September 10, 2008

423. Nightmare – September 10, 2008

lol, How do you know if your really chatting with bob orci?

428. MAT - September 10, 2008

416. Thomas – September 9, 2008

I don’t see to many asking to fix the mistake of the death of Shatners Kirk. I do see quite a few people looking to disreguard having Shatner appear in the movie and cry writers block.

429. Chris Pike - September 10, 2008

421 422 there will be a sequel, no doubt. ST 12, the Shat hits the fans. There are always possibilities…

430. MAT - September 10, 2008

This sounds funny but why not use real history in the new Trek movie to pay homage to Star Trek such as using JFK speaches or NASA countdowns or scenes from a show called Star Trek…

431. NateCalima - September 10, 2008

They should put John McCain in this movie, you know he’ll be around during that time. Admiral Macdaddy

432. Eccentricity - September 10, 2008

I grew up on the Original Series and I would love to see Shatner back as much as anyone else would but not at the expense of the film. This film may be the last chance we have to revive the trek franchise over the next ten years. If it fails in the box office like Nemesis did, it’s a safe bet that we won’t be seeing another Trek movie or series for *quite* some time. This movie needs to be believable and it needs to make money. The nice part about a prequel is that it’s almost impossible to violate canon without it being *very* obvious. None of this time period has ever been addressed so there’s no continuity to break unless you do something foolish like throwing the Borg in. Even so, right now I’ll take ratings over canon and continuity if it means getting a new series on the air. I’d love to see a Trek series set in the 27th century when the Federation launches it’s first intergalactic vessel.

433. Commodore Redshirt - September 10, 2008

RE: Boborci

Thanks for posting here and taking the time to interact with us.
I think you have done the impossible: You’ve made Trek HIP again…
I was a kid who wished and wished for Trek to comeback in the 1970′s when all we had were reruns. Trek has seemed to be dead forever only to be reborn again,
However, after many years and series, it had faided to nothing once again. This time I accepted it’s death. Trek was no more and I moved on.
And then the news about this new film and now Trek lives again…
…and it’s HOT! It’s HIP! It is being set up as a “Summer Blockbuster”…
Whaa?
Where did this energy come from…
Oh…YOU and the rest of the team behind ST2009!
Thanks for giving all of us old fans a real chance to see Trek again!

434. Spock - September 10, 2008

Canon is nonsense and I’m sick of hearing about it.

There has never been an episode of Star Trek since 1987 that respected ‘what came before’. And all of a sudden, when they’re making a new Star Trek film, they have to pay attention to the crap that Berman threw up for 20 years? Bloody hell.

I call bullshit. Throw out Generations, it was a terrible film.

435. neonknights - September 10, 2008

434. True. They should make a film respecting the original series not the Berman cr.p which came after it.

436. Ahmed Abdo - September 10, 2008

I totally agree with Andy’s post #9

“I haven’t been one of the ones saying he MUST be in this movie but canon or not if they wanted to get him in they could have found a way. This is sci-fi.”

If you are a fan of the other Abrams show, “Lost”, you will remember many dead characters on that show coming back in one form or another.

In movies, you can always find a way to bring dead people back, and they should have thought of something to bring Kirk back.

437. Alec - September 10, 2008

421#: ‘If we indeed manage to re-whateveryouwanacallit the Star Trek franchise (which I grant is a big IF), doesn’t that turns Kirk’s death into “a fighting chance to live?”

Yes. However, this film is, surely, the one in which Shatner’s Kirk should be resurrected, if he is to be resurrected at all. It would be very easy to put Shatner in this particular time-line, traveling story. A five min. cameo would, if Shatner agreed, show that his character has a future in this new time-line. I do not see how Shatner could be resurrected in a subsequent film, since the required story would be too similar to Trek XI, which would be bad business. Furthermore, would it actually make a good story? I cannot see how Kirk’s resurrection is important in the grand-scheme of things. That is why, in a small cameo scene at the end of the film, it could be dealt with in Trek XI.

‘He’s really not dead. As long as we remember him’ (TWOK movie script, p.104).

438. TheLovelyBonesMcCoy - September 10, 2008

I saw Fringe and I thought it was great. And characters appearing to die and then coming back was not a problem for the writing team. I think this group is plenty smart enough.

439. Arcadians - September 10, 2008

I really, really wanted Shatner to appear in this movie. And part of me still hopes he will – a man’s gotta dream!
But whether he’s in the movie or not, I’m still gonna be giddy as a schoolboy next May.
There. I said it. I feel better now.

440. Mike Thompson (UK) - September 10, 2008

Disappointed Bill is not in it

Still Think If Leonard was a NO then Bill would of got
the big role, with an adjustment to the story.

Looking forward to the older Spock in this movie. Very pleased about it.

441. star trackie - September 10, 2008

Bob Orci – Fringe was really cool. Naturally, it would’ve been better with Shatner in it… :)

….but as it was, it was a fun, suspensful, creepy hour and a half. I’ll definitely be back for more. Well done!

442. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#335 “SHATNER is a cranky old man whose ego is in the way of making some really great Trek.”

Yes. Pushing 80, being incredibly popular, in great shape and collecting all those emmys and a golden globe while starring in a hit TV series has made him a very bitter old man.

443. Earl - September 10, 2008

Liar, he doesen’t want Shat in the movie.

444. Danpaine - September 10, 2008

My GOD. 442 posts? 442? The title of this topic should have been “ABRAMS: WE ‘ARE GOING’ TO HAVE A SCENE WITH SHATNER”

Way to go, Mr. Shatner.

445. Daoud - September 10, 2008

#366 Combat pay, yes. But Doritos are good, too. :)

#1 Look what you started!

#335 He’s not really that cranky.

#442 Hey, he’s not 80 yet! But he is bitter… he wishes TekWar had lasted longer. However, I hear there’s a chance Bad Robot might remake that…

#443 Does too!

446. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

Assume Shatner never played Kirk, that someone else did.

Assume the actor who did play Kirk is dead.

How many of you would be happy if the current version of Shatner was signed to play Kirk?

447. shatnese - September 10, 2008

28/31 etc

i think i know…

shatner as JTKs grandfather on the farm in iowa

am i right?

448. Alec - September 10, 2008

#446:

?!! Imagine that today is Sunday. Imagine that the year is 1881. Imagine that the weather is cold. Now, do you still want strawberries and cream?

449. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#414—I agree. As great a job as Nick Meyer did in TWOK, TUC (although 10 times better than Shatner’s STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89) was lackluster, IMO. I’m also 50/50 on Meyer.

#441—-I also enjoyed it. None of the little glitches in the pilot seemed to have anything to do with the writing (just chemistry among the actors, which will grow, I’m sure). My wife and I are both hooked for at least a season…

450. Alec - September 10, 2008

450 posts! Does anybody know if this is a record?

451. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

Why aren’t the Shatner/Kirk worshipers angry at Shatner for being the one who killed off Shatner’s Kirk in ST7? Nobody could have killed off Shater’s Kirk except himself yet you direct you anger toward Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman?

It was Shatner who saw the Generations script yet, unlike Nimoy, accepted it and acted in it. It was Shatner who, when offered a role in this new movie, turned it down. It was Shatner who almost killed Trek off by writing, directing and starring in the biggest bomb the Franchise ever had – STV. Seems to me that the one who should be the most disliked for disrespecting the character of Kirk and the Trek franchise in general — Shatner gets a free pass from his kooky tunnel visioned fan base whereas these new producers, directors and writers, who had nothing to do with Shatner’s mistakes get the wrath of their anger. Get a life!!

452. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#437—-”Furthermore, would it actually make a good story? I cannot see how Kirk’s resurrection is important in the grand-scheme of things.”

No.

And it isn’t, in STXI or any potential sequel. I don’t think resurrecting Shatner’s Kirk for the sake of nostalgia was ever going to be beneficial to the story, or the future of the franchise.

453. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

#448: I’m just trying to figure out why so many folks here are fixated on Shatner, as if he was the only reason people like Trek.

I suspect Shatner thinks Trek revolves around Kirk, demanded that the new film revolve around Kirk, and demanded more money than the studio is willing to pay.

I’m a fan of the Kirk in the movies, but I find Kirk in the TV series an offputting blowhard marionette.

454. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

#452: And…

Why on Earth would a studio take the financial risk of launching a new Trek franchise by basing the first movie around the resurrection of the lead character played by an elderly man who, actuarially speaking, probably won’t be around to make the second movie?

There’s a reason we don’t see many elderly people underpinning movie franchises.

455. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#451—-All good questions…

456. Scott - September 10, 2008

“Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers
could have figured out how to resolve that.”

Yeah maybe so.
Better then a bunch of hacks who just
have crappy tv shows under their belts.
I’m sorry but Alias sucks.

My Woman went through a Alias phase once.
So I bought the first two seasons on DVD.
First off, whats with the lame music in scenes?
(Not the theme, the mtv frat boy stuff)
It rips off X-Files in one scene,
then later on its a bad Alt. Rock music video.

We never made through the end of Season 2,
before she sold all of them on Amazon.
Will Tippon is another one that hurts the brain.
Anyway lets let a guy who never has done any
cool Sci-Fi & put him in charge of a Star Trek movie?

I will see the movie anyway, cause Nimoy Rules!

Really in a way this is Rick Berman’s fault for dragging
Star Trek all the way down to the lowest shit hole at Paramount.
So they threw the keys to some guy with no Sci-Fi experience.

P.S. Lost is not Sci-Fi its SHIT!

“Well I hope I don’t suck.”

Oh you mean like the script for that GM car commercial did?
Micheal Bay’s Transformers sucks too.
Its funny how a story outline for a 80′s cartoon (Transformers G1)
tells a better story & has a better message then the mega million
MTV Independence Day crap.

457. Cervantes - September 10, 2008

Wow, well over another 200 posts since I last looked in yesterday, lol.

Now that the ‘powers-that-be’ have further confirmed that Bill Shatner will be nowhere to be seen in this ‘TOS’ Movie as a ‘future’ / ‘older’ Kirk, it remains a big disappointment to some, including myself, that this is the path that is set.

As someone who really wanted the ‘future’ / ‘older’ Kirk’s onscreen ‘disposal’ undone, so that this fictional character’s fate could be left ‘open-ended onscreen once again, I’ve been torn about this upcoming Movie. Especially where all it’s unfamiliar faces, and potentially maddeningly unfamiliar ‘altered’ look and touches are concerned, compared to the original TOS series….

However, since having resigned myself to Bill’s exclusion, and deciding to look on this as merely a totally different ‘re-interpretation’ of Star Trek :TOS, in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ‘alternative’ timeline, I am now looking forward to being comfortable with this re-envisioning of TOS, with it’s all it’s new faces, and no-doubt unfamiliar production design in many areas….

Rather than being confusing, It will be very pleasant to see Leonard in this too, given my new point-of-view that this particular ‘future’ / ‘older’ Spock is NOT the one from the original TOS series, but instead is just a DIFFERENT ‘alternative’ timeline / ‘alternate universe’ Spock who doesn’t affect, or relate to the actual TOS series / universe whatsoever! Therefore, although this Movie doesn’t show the ‘revival’ of the ‘future’ / ‘older’ Kirk character in any way, it doesn’t matter. Because this new point-of-view also lets me view TNG and everything that came after it, as merely nothing more than a totally different ‘alternative’ timeline / ‘alternate’ universe too….and that includes it’s totally different ‘future’ / ‘older’ Kirk too!

‘Canon’? Hah! I laugh in the face of ‘canon’. This Movie can be as true or untrue to the ‘canon’ established in the TNG series and the Movies that came afterwards, as J.J. likes. But like TNG and afterwards, as it’s just an ‘alternative’ timeline / ‘alternate universe’ product, compared to the ‘actual’, main timeline / universe that is the TOS series.

This point-of-view is interchangeable of course, and I am okay with any that wish to look on the TOS series itself as being an ‘alternative’ timeline / ‘alternate universe’ compared to the TNG series and Movies as being the ‘actual’, main timeline / universe…. This is ‘science-FICTION’ we’re talking about after all, and anything is, and should be possible…..
Thanks to my new theory, ‘future’ / ‘older’ Kirk still lives onscreen!
Enjoy the Movie!

458. Alec - September 10, 2008

#453:

‘I’m just trying to figure out why so many folks here are fixated on Shatner, as if he was the only reason people like Trek’.

Fans of Star Trek, of course, like Star Trek for various different reasons. We could, perhaps, explain Shatner’s appeal as follows. In the original show, he is the Captain: the top job. He is at the centre of, or at least integral to, most, if not all, of the episodes and movies of the original crew. His character is very interesting: almost the archetypal hero. He is one of the few ‘actors’ in Star Trek who could actually act (for Star Trek, see ‘City on the Edge of Forever’, ‘The Doomsday Machine’, ‘The Devil in the Dark’, TWOK, etc.) And, over the years, he has become nigh synonymous with Star Trek.

459. Earl - September 10, 2008

I demand that in the ST XII Shat have main role, that is only way for Abrams and Co. to reedem themselves.

Another way to redeem themselves is to make a DS9 movie.

460. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#456—-I’ve never seen ‘Alias” or ‘Felicity’, but I enjoy ‘Lost”(as do millions of others), and I thought that the ‘Fringe’ pilot was very promising last night. It sounds like you didn’t see it.

‘MI3′ was the best of that film series, and despite being handicapped by Michael Bay :(, I was pleasantly surprised that ‘Transformers’ was actually mildly entertaining. ‘Regarding Henry’ was a very good film also.

I am very much looking forward to seeing what Abrams can do with my favorite characters in STXI. It’s about time somebody woke up and revisited the 23rd Century…

Thanks Bob. And I was very impressed last night!!!

461. Iowagirl - September 10, 2008

#442
LOL

#450
Once we had more than 600 post on our most favorite topic. But this isn’t half bad either for some cranky old man in a scene that never was, isn’t it? :)

462. Earl - September 10, 2008

#457
That story about alternative timelines is utterly crap.

There is only timeline : ENT-TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-’till Nemeis

463. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

#451…

“Why aren’t the Shatner/Kirk worshipers angry at Shatner for being the one who killed off Shatner’s Kirk in ST7?”

I’ve answered this one a dozen times. Because at the time, 1994, the TOS era was OVER. No more movies were going to be made. People forget that part. If Paramount had wanted to continue, Shatner would have too. They didn’t. They offered him one last role. He took it. I agree that he shouldn’t have, or at the very least, he shouldv’e rejected the death scene. But he took it, having no reason to expect he’d ever be asked to return. Compare that to Nimoy, who in 1982 chose to kill off Spock just at the franchise was coming back to life. Nimoy also realized he made a mistake. Lucky for him, the TOS movie era was going strong, and the suits wanted him back.

“It was Shatner who, when offered a role in this new movie, turned it down.”

That’s a little presumptuous, don’t you think? JJ has given so many different answers to the question of why Shatner isn’t in the movie, none of us really have any idea as to what went on. The only thing we can maybe surmise is that there was a bit of back and forth between JJ’s camp and Shat, but no agreement and no conclusion.

“Seems to me that the one who should be the most disliked for disrespecting the character of Kirk and the Trek franchise in general — Shatner gets a free pass from his kooky tunnel visioned fan base whereas these new producers, directors and writers, who had nothing to do with Shatner’s mistakes get the wrath of their anger. Get a life!!”

Sounds like you’re the one getting angry. I plan to see this new movie and hope for the best. I just think Shatner could’ve and should’ve been included in a supporting role along with Nimoy.

464. Earl - September 10, 2008

#456
Tottaly agree.

And Alias is total rip-off of TV series Nikita with Peta Wilson (which is rip-off of French movie)

465. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#459—-”I demand that in the ST XII Shat have main role, that is only way for Abrams and Co. to reedem themselves.”

They don’t need to “redeem” themselves, as they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

They did not force (or even ask) Rick Berman to kill Kirk.

They did not force (or even ask) William Shatner to take that part.

They are not responsible for correcting Shatner’s or anyone else’s mistakes….

Get some perspective.

466. Earl - September 10, 2008

I forget to say that only people capable to make realy good Star Trek movie are: Manny Coto (ENT) and Ira Steven Behr (DS9).

467. Mike 1701 - September 10, 2008

Thank you Mr. Shatner for your inflated ego. If not for it, you might have actually appeared in this movie, something I absolutely did not want anyway!

468. Earl - September 10, 2008

#465
I assume that you’re workin’ for Paramount? Now, that brings some new light to your words. :D

469. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 10, 2008

I would like everyone to just think for a moment where the new guys are coming from. They’ve been handed this franchise – I don’t think that anyone could say that they’ve not approached everything respectfully of what came before it.

I think that to even consider Nimoy and Shatner in the early stages as they did – then to develop a story that does not disregard everything before it – so they based it around Nimoy and STILL tried to fit in Shatner.

“I don’t do cameos”, well everyone knows that Shat does do cameos… I don’t do cameos is Shatner’s way of telling the new guys to GO REWRITE THE ENTIRE STORY. Really – what are they supposed to do at that point?

I love Shatner but even I would give up on the idea then. You folks really need to appreciate what we have in the care thats been taken in this movie. The franchise could have went to anyone and they could have turned it into anything – maybe even killed it by not understanding it and arrogantly making it something it’s not. NO WAY are these guys doing this. You can trust them.

Orcster, watched the Fringe with the kid last night. Don’t know that I would have watched it other than having you guys connected to it… But still, it was good, and I hope that it catches on.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

470. Earl - September 10, 2008

#469
I recommend new episode of Burn Notice, Westen is legend. ;)

471. Alec - September 10, 2008

Star Trek has often had talented writers, lead actors, composers, etc. However, what Star Trek has always been poor at is special effects. Star Trek has seldom, if ever, looked fantastic. This is, perhaps, the most obvious and easiest change to bring about in this new film. I hope it happens. It would appeal to all film-goers, especially first-time and causal viewers. This is more important that a cameo performance.

472. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#453 “I suspect Shatner thinks Trek revolves around Kirk,”

And he would be right, Star Trek does, always has. Now the spin-offs that like to put the words “Star Trek” in their title….well, that’s a different story.

473. Earl - September 10, 2008

#471
“Star Trek poor at special effects” WTF????!!!!

Have you ever look TNG, TNG era movies, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise? Ore yor’re belongs to “basement type” Trekkies who only likes TOS?

474. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#472

Star Trek, for me, revolved around Spock. Always has and always will. Got turned off by Shatner stealing lines, changing scrips to make himself the hero and center of attention. Glad to see a new actor in the role. Shatner was a turn off for some.

475. Earl - September 10, 2008

#474
Star Trek revolves around Starfleet, humans , not arount pointy eared elves.

476. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

Agree, 472. They called it Star Trek, not The Adventures of James Kirk.

477. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#474 “Shatner was a turn off for some.”

lol boy did you get that right!

Darn shame he was the star and primary focus of the show that created the whole phenomena and sustained it for 40 years and counting. I guess a few folks liked him.

478. Alec - September 10, 2008

#473:

I have been a fan of Star Trek since the beginning. I have seen every episode (all 726 of them) and movie at least once. And I have seen TOS, TNG, DS9, and the movies MANY, many times. I am not much of a fan of Voyager or Enterprise.

Now, compared to many other films, the special effects in Star Trek are poor. This needs to be rectified, because the mainstream audience, in particular, are attracted to films with great special effects. For films with much better special effects, think of ‘The Matrix’, ‘2001…’, ‘Star Wars’, ‘Lord of the Rings’, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’; in short, most other blockbusters. With a huge budget and talented filmmakers, why cannot Star Trek look this good?

479. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#476

Well I McCoy!! I also realize that none of the 3 main characters would work well without the other 2. But I’m not sure how they would “explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and civilizations……” if Trek revolved around humans. If anything their mission revolved around non-humans. If it revolved around humans they could stay at home on Earth humanizing.

480. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#478

I’d say “the star and primary focus of the show that created the whole phenomena and sustained it for 40 years and counting.” was shared by many.

481. Anthony - September 10, 2008

“…and Scotty fights crime and can breath underwater…”

That makes me want to sit down and watch a double bill of “Hot Fuzz” and “The Ambergris Element”. :-)

482. Alec - September 10, 2008

#479:

They ‘humanise’ in space! Star trek, essentially, explores what it is to be human. It is a (human) morality tale. The technology, weekly aliens, etc., are just plot devices. The real story revolves around the relationship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy; and their struggle to make a difference. Cleverly, the character who is perhaps most instrumental in highlighting the human dilemma is the un-human Mr Spock. In TNG, this role falls to Data, of course.

483. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

They “humanise in space” because there are non-humans to humanize. Perhaps this is why I prefer TOS to the rest of the spin-offs. The vessel was one of exploration, scientific discovery, contact with new life and aliens. Later Trek became more militaristic and diplomatic, technodrabble, fantasy and soap operaish. To each his own, but Trek’s original mission was contact with never seen before aliens. Didn’t mind that some episodes were of a diplomatic, military, comedy, romantic, or rescue nature. Created variety and eliminated routine but the primary focus was exploration.

484. Alec - September 10, 2008

#483:

Yes: Voyager, in particular, and TNG and DS9, to a degree, often used technobable (ad hoc, fake science) to explain away problems and get out of difficulties; whereas, TOS relied more on human answers. I hope that there is no (or little) technobable in Trek XI.

485. Cervantes - September 10, 2008

By the way – #101 Harry Ballz

That was one of your best yet! :)

Big LOL!

486. Mike Thompson UK. - September 10, 2008

Re: Generations….

For me the best bits were Doohan, Koenig and Shatner.

Yes it could have been much much better, it was a missed opportunity and Berman and co are to blame.

I did not like the death scene, but for me it was better than just the Next Gen crew.

Spock would have found away of Saving Kirk either at the Point of Enterprise B or at Veridian 3, thats one reason out of many the film failed for me.

I was hoping this could have been addressed.

487. Cervantes - September 10, 2008

#462 Earl

That’s your point-of-view, and your entitled to it!

I now have mine, and can really enjoy this William Shatner-less reboot because of it….

488. Bruce P. - September 10, 2008

If indeed Nimoy’s Spock is either recalling or involved with the time period of this film (which may be many “times”) surely more than a cameo could have been worked for WS- something akin to Spock recalling times with his commander and friend. That said, Shatner has been THE character icon of fiction for our lifetime. He’s having an almost second childhood as Denny and being very entertaining as that character (though not for much longer- the show is going bye-bye). It’s his business to have sour grapes- he’s had them before regarding ST. But I would think revelling in a life of entertaining and, let’s face it- adoration that probably never crossed his mind while looking out at that wing monster would be more than any entertainer could imagine. Fair sailing all…. BP

489. Earl - September 10, 2008

#478 You mess up movies (SW, Pirates, etc.) with television series (with exception of movies) which are the one of the best effect among the televison shows.

490. Mike Thompson UK. - September 10, 2008

My mate said to me the other day, you will hate this new Star Trek movie.

I replied “I won’t cause Nimoy is in it” the story continues.

Looking forward to see what they’ve done to the ship, uniforms. special effects etc.

Just still sad Bill is not in it.

491. Mike Thompson UK. - September 10, 2008

That’s said, the reboot of Dr Who has been fantastic here in the UK.

Special effects, the music, the Tardis and respecting the canon.

492. Anthony Pascale - September 10, 2008

456/Scott
Warning for flaming
This site does not tolerate that kind of hostility, impoliteness and language.

493. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#463

“I’ve answered this one a dozen times. Because at the time, 1994, the TOS era was OVER. No more movies were going to be made. People forget that part.”

Actually it is you who is forgetting that the TOS era is OVER. Shatner killed off Kirk and this new movie starts a new Trek era. I hope for a reboot to the TOS era with the new younger original crew members again. I realize that the characters of Kirk/Spock and McCoy are essential to Trek more so than Shatner, Nimoy or Kelly are hence my desire to see Kirk/Pine, Spock/Quinto and McCoy/Urban soon.

” ‘It was Shatner who, when offered a role in this new movie, turned it down.’

That’s a little presumptuous, don’t you think? ”

I believe my “presumptuousness” is based on the OP we are commenting upon by Anthony Pascale. You seem to trust Shatner more than Abrams and the media. I am exactly the opposite. Shatner’s egotism and desire to make Trek revolve around himself is well documented. Unless he comes forward and denies his rejection of the role offered to him as referenced by the OP I cannot claim Abrams a liar.

“I just think Shatner could’ve and should’ve been included in a supporting role along with Nimoy.”

He was included – he rejected the role. Direct your anger toward its cause.

494. Mike Thompson UK. - September 10, 2008

“he rejected the role”

Was he really offered it……

495. Ken Hoyas jr - September 10, 2008

451

Nimoy killed Spock off and nobody seemed to care when he returned. Why can’t Shatner do the same?

496. Alec - September 10, 2008

#489: ‘You mess up movies (SW, Pirates, etc.) with television series (with exception of movies) which are the one of the best effect among the televison shows.’

I was always talking about the movies: ‘Now, compared to many other films, the special effects in Star Trek [films] are poor’. I’ll make that clear, here, to avoid further misrepresentation. I apologize if I was not clear. If you disagree with me, regarding the quality of the special effects in the Star Trek films, fine. We are each entitled to our view. However, I think it is rather difficult to think of any BLOCKBUSTER, sci-fi or otherwise, that has worse special effects than the Star Trek films. Of course, many Star Trek films are old; but, even so. Why cannot Star Trek look great? With the budget and talent, it ought to look as good as ‘Minority Report’, ‘I Robot’, ‘2001’, ‘Star Wars’, ‘Lord of the Rings’, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, etc. Thankfully, J. J. has said that he will sort this out…

497. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#495

I WAS PO’d at Nimoy for not valuing the character he played, allowing it to be killed off so we would be denied more stories and films about the character. I blamed Nimoy not everyone else under the sun except himself. Why are you guys down on the new directors and writers instead of being angry with Shatner? Shatner bears the blame.

I do appreciate the character of Kirk. Trek would not have worked well without his part of the triumverant. Shatner played the role well enough to make TOS as popular as it was. I wouldn’t mind bringing the character back in some way – altered timeline seems the best IMO. But to simply stick Shatner as the center of a story when the Trek franchise needs new fans and new younger blood is foolish. They storyline to Trek is already too involved to attract new viewers so any story involving ressurecting a 77 YO previously dead character isn’t going to catch the new viewers attention. It would be a film only for die hard Trek/Shatner fans. Apply this logic to ST3. It may have suffered because you had to be a devoted fan to understand and enjoy it.

He was offered a smaller role as said by the OP to keep the Shatner fans happy, and rejected it. I’d be mad at HIM not everyone else.

Trek is getting what it needs – a reboot with the best characters played by young, attractive, competent actors. If Shatner wanted to be part of it, HE would have found a way. Most of these posters blame Abrams instead. We are getting the character of Kirk back . He will now be played by Chris Pine.

498. Mike Thompson UK. - September 10, 2008

Can’t blame him for rejecting it

As Nimoy says he wasn’t going to be in Gen just to wave here I am bye….

499. Star Trek XI: The Search For A Flop - September 10, 2008

Okay,

My gut feeling is this movie is going to be the “superman returns” of 2009. Let us look at some facts.

1. Chris Pine is heading into this movie with the same pressure as Brandon Routh did with Christopher Reeve. We know what happen, the public thought the story was just a rehash of Superman The Movie, and Routh was basically a copy cat.
2. The majority of the press for this movie so far has been about Shatner not being in it. Just take a look on this site for example, the most popular topics are about Shatner even if you love him or hate him…He is still the topic of conversation
3. This movie will be hard press to compete against next summers slate. Transformers 2, Gi-Joe, Harry Potter…not to mention Wolverine. I see this movie doing $120-$140 million dollar box office take. With an opening weekend of maybe 45 million if that…Lets face it the majority of people who will see this movie will be trek fans….
4.Nimoy is only being brought in because he is the one who will “bring the fans together” so far I dont think it has worked that well. I bet if they had Shatner the movie would be more popular in the fandom.
5. What do you think the press and topic of this movie is going to be WHEN it gets talked about in the winter, well hello Where is Shatner? Why wasnt Shatner in it? This will be the number 1 question asked during interviews.
6.Buying JJ saying they couldnt think of a way to bring Kirk in is bull…They could have used a borg angle, they could have used a “changed history angle at the end of this movie” they could have just had his voice in the back ground.

Long story short I dont believe this film will do anything to help the franchise. If anything they might reboot the franchise again and do a bring back of all the captains of the tv shows who are brought together some how and go after Kirk’s remains.

500. The Lensman - September 10, 2008

have we hit 500 yet?

501. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#497 “so any story involving ressurecting a 77 YO previously dead character isn’t going to catch the new viewers attention.”

..remember that when the movie is released and virtually every print and media interviewer asks the question “Why wasn’t William Shatner in the film?” We all know it’s coming.

….unless of course, he IS in it. Hmmm. :)

502. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

Then why all this whining? You do blame Abrams correct?

When Nimoy didn’t appear in Gen, nobody blamed the directors, writers, producers or everyone else for his not taking the cameo offered. He didn’t complain – and now in hindsight, Nimoy was correct in rejecting the cameo and directorship for such a antithesis film.

OTOH Shatner fans are whining and blaming everyone else because Shatner rejected the role. I think Shatner fans are afraid that the film is going to be successful, Pine is going to rule in the role, the franchise will be reinvigorated and unlike Nimoy, Shatner’s decision not to say “goodbye” will be mistake.

503. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#484 “I hope that there is no (or little) technobable in Trek XI.

Amen to that. Ironically, in the making of Star Trek, Roddenberry talks at length about how handling the technology should come easy to the crew. How a policeman never stops to explain how the gun he is going to fire works, he just pulls the trigger. Kirk didn’t need or want long winded explanations of how the tachyon field pulse generator was going to re-align the ion stream and create a magnetic particle wave….if that was was the solution he just expected Scotty to do it. I don’t know why Roddenberry’s postion drifted away from that (among other things) in TNG or why the subsequent spin-offs embraced techno-babble so, but it did and they did, and Trek certainly was no better for it..

504. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#501

I never asked why he wasn’t in it because I knew he allowed his character to be killed off in Generations. Any media asking that question must not know much about Trek. My first questions were “Who are the new Kirk, Spock and McCoy?”

505. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#504 “Any media asking that question must not know much about Trek.”

Well, that’s pretty much a given. lol They never do. But then again, that also underscores how much a “non-issue” the whole fiasco of Generations would be with the new audiences that the studios and JJ are trying to attract. But I also know that the people in charge are big enough Trek fans and talented enough writers to work out a way to skirt around the Generations issue if they felt the need to. But back to the media, having Nimoy in this movie just begs to have the question asked, “Why isn’t Shatner in it too?” It’s gonna happen and sadly the question will no doubt flow over into interviews with Pine and the other actors, which is pretty poor form. But it will happen.

506. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

Actually I’d say it was good form – gives more attention to the film which ain’t a bad idea. Just look at this thread.

507. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#468—I do not work for Paramount, JJ Abrams, or anyone else for that matter. I own my own business, which has nothing to do with movies.

Your conclusion that, because my opinion on this matter is favorable to Abrams, Orci, etc., I must work for them (or Paramount) is absurd and unfounded.

Why are only critically negative opinons legitimate in your eyes?

#472— I never felt that Star Trek revolved around a single “actor” (Shatner or anyone else)…It revolved around a group of three “characters” (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) and a vision of a future in which mankind did not destroy itself (as was the biggest fear of the time) , but instead, united itself and went on to explore the final frontier.

Star Trek revolved around a particular “idea”, more than anything else.

Without Spock and McCoy, Kirk is just your “dime a dozen” alpha-male hero. It is his relationships with those two (and their relationships with each other) that made Star Trek great.

508. The Lensman - September 10, 2008

“2. The majority of the press for this movie so far has been about Shatner not being in it. Just take a look on this site for example, the most popular topics are about Shatner even if you love him or hate him…He is still the topic of conversation”

He’s still the topic of conversation because there’s nothing else to talk about. We have no new images, ship, crew or otherwise. No trailers, and as far as “news” goes on this movie……there’s about four or five stories that keep getting posted as “news” over and over and over.

“5. What do you think the press and topic of this movie is going to be WHEN it gets talked about in the winter, well hello Where is Shatner? Why wasnt Shatner in it? This will be the number 1 question asked during interviews.”

Nope. Once the movie is in full promo swing, with images of the crew, ship, other cast members, especially Nimoy, Shatner will be forgotten.
His involvement or lack thereof will be an afterthought question if at all because the ONLY people that care are his fans. Everyone else gets that this is a prequel, that there was room enough for a brief role by an older actor, and that actor wasn’t Shatner.

“They could have used a borg angle, ”

And that would’ve been lame.

“they could have used a “changed history angle at the end of this movie”

This has already been explained and I’m guessing that since the logic was airtight, people ignored it.

If this is the same timeline:

Kirk’s fate is to die on Veridian 3. Period. Just as it is Davy Crocketts fate to die at the Alamo. The Romulans changing history is like someone changing Crockett’s. And any time traveler seeking to correct any history mucking in regards to these two figures will have to ensure that they meet the fate history records. Sorry that that sucks for Kirk…but that’s how it plays out thanks to Shatner.

If it is a new timeline:

Most likely we’ll see old Spock with the new crew and old Spock will vanish as the new crew looks bewildered and then the credits roll and there’s no bit after the credits that shows old Kirk and Spock together.

The point of creating a new timeline is that the future is completely unwritten. AGAIN….see the end of Back To The Future 3.

Also, Shatners Kirk lived a more than full life…..at the end of Trek 6 and in Gen, he was starting to feel like a man who the world was leaving behind.
He was headed for either a desk job or retirement. He’s old and getting older. Kirk was 62 when he died. That doesn’t make for a tragedy worthy of altering the timeline for. It’d be like bringing your old grandfather back so he can die a few years later than originally. Nobody’s gonna care about something like that except Shatner fans.

“Long story short I dont believe this film will do anything to help the franchise. If anything they might reboot the franchise again and do a bring back of all the captains of the tv shows who are brought together some how and go after Kirk’s remains.”

It’s not gonna happen……ever. Just make your peace with that now. They are not gonna make William Shatner the centerpiece of a future Trek franchise. They are not gonna bring back the 24th century because nobody cares about it but hardcore fans. The sales on the last two Next Gen movies sucked and the general public neither knows about DS9 or Voy or even CARES to know.

Star Trek has left you behind…..the sooner you come to grips with that, the happier you’ll be. They’re not making this for you. They’re not making this for older fans…..and yes, it can survive without the older fans. If the original show could start with no fans and thrive, then so too can this one.

Ultimately, that’s what pisses off alot of older fans. They always thought that when the break up came, it would be them dumping the franchise. Instead the franchise is dumping them, losing weight, checking the latest fashions and going out looking for a newer, younger boyfriend. And the middle aged, overweight original boyfriend just can’t let her go and starts obsessing about how she’ll never find the kind of happiness she found with him. Let it go and move on. You’ll be far happier for it.

509. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#505—-And here is the answer to that inevitable question…..Shatner’s character is dead!!!

Even if he hadn’t died on Veridian III, he would still be dead!!!

Nimoy’s character has a huge lifespan. He is not dead. He is alive (and presumably on Romulus) when the story begins post-Nemesis.

Nimoy’s character was with “Star Trek” from the very first pilot, and now he is here to tie it all up and help launch the rebirth of the franchise in the era in which it belongs—the 23rd Century!

I have yet to hear a solution to the problem of Kirk’s death (beyond a flashback) which does not feel contrived, or require Spock to behave inappropriately with regard to the integrity of the timeline he knows…

If they were to do it, no matter how they “solved” it, someone will be upset. Those who believe that Shatner was/is bigger than the “idea of Star Trek” itself are already upset, so why should they do anything but tell the story they thought was the best in the first place? Why burden that story with the baggage that comes with William Shatner?

I’m glad they stuck to their creative guns. Just tell me a good story about my favorite characters. That’s all I care about. I said my goodbyes to Shatner as Kirk a long time ago…

510. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 10, 2008

“It’d be like bringing your old grandfather back so he can die a few years later than originally. Nobody’s gonna care about something like that ”

that’s zen, baybeeeeeeeee. Perfecto en punto, head of the nail kind of stuff.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

511. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#508 ” Star Trek has left you behind…… ”

Actually I think that, over the course of the past 20 years, it’s the franchise that left “Star Trek” behind. I honestly I hope this movie WILL be a return to TOS style, sensibilities and storytelling because it’s time to get back to what made Star Trek “pop” to begin with. It’s time “to go home again”. I hope we can.

512. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

493. ByGeorge …

“Actually it is you who is forgetting that the TOS era is OVER. Shatner killed off Kirk and this new movie starts a new Trek era. I hope for a reboot to the TOS era with the new younger original crew members again.”

In post #211 I wrote, “I am totally down with the idea of a new cast. After 40 years, it’s time.” So care to try again? Believe it or not, it is possible to support the movie and still wish the other TOS icon had been included with Nimoy.

“He was included – he rejected the role. Direct your anger toward its cause.”

You have no insider knowledge of what went down. And I’m not angry. I said I plan to see the new movie. I’m looking forward to it. You’re the one shouting for Shatner’s “kooky tunnel visioned fan base” to “Get a life!!”

Chillax, man. I have enrolled you in Klingon Anger Management classes. :-)

513. Star Trek XI: The Search For A Flop - September 10, 2008

Love how know one answers my question about the superman returns comparison.

Also what will you do if this movie does flop? Also the chance it will only break even are maginal what with all the summer movies coming out in 09. I also believe given the lack of news out there and the xmas push back that this film has major work to do.

Oh one more thing what makes Nimoy so “pivotal” sounds to me they are just doing a Star Trek 4 back in time wanna be storyline. I also think it would be ashame if they acknowledge an older kirk in the film but not show him.

514. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#509 “I have yet to hear a solution to the problem of Kirk’s death (beyond a flashback) which does not feel contrived.”

I have yet to see a death in Trek (and resurrection) that wasn’t contrived. So what’s the problem?

515. Star Trek XI: The Search For A Flop - September 10, 2008

Chris Pine=Brandon Routh :(

That is the first thing I thought of when this movie was announced. Two iconic actors in two great characters, Kirk and Superman….Then you have two newbies coming in to reprise the roles they made famous, there will be comparisons and sadly the newbies will pick apart piece by piece.

516. Anthony Pascale - September 10, 2008

513
warning for trolling, pick a new name

517. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 10, 2008

I’m just bummed that this movie isnt going to be released before the world ends when that Hadron Collider fires up. Or like 1/2 the world explodes anyway. I’m sure glad the Brits did that thing over there and it ain’t in the good old US of A. Hopefully, it will probably end up being alot more like Chernobyl – catastophic yet really really far away from the civilized world.

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” Shatner said of Star Trek XI. “It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”

It was… fun. Oh, my.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

518. ByGeorge - September 10, 2008

#512

“Believe it or not, it is possible to support the movie and still wish the other TOS icon had been included with Nimoy.”

Yes, I agree, Shatner was an idiot to kill his character off in Generations and for turning down the role Orci/Kyrtzman claim to have written for him in this new Trek film. Could have been nice but Shatner squashed that one.

519. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#514—-The “problem” is that STXI’s target audience includes a substantial number of people who have maintained preconceived notions (founded or unfounded) about Star Trek in the past. This movie does not come with a budget that established fans can justify alone. That seperates it from TSFS. Moreover, the entire storyline in TSFS was dedicated to resurrecting Spock. What most Shatner fans are suggesting is a “sidestory” to the overall plot of STXI, which involves explaining the resurrection of a dead guy nearly a decade later, or worse—not explaining it at all and just having the dead guy show up at the end.

To what benefit? What is there to gain from any of that, beyond gratifying a portion of the old guard and creating a new generation of moviegoers who think Star Trek is silly?

But most importantly, how would resurrecting Shatner’s Kirk help JJ Abrams tell the story that they (Abrams, Orci, Lindelof, Kurtzman, and Burk) thought was the best one they had to tell?

If it does not, then it’s “shoehorning”, plain and simple.

As a lifelong fan of the TOS-era characters and their adventures, I have been waiting since the mid 80′s for them to be recast in younger form. I waded through 20 years of Star Trek that never quite measured up for that to happen. Now it is happening, and with the massive budget treatment I have always dreamed about and with a creative team I admire behind the wheel.

The worst possible thing I can think of right now is shoehorning in the Shat!

I said goodbye to “his” Kirk a long time ago, and then sat through STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89, TUC, and finally watched Generations on HBO a few years after it came out.

I am relieved that they did not relent…I think that Abrams saved some Star Trek fans from what they “think” they want…

520. star trackie - September 10, 2008

#519 “The worst possible thing I can think of right now is shoehorning in the Shat! ”

Obviously, because, for whatever reason, clearly you’re not fond of the man. And that’s ok. But for the many that are…and there are more than a few, putting him in would have just the opposite effect.

521. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

#488: >>” Shatner has been THE character icon of fiction for our lifetime.”

Please. Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk is just one of many iconic fictional characters of our lifetime. And that portrayal’s reputation has been inflated by Shatner’s own personality and publicity machine. Kirk shows up a lot in comedy skits and parodies because Shatner is so easy to caricature.

522. justcorbly - September 10, 2008

#519: I think it would be more accurate to say that the target audience for this film are people who have never bought a ticket for a Trek movie.

If only devoted fans go to this movie, we will never see another one.

523. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#515—Why can’t it be Chris Pine = Christopher Reeve?

Reeve wasn’t the “original” Superman either…George Reeves was.

No one stood up in 1978′s ‘Superman: The Movie’ and said, “That’s not the REAL Superman!”

You picked a bad analogy…

And Star Trek already had a major “flop”, starring and directed by William Shatner, by the way…It was called STV: The Final Frontier (aka The Great Trek Turd Of ’89)…

524. Mark Lynch - September 10, 2008

Crumbs! so many posts…..

525. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#520—-I have no dislike for Bill. In fact, I always enjoyed his portrayals of JTK for the first 20 years or so, even when they were a bit hammy. After that, it felt “phoned in” to me.

Watching him in TOS or the first 4 films is still quite enjoyable to me.

Don’t confuse my disdain for the idea of bringing him back for this movie with a dislike for the man. Those are two very different things. It is possible to have respect for alot of his work, yet not feel that he is right for this project, as I do.

Not everyone who doesn’t want to see him in STXI dislikes him. That is presumptuous and unfair, to say the least.

526. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 10, 2008

There is only one reason I’ve read over all these 500+ posts.

I WANT SHATNER BACK!!!

527. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

#523 … Closet, if I get Nimoy to mind meld with you, or take you with him as he skips through time, and make it so you can unwatch Star Trek V …… then will you let Shatner be in the new movie??

528. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#527—lol.

Make it a ritual pillow smothering of baby Sybok, a banishment of Shatner from the director’s chair in any ST movie, and a “no killing of Kirk” clause in Generations…maybe…what the heck. He can even kiss the girl.

:)

529. cellojammer - September 10, 2008

I’m an admirer of Shatner’s work. Don’t know him personally, but there’s a lot of hearsay from a lot of different sources that point out some less than admirable traits.

Whatever. I admire his work.

Having said that, I’m glad they’re not shoehorning him into this movie. Their priority is telling a story with integrity, not gimmickry and stunt casting.

I’m ready for it whenever they are…

530. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#529—Well said.

I’m ready too.

531. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

Shatner appearing in Star Trek will NEVER constitute “stunt casting”.

532. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#531—-It depends upon the context of his potential appearance, IMO.

If his appearance does nothing to advance the story or benefit its resolution, then I think that’s a fair term for what it would be.

533. What is it with you. - September 10, 2008

BOB ORCI:

Even bothering yourself with this thread, and all the geeks who read every post, the day you have a new show debuting proves to me what a class act you are – and that you really care about this project.

Wish you all the best with Fringe and Star Trek.

By the way, I saw the premier and I thought it was excellent. I’ll absolutely be back for more.

534. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

#532 … I’ll bet when you set foot on your sales floor, your employees consider that stunt casting!! :-)

535. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 10, 2008

Looks like some of the OrcSter’s kin have found their way onto the interwebs, innit?

just kidding man.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

536. Boborci - September 10, 2008

533

Thanks, Uncle Joe!

537. cellojammer - September 10, 2008

531. Shatner appearing in Star Trek will NEVER constitute “stunt casting”.

——–

To you, obviously. To each their own.

Never seeing Kirk played by William Shatner again was something I’d come to terms with a while ago. Having him come back for another ride around the galaxy is just not something that floats my boat. FOR ME, resurrecting him would be just as frivolous as dispatching him was. I’m glad they’re not doing it. I hope they NEVER do it.

It’s not that I dislike the character or the actor’s portrayal. I just think it would be artistically dishonest. Life has consequences. So should art. Even if it’s science fiction (maybe that should be **ESPECIALLY** if it’s science fiction).

538. Earl - September 10, 2008

Mr. Orci & Abrams: Make ST XII with DS9 crew and I promise that I will stop complaining about Shatner. :D :D

539. Shatner_Fan_2000 - September 10, 2008

#537 … So I guess your stunt casting view applies to Nimoy, too, huh? He also is a revived from the dead character/TOS actor in the new movie.

For my money, the two of them appearing in Trek in their classic roles could never be stunt casting, because they represent Star Trek moreso than any other living individuals. It’s a franchise (and a universe) they did a lot to help define. Tom Cruise would be stunt casting.

540. Nightmare - September 10, 2008

Tom Cruise would be stunt casting.

Or say….Winona Ryder

541. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 10, 2008

THIS IS REDICULOS.

Think about it. WHY WOULD SPOCK GO BACK IN TIME?

To stop a plot to kill young Kirk?
It obviously did not ever happen.

An Illogical premise does not make for a good plot.

Spocks plan has to be to save Kirk.
Even if their ages really doesn’t make sense in the Trek timeline. That would still be more sensible than a Romulan temporal plot or Time-ship.

Once again everyone.
Where did the Time-ship idea come from?

Sounds to me like this is where it all began to go off the tracks.

I WANT SHATNER!

542. cellojammer - September 10, 2008

539. #537 … So I guess your stunt casting view applies to Nimoy, too, huh? He also is a revived from the dead character/TOS actor in the new movie.

_______

Then you guessed wrong. But if I did, what’s it to you? Why do you care? You seem a little hostile to viewpoints that differ from your own.

I was never 100% comfortable with the whole “Life-Death-Life” thing with Spock, but OK. They did it once and invoked some alien mysticism mumbo-jumbo. It kind-of worked. And since he’s back, Spock’s fair game to providing linkage with TOS in the new movie. A nice touch but not a necessary one.

Reanimating another dead main character is a dramatically hollow move. They barely got away with it the first time. Another attempt come across as pandering to sentimentality. It would be a cheap, crass move. The credibility of the franchise will go from being strained to breaking completely. I’m gratified that the current filmmakers are putting the story first. For better or worse, Shatner cashed in his Kirk chips. As I’ve been saying all along, I’ve always liked his portrayal of Kirk. But…NEXT!!

FWIW, I’m also not 100% happy with time travel playing a role in another Trek movie. But I’ll give it a fair shake. I’m sure it’ll be entertaining.

543. VOODOO - September 10, 2008

Bob Orci #421

421. Boborci – September 9, 2008

One last thing on this thread:

” If we indeed manage to re-whateveryouwanacallit the Star Trek franchise (which I grant is a big IF), doesn’t that turns Kirk’s death into “a fighting chance to live?”

If this isn’t proof that there may still be some life in the Kirk character even after “Generations” I don’t know what is.

I am convinced that Kirk’s fate (and maybe every other character) will turn out to be very different despite Shatner not being in this film.

Maybe the BBK people will walk out of “Star Trek” with a big smile on their face.

544. VOODOO - September 10, 2008

Yet another Shatner story that has gone over 500 posts.

545. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#534—-They probably consider it a pain in the butt…lol.

#540—It’s been a LONG time since she was a big enough name to be labeled a “stunt cast”!

#541—”Spocks plan has to be to save Kirk”

Why would Romulan villains want to do anything to Kirk, especially since he’s been dead (as far as they would know) for almost a century by the post-Nemesis era? That makes no sense, and even for established fans, that would require alot of explanation.

Romulans would have far more cause to kill a young Spock (if assasination is there goal at all). It is Spock who is (presumably still) on Romulus helping to facilitate the changing political climate in the RSE.

On a much more personal level, it was Spock who seduced and betrayed the Romulan Commander in “TEI”, which allowed the Federation to embarass a ranking Romulan task force commander and steal what was then a tactical advantage for them (the new cloaking device).

If either of the two were a personal target of Nero and is cohorts, it would most likely be Spock, IMO.

Now, if they were Klingons :)…that would be a different story.

But that’s just my not so humble opinion.

546. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

“there” should be “their”, and “is” should be “his”…

I should do more proof-reading….sorry.

547. Xai - September 10, 2008

another 500 post argument

548. Jabob Slatter - September 10, 2008

I am SOOOOOOOOOOO glad Shatner’s not in the film. With Kirk solidly dead, it will give Nimoy’s Spock much more emotional resonance when he sees his young friend again after so many years.

I really hope that scene is played well. It could be pretty powerful.

Hating this movie and those who made it simply for not resurrecting Kirk are not Star Trek fans to me. They are William Shatner fans. A true Trek fan, IN MY OPINION should support this film until they have seen it. Then, if you don’t like it, vent your spleen. But damning the movie at this stage is just juvenile, which is forgivable if you are indeed a juvenile.

Most of you aren’t. So shame on you.

I’m thrilled to see this film, and my expectations are high. I hope they knock my socks off. Just in case, I’ll wear clean ones when I go.

Hugs and Kisses!

JS

549. Robert April - September 10, 2008

547. Xai – September 10, 2008

“another 500 post argument”

Are we up to 7 mass posting Shatner fans yet?

550. Robert April - September 10, 2008

By traveling back in time, the Romulans inadvertently create the Nexus. By stopping the Romulans, Spock saves Kirk from ever entering the damn thing in the first place. However due to a malfunction in his time pod Spock is somehow transported to Shatner’s horse farm in present day Kentucky and Leonard Nimoy is sent to the 24th century.

Visit to a strange planet re-revisited!

551. tom - September 10, 2008

can’t wait for the next Shatner interview.

552. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 10, 2008

Sorry. I missed this one.

The Time Ship has been reported here…

http://trekmovie.com/2008/05/27/spoilers-details-on-star-trek-movie-ships

Best info yet.

553. The Vulcanista - September 10, 2008

456

Classy. Classy, indeed. Try to use more profanity in your next post.

554. Closettrekker - September 10, 2008

#553—We need you around more to add “class” to our discussions…We don’t see enough of your posts anymore.

:(

555. Buzz Cagney - September 10, 2008

“MAYBE A SMARTER GROUP OF FILM-MAKERS COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PUT HIM IN”
Funny, i’d been saying that all along! Never mind, we are stuck with this lot now so we’ll just have to make the best of it.

556. The Vulcanista - September 10, 2008

#544

{{{{{{HUG}}}}}}

557. Darrin - September 10, 2008

How about Shatner having a flashback at the decomminsioning of Enterpirse. Oh wait they blew it up. Ok how about at a 40 year reunion of the whole crew. Oh ya…some of them are not here anymore.

Ok…How about some 4th graders on a tour of a constilation class ship (musium visit) and Holo Gram Kirk (Shatner) tells the kids about his first mission.

558. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

Ok…How about some 4th graders on a tour of a constilation class ship (musium visit) and Holo Gram Kirk (Shatner) tells the kids about his first mission.

Great!
But Shatner would never go for it.

559. Mark Lynch - September 11, 2008

Okay, I took the time to skim through all these posts and boy did it take a long time…..

As far as I see it, we have three camps.
Pro-Shatner (want him in the movie at any cost)
Anti-Shatner (Don’t want to see him in the movie at any cost)
Mid-Shatner (Don’t mind either way)

Obviously we are never going to reach a consensus between Pro and Anti, the points of view are just too diverged. But hey that’s what we have IDIC for, right?

But surely the one thing that we can all agree on is that this movie needs to be a great film to kick start Star Trek again.

One thing that you can’t deny is that a lot of Star Trek fans have a great passion for it. How about we channel it into things that ‘make a difference’ in the real world?

Now making the assumption that JJ and team are telling the truth and Shatner is really, really NOT in this movie….

Me, I am in the Mid-Shatner section, it would have been nice to see him have some part in the film. But only if it served the story and honoured the character. Even a cameo can do that if it is done well.

All I really want to see is a great Star Trek movie. One that generates the kind of anticipation and buzz of ST-TMP, anyone here old enough to remember back that far?

As regards the poster (sorry, not going back to check the number) who mentioned that all the Star Trek films have had poor effects, you do know that ST-TMP received an Academy award nomination for the special effects? Those effects still hold up today, as does most everthing in that motion picture.

Let’s get behind the new keepers of the flame and encourage them.

Well, that’s me done. Hopefully no spelling mistakes this time…. :-)

Hey Anthony, what’s the record for the longest thread around these parts? Because I think this is going to break it. Until we get some proper pictures of the crew and ship that is…

560. Mike Thompson (UK) - September 11, 2008

Still think if Nimoy had turned down this return then a rewrite would have provided the role for Shatner.

They were so happy to get Nimoy on board.

561. Mark Lynch - September 11, 2008

Good point Mike, hadn’t thought of that.

562. TK - September 11, 2008

A little bit off topic, I went to see a movie a few days ago at my local cinema, and from somewhere, heard the ST XI trailer music. My head immediately went up, and there it was, on the small screen where they show trailers for various movies. Then, shockingly, at the end it said,

“Boxing day (=26th Dec), 2008″ (I’m in the UK)

Now, I nearly fainted. ;) I believe that is a mistake?? The release date hasn’t been brought back again to Christmas, has it? Can someone PLEASE confirm??

563. Spockanella - September 11, 2008

Y’all are just too easy…mention a few key words like “Shatner”, “Kirk”, “cameo”, “Generations” and you’re off and running! :)

For anybody who thinks interest in this film is waning, I present this thread as proof to the contrary. We’ll all see how it turns out next May. Until then, I guess we’ll keep on debating and speculating.

And isn’t it fun?

Oh, my.

564. star trackie - September 11, 2008

#559 “But surely the one thing that we can all agree on is that this movie needs to be a great film to kick start Star Trek again.”

I agree with that, as long as the film isn’t so radically different from the Star Trek that appeals to me. If it is, then it becomes just another action movie. I’ve endured 20years of something called Star Trek that bares very little resemblence to “Star Trek”, I truly hope change (for the better) is in the cards.

565. Mike 1701 - September 11, 2008

#458
…He is one of the few ‘actors’ in Star Trek who could actually act …

You’re joking… right? Shatner’s over-acting approach in TOS is the butt of many jokes and is legendary. Now, I think he definitely improved in the movie series, but his acting in the TV series was spotty at best. He was at times too stiff–when he played the “authoritarian commander”, or too over-the-top, when the scene called for more emotion.

566. Mike 1701 - September 11, 2008

471.

That’s because of money spent to make the films. Nothing else. TMP looked fantastic, ’cause they spent a lot of money for effects and production. Besides, TREK isn’t about how it looks, it’s about how it makes you think, feel and hope.

567. Robert April - September 11, 2008

#559 “Hey Anthony, what’s the record for the longest thread around these parts? Because I think this is going to break it. Until we get some proper pictures of the crew and ship that is…”

The last time a very long thread appeared on this topic it was broken up into a new thread. It would have topped out at around 1000 posts I think…

(Someone please correct me if I am wrong.)

568. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

567. Robert April

Correct.

I think it was another Shatner story.
I hate it when they cap a thread.

569. Iowagirl - September 11, 2008

#565

Yeah, Shat never was spot-on in the series, was he. I suppose that’s why Kirk has become such an icon and such a legend; a model role for many for such a long time – people were watching the poor, misleading acting yet still were able to comprehend Kirk as the multilayered personality he is with all the emotional nuances making him so special. What a clever bunch…

570. star trackie - September 11, 2008

#569 – lol

571. Mike 1701 - September 11, 2008

#569

Yeah, and don’t forget all those “people” who voted for Nixon and Bush Jr., too.

572. Alec - September 11, 2008

#565: ‘You’re joking… right? Shatner’s over-acting approach in TOS is the butt of many jokes and is legendary. Now, I think he definitely improved in the movie series, but his acting in the TV series was spotty at best. He was at times too stiff–when he played the “authoritarian commander”, or too over-the-top, when the scene called for more emotion’.

Shatner has had a very successful acting career before, and especially after, Star Trek, playing lead roles. How many other actors in the original show can claim that! Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly were much better actors than the supporting cast, some of whom even struggled to say their very truncated lines. To see Shatner at his best, see ‘The City on The Edge of Forever’, ‘The Doomsday Machine’, ‘The Wrath of Khan’, and, his favourite episode, ‘The Devil in the Dark’.

#566: ‘That’s because of money spent to make the films. Nothing else. TMP looked fantastic, ’cause they spent a lot of money for effects and production. Besides, TREK isn’t about how it looks, it’s about how it makes you think, feel and hope’.

We both know what Trek is about. And we both know that Star Trek could look better. With a huge budget and a talented bunch of filmmakers, I hope for a film that stays true to the essence of Star Trek, and one that looks fantastic. As I have said, Star Trek should look as good as any other blockbuster, if it has the right bunch of people working on it and they have money to spend. We seem to have both on this project. Consequently, I am expecting a great film.

573. Anthony Pascale - September 11, 2008

Although the shatner/st09 threads get long, the longest have been realted to the new enterprise.

When the first full sized image of the whole enterprise comes out, that will easily break 1000

574. MattTheTrekkie - September 11, 2008

#573

… are you trying to say something Anthony?

(have you seen it?) :D

575. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#573—-No doubt about that.

All debating aside, there is a massive storm threatening the Gulf Coast of Texas and SW Louisiana.

If you don’t pray, at least send out a few good thoughts for us…I’m headed to Dallas.

576. Why Mr. Spock? - September 11, 2008

I have a question. Does anyone know about why Mr. Spock is needed in this film to begin with? Is him showing up really going to make that much of a difference? And what is his role, is it like Kirk’s in Generations, where he shows up in the beginning and the end, or will he be interacting and talking to everyone during the whole movie.

577. Nick - September 11, 2008

Dont know if its been mentioned before, but the official trailer doesnt use shatners voice for the “Space, the final frontier”

I would have liked to hear Shatner in this sequence, even if he isnt actually in the film himself.

578. Odradek - September 11, 2008

I wish they would shoot the scene with James Cawley as Kirk and put it as an extra on the DVD.

579. star trackie - September 11, 2008

Have a safe trip Closettrekker, I’m in north Texas and the local green-screen weather heads are talking about this beast coming inland and parking right over our heads, dumping 8-12 inches. Stay safe and dry!

580. Iowagirl - September 11, 2008

##575, 579

Take care!

581. Andy Patterson - September 11, 2008

579

Actually new projections think it may veer right (east) of us now.

582. MAT - September 11, 2008

577. Nick – September 11, 2008

Nick, I could not agree with you more. Why can they not at the least use Shatner’s voice for “Space, the final frontier”. I am sorry to but, I stand by my earlier posts believing that Abrams is for some reason casting aside all things Shatner. The words, smug and arrogant come to mind. Maybe even lipstick on a pig of a new Trek movie…

583. Mike 1701 - September 11, 2008

#572.
Shatner was a pretty boy actor, so by looks he was able to obtain a more leading man status. Looking at technical craftsmanship, both Nimoy and Dee Kelly were much better actors and gave a lot more consistence, solid performances. I still think Jeffrey Hunter, would have been a better choice for captain than Shatner, but he wasn’t interested.

If it was only given to choose between expensive-looking, well-designed, over-the-top, dumbed-downed, overly plotted, empty headed, cartoon films and moderately budgeted, realistic, thematic and character based films, I choose the latter every-time. Sure, it would be good to have both, but given what Paramount was willing to spend, the TREK films could have been a lot worst, sorry, I mean looked a lot worst. No wonder films today’s are so crappy, the look of something now seems to be more important that the essence of something. Guess that fits right in with our shallow culture.

584. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 11, 2008

Just because I feel like saying it again. I am on the fence as whether or not Shatner was in this film (he’s not).

But some of the hard-core Shatner files are starting to sound like drug addicts.

“OK man, so the Shat isn’t gonna’ be in it. I can deal. But bro’, gimme just a taste. I’m good for it. Like have him be little Kirk’s daddy or grand daddy. Or maybe just like a cameo at the end man, with Spock sayin’ ‘dude’ and Shat sayin’ ‘thanks’ and whatnot. Jeez man, I’m really jonesin’ over here! Can’t you just give me some of that good Shat doin’ the ‘Space, the final frontier’ thing? God, it hurts so bad!”

585. Alec - September 11, 2008

#583: ‘Shatner was a pretty boy actor, so by looks he was able to obtain a more leading man status. Looking at technical craftsmanship, both Nimoy and Dee Kelly were much better actors and gave a lot more consistence, solid performances. I still think Jeffrey Hunter, would have been a better choice for captain than Shatner, but he wasn’t interested’.

Typically, leading men are handsome. I do not see why that would be a negative quality. But Shatner was much more than a pretty face. He trained as a Shakespearean actor and had many successful roles on stage, TV, and film before Star Trek. Shatner’s pre-Trek career is well-documented; and ‘I wouldn’t want to slow the wheels of progress. But, then, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want those wheels to run over my client in their unbridled haste’. So, I’ll mention Stanley Kramer’s 1961 film ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’ in which Shatner co-stared with Spencer Tracy, Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster, and Judy Garland, among others; and ‘Henry V’; and the episodes of The ‘Twilight Zone’, ‘The Outer Limits’, and ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E’. It was this pedigree, along with his good looks, charisma, and relative youth that prompted Gene to declare ‘You’re my leading man’.

Kelly, and especially Nimoy, were also good actors with good pedigrees. And, as I made clear in post which you have quoted, these THREE were far more talented and successful than everybody else on Star Trek.

#583: ‘If it was only given to choose between expensive-looking, well-designed, over-the-top, dumbed-downed, overly plotted, empty headed, cartoon films and moderately budgeted, realistic, thematic and character based films, I choose the latter every-time. Sure, it would be good to have both, but given what Paramount was willing to spend, the TREK films could have been a lot worst, sorry, I mean looked a lot worst. No wonder films today’s are so crappy, the look of something now seems to be more important that the essence of something. Guess that fits right in with our shallow culture’.

Hitherto, Star Trek has been about substance over style. I would like substance AND style; and so would J.J. Let’s make this film jaw-droppingly gorgeous. With a budget of around $150 million, that should be possible.

586. Alec - September 11, 2008

Let’s try to put the financial element in context. The budget for ‘Star Trek XI’ is, apparently, more than double that for ‘Nemesis’! The budget is considerably bigger than that for ‘Revenge of the Sith’, ‘Minority Report’, ‘Lord of the Ring: Return of the King’, etc. This film should, at the very least, look just as good as these films. I will be very disappointed if this is not the case.

587. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

575. Closettrekker

Transferring Warp Power to the Shields NOW!

IMHO Shatner forever nailed the opening monologue to the original series. That monologue singulary encompassed everything I love about Star Trek.

BRING BACK SHAT!

588. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

I am not a huge fan of post-Star Trek Shatner, but he is certainly very talented, and has had a long and successful career that is still going…

But recognizing his talent (which I believe he hasn’t always fully applied to later Star Trek work) and wanting to see him in STXI are two different things.

I love the overwhelming majority of his work as James Kirk (although my enthusiasm for his portrayls was significantly diminished in the late 80′s and early-90′s). But again, appreciating what he did with the character more than 20 years ago and wanting to see him in STXI are two very different things.

I think it is nice that so many fans are so loyal to the actor who originally portrayed JTK. And a “Kirk ressurection story” or a gimmicky cameo scene would probably be just fine for your typical mediocre budget Star Trek movie.

I think we have to respect Abrams’ attempt to finally make a Star Trek movie that even average moviegoers will like so much that they can’t find any reason to laugh at us anymore. Star Trek has always had the “potential” to be something that more than just the “geek cult” will take seriously, like ‘The Dark Knight’ or the original Star Wars trilogy. If JJ Abrams succeeds in making a ST movie that does close to half of what ‘The Dark Knight’ has done Worldwide, no one will care that Shatner wasn’t in it (except maybe Shatner… lol). A new generation of Trek fans will be introduced to these wonderful characters, and that’s what it’s all about…

Nimoy (who, unlike Shatner, was actually there from the very beginning) will provide plenty of nostalgia for those of us who have been with Trek for decades, and without any of the bagage…

Just tell me a good story.

589. Xai - September 11, 2008

549. Robert April – September 10, 2008
547. Xai – September 10, 2008

“another 500 post argument”

Are we up to 7 mass posting Shatner fans yet?”

You tell me… I think about 10 people are responsible for most of the 589 posts

590. Xai - September 11, 2008

555. Buzz Cagney – September 10, 2008
“MAYBE A SMARTER GROUP OF FILM-MAKERS COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PUT HIM IN”
Funny, i’d been saying that all along! Never mind, we are stuck with this lot now so we’ll just have to make the best of it.”

And if they’d put Shatner into the movie, you’d think they were genius’s. Gotta love those that throw insults because they didn’t get their way.

591. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#587—Thanks. We could use “shields” right about now…

I’m in Katy, and I’ll be headed to Dallas at 5am tomorrow morning. I already had MNF tickets anyway, so it was just a matter of extending a trip that was already planned.

And if Shatner does the opening monologue, that would be just fine with me…

592. Alec - September 11, 2008

#591:

Given that Shatner is not in the actual film (we think), whereas Nimoy is, perhaps it makes more sense to have Nimoy read the opening monologue. There would, then, be a greater connection with what the monologue introduces…

Nimoy did a good job of reading the revised monologue in TWOK; however, I think that Shatner has a more theatrical voice, if you understand me.

593. Harry Ballz - September 11, 2008

Aw, c’mon guys, I’d say you’re beating a dead horse, but then we’d get 40 posts on how Shatner’s an accomplished equestrian!

594. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#592—I do, and I’d be happy with either of them doing it. That’s a miniscule issue to me.

Just tell me a good story.

595. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#593—-BAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLZZZZZZ!

596. Alec - September 11, 2008

#593: ‘Aw, c’mon guys, I’d say you’re beating a dead horse, but then we’d get 40 posts on how Shatner’s an accomplished equestrian!’

At least. The guy is a legend.

597. Ampris - September 11, 2008

Ah, you guys. 600 posts? Again? You’re making me feel like such a heel for finding this all very amusing. Really, this is a lot of effort expended for… uh, Shatner’s honor? Star Trek’s true message? The sake of arguing? Whatever the topic is. I sort of got lost. And I’m sorry to spound like a spoil-sport, but is all this really worth it? The Shatnerversy is interesting, sure, and it means a lot to some people that The Shat’s included, but I don’t quite follow how this’ll help. Maybe it’s all for the fun and spirit of debate? In that case rock on, but if the goal is actually to get Shatner in the movie, I’m not actually sure how that would work…

Oh well. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the topic. Certainly nothing that hasn’t already been said in… *peers waaaay of into the distant beginnings of the thread* … the last three days, anyway. So please, continue your regularly scheduled Shatscussion. (Or Shatgument. Whichever. )

598. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

600!

Lets play Six Degrees.

Out of the 600 posts who here knows, or knows someone who knows Shatner?

Get him in here!

599. Andy Patterson - September 11, 2008

598

Doubt that person’s in here reading this.

600. Xai - September 11, 2008

#598 TMMW

Ask Bob Orci

601. Xai - September 11, 2008

take Care Closet

602. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

How about it Bob?

Would it be against the Rules to pass a note to Bill Shatner?

603. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

By the way, I know just what to ask!

604. krikzil - September 11, 2008

“…Shatner’s egotism and desire to make Trek revolve around himself is well documented. Unless he comes forward and denies his rejection of the role offered to him as referenced by the OP I cannot claim Abrams a liar.””

Well documented? Biographies from supporting cast with 30-40 year axes to grind really don’t count for me. And Shatner WAS the star, along with Nimoy, of Star Trek, so why shouldn’t he have had this expectation? Shatner has repeatedly stated he never heard from JJ past their original pitches in 2006. We’ve never heard from JJ his version of when he last spoke to Shatner…so until he directly contradicts the man, I will not call him a liar. JJ either. I think it just stemmed from the beginning in those pitches as I’ve said above. The script went one way, no way to have a large part for Shatner, end of story. NO villains, just the way it went.

“I think Shatner fans are afraid that the film is going to be successful,”

Very presumptous. I consider myself a Shatner fan. And a Nimoy fan. And a Star Trek fan. I want this movie to succeed so Trek doesn’t die. I will also always regret that Shatner wasn’t in the film no matter how awesome it is. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

“Sounds like you’re the one getting angry. I plan to see this new movie and hope for the best. I just think Shatner could’ve and should’ve been included in a supporting role along with Nimoy.”

Me too Shatner_Fan. Me too. While I truly hope I love this new movie, I will always wish that the parties could have made a Shatner-as-Kirk appearance happen. One last Kirk & Spock hurrah. I had nothing against Stewart but in Generations, I really had no interest in Kirk/Picard…..and then in TNG, I had no interest in Picard/Spock either.

Take care Closettrekker. Are they evacuating the entire Houston area? I haven’t be able to reach my best friend who lives in Humble and am starting to worry.

605. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#603—Coastal lying areas and southern areas of Houston are under mandatory evacuation. The rest of Houston is “voluntary”, but the mayor has requested all businesses shut down and not require any employees to report for work. Judging from the traffic, most people are “volunteering” to evacuate.

If you are having trouble getting in touch with your friend, it is probably because cell phones are horrible right now in the area. I have had difficulty all day. I have never had this many dropped calls, and Houston has not been directly threatened with a storm this large since ‘Alicia’ in 1983!

Keep trying your friend, and use landlines if you can. I’m not sure if Humble is under evac…

606. krikzil - September 11, 2008

Oh gosh Closet — be safe in your travels and I hope your home and business are ok in the end. Keep us posted. I’ll keep trying my friend. She is handicapped so I worry for that.

607. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#606—-I’m glad to help if you like…If you want to give me a phone number and message for her….

mikehalv@hotmail.com

I don’t mind at all. You have me worried now. I’m not leaving for another 6 or 7 hours, and might be able to reach her more easily.

Material things can be replaced. People cannot.

608. VOODOO - September 11, 2008

I still want to see Shatner as Kirk. There is still almost year to go. There is still time.

609. Closettrekker - September 11, 2008

#606—Krikzil,

Greater Houston has over 5.6 million residents and many of them have special needs. Gov. Perry has sent 1350 buses to help evacuate those ‘special needs’ residents.

I just found out that the council of Humble specifically requested that all ‘special needs’ residents in their jurisdiction pre-register for evacuation two days ago. Hopefully, your friend complied and was evacuated today or will be bussed to Dallas early in the morning if necessary. As of now, Humble evac is “voluntary”.

I hope Shatner Fan 2000 is leaving too (he lives in the city).

I’ll be back in a few days…. :)

Back to “Shatgate”…

610. krikzil - September 11, 2008

Closettrekker — ack, sorry I just found your messages. I sent you an email.

611. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 11, 2008

So much for my BIG idea.
I see that the article cycle is turning again.

So, farewell to this Shatner oasis.

612. spooky - September 11, 2008

Hey Boborci… you and J.J. talk about epic scale within the movie. Can I hope to see more real locations rather that sets that have plastic plants and monkeys filling in the space for alien flora and fauna?! It worked well for the tv series’ but this movie is going on a broader scope right. I imagine a scene in this movie with say a shuttle flying over the planets surfacing with the camera locked behind it as it makes it approach. Below the shuttle you can see alien gazelles or something like that scattering over the surface of the planet. That would be so awesome to see something like that. Imagine those many BBC and Discovery programs that show scenes of the African serengetti with those gazelles running in open areas followed by a camera crew on a helicopter. That kind of scale, along with a great story and characters we all know but not quite yet. I’m excited, the space scenes I know will be awesome but its those planetside scenes that I want to feel immersed in.

613. THX-1138 The Fandom Menace - September 11, 2008

Timmy.

That’s it.

Just Timmy.

Well, maybe uncle Timmy.

(note to self: Stay out of the morphine)

614. Iowagirl - September 11, 2008

#611
- So, farewell to this Shatner oasis. -

Just keep moving boldly through the desert…;)
______________

I do hope everyone in the Houston area is fine!

615. Robert April - September 12, 2008

589. Xai – September 11, 2008

” You tell me… I think about 10 people are responsible for most of the 589 posts”

:-)

616. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

Thanks Iowagirl.
You know I will.

R.I.P. 9-11

617. NTH - September 12, 2008

#575 Closet best of good luck to you and your fellow citizens,my prayers are with you.

618. The Trouble With Nachos - September 12, 2008

I still dont understand what Spock going in time has to do with this film. You think a script leak would be around soon.

619. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

Sure thing ‘The Trouble With Nachos’

Just Google ‘TrekMadeMeWonder’

I’ve had it out there for quite some time.

620. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 12, 2008

why do you never explain anything about your “script leak”?

was the original post here deleted?

I remember reading it originally. What can you tell us about that?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

621. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

What’s to explain. What I put out there is pretty clear and concise.
Unfortunatley, it does have some typos and is missing a few scenes.

Try to look past that. But, I love the ending.

I was hoping to get some extra feedback from the Trekkers here.
The limited response was a bit discouraging.

I think that’s why Star Trek is such as success. It’s visual media.

622. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 12, 2008

No dude, its not that. If I recall, at the time there were many questions as to whether that was creative speculation or a true leak is all. I don’t remember what your response was. And nobody likes to be trolled, dude. So I think we never got past the credibility issue.

Another point in the feedback was that I recall, several items were debunked – such as spock’s mode of time travel. I think that AP has already confirmed that he uses a small spaceship and not his Vulcan mind.

I don’t know – I liked it though. My take was that you made it up, because it would be easy to patch something like that together based on what we all knew at the time.

Why can’t you tell us a bit more about where you got that?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

623. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

Me a Troll?
Maybe an Elf, but NEVER a Troll.

Yes. I was roundly critisized for releasing that storyline. And I did admit to authoring the synopsis a day after I released it here ion TrekMovie. Yes, It has been debunked.

As I said long ago (January 08) It was my ‘gift’ for the fans who are constantly seeking a large bite of Trek XI info.

I thought it was important for us all to creatively consider what could happen in the next Trek movie. Hopefully I will not be disapointed with the REAL McCoy. However, the whole ‘Time Ship’ idea and Time Travel Assination plot has me very concerned. IMO, my treatment would be a conservative and logical approach to the restart the franchise.

Really, the whole synopsis I wrote really just poured out in one stream of conciousness in a few hours. It was that easy, AND A LOT OF FUN TOO! Hopefully, the Director of Star Fleet has already pardoned me on any unintended crimes or temporal offenses.

As penance, I do offer that I could put this into a full e-book format, fleshing out my story into a very detailed vision of Trek XI, with special attention given to the scenes I mentioned earlier. But only if their is demand.

Anyhow, my story could be a benchmark for what we can expect to see in the next offical Trek movie. There was alot more I envisioned, especially with the Landing Party mission on Rigel.

—-

After seeing what our new Trek producers did with Transformers, I think we are in safe hands. That movie with its hokey premise was well written, believable and very tranforming. In fact, I think that may be what they have in mind for this next movie – taking the best of Trek and transforming it from old to new. Plus, I am sure there will be many cultural references that are very relevant on where society is headed.

I expect to see ‘transforming’ references like that all over – BIGTIME.

“THE WOMEN!!”

I love that.

624. Boborci - September 12, 2008

612

You betcha, in ways that may surprise you

625. Harry Ballz - September 12, 2008

#624

Bob, you mean no paper mache boulders or Gorn lizards with zippers up their back?

DARN!

626. NOTBOB - September 12, 2008

So, if he is not in it no one will be shocked. If he is everyone said, “he did it again!”

Kirk’s death sucked. But so did Trip Tuckers.

Spocks was a solid death scene. I didn’t want him to die, but his death was to save the ship when no one else could or would do it. It was a situation that could not be saved in a matter a minutes. But his death was canceled out because he was resurrected.

Data’s death (death?) was pretty solid too. It was either him or the Captain. Since he is a robot (I don’t buy into what is life. He’s a frakin machine. He cannot have children, he has no “x” or “y” chromosomes and he would not age) it made sense. It was a noble death scene. But they copped out with B4 having his memory and all that jazz.

But Kirk died in such a stupid way. So did Tucker. Why do I say this? Because they both had been in harder situations and got out of it alive. Tucker blew himself up to kill a bunch of bad guys who sneaked onto the ship. This was just dumb. And Kirk had a bridge fall on him or something like that.

I say that something needs to be done to fix this. If you want to kill them off, fine, but do it in a more honorable way.

I need to have a list of characters who got killed off in dumb ways.
My Crappy Deaths thus far:
1. Dwayne Hicks –Aliens 3.

2. Captain Kirk –Star Trek: Generations

3. Trip Tucker –Star Trek Enterprise.

4. Boba Fett –Star Wars Return of the Jedi

627. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 12, 2008

re: THE WOMEN!!

You know, it’s funny. My cousin and I – when we were 9, 10 years old – back when we watched that episode and keyed in on the “emotional” version of Spock – “the women!!!” was like an inside joke between us for the longest time. It’s just the greatest scene, innit? It’s funny how “off” character a few moments in that pilot were.

Then to come to this interwebs, this trekmovies dot org dot gov site… some almost 30 years later… and to see everyone else carrying on the inside joke – you guys got it too – well, that to me is a tagline signature any day of the week my friend. Glad you enjoy.

Yo, OrcSter – wiki tells me that you are “one of the 50 most powerful Latinos in Hollywood of 2007″. Tell them to put that in their crack pipe and smoke it. I did, and it was wonderful.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

628. tom - September 12, 2008

When can we expect a response from Mr. Shatner on this?

So Bill there was a part for you in the movie. Is it true you required a larger role?

Why did you say that you knew nothing about the movie or your meeting with jj abrams?

Would you be open to filming the scene at this point? (this can also be asked of JJ and Bob Orci)

Bob said it was a true kobayashi maru. Well Bob reprogram the test!!!

629. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

628.

Wrong question.
Wrong approach.

630. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

I understand that Mr. Shatner is a man of charity.

Perhaps if word could reach Mr. Shatner that ALL of us fans would take on the responsibility to donate our time to a worthy charitable project, then perhaps Mr. Shatner will find it in his heart to do us a favor and appear in the movie – also as a charitable gift.

I can honestly say if this was the case I would fulfill my end of the bargain.
Seriously.

I think this will work.

631. Jabob Slatter - September 12, 2008

Good Lord, give it up. Stop trying to wreck the film by sticking Shatner in it.

632. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 12, 2008

Trek It Forward, Jabob.

633. tom - September 12, 2008

630

have fun geting that started

631
if a scene with Shatner will wreck the entire film.. we’re in trouble

634. MAT - September 12, 2008

624. Boborci – September 12, 2008
612

“You betcha, in ways that may surprise you”

Bob, Suprise us with Shatner… at least with the “”Space, The Final Frontier”” as Shatner’s Voice.

635. MAT - September 13, 2008

Maybe its time to throw in the towel on Shatner?

636. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2008

633. tom

Well… I’m in.

637. rehabilitated hitch1969© - September 13, 2008

TrekMadeMeWonder – a perplexing screename. It always makes old h69 wonder, how people pick an choose. that’s not a typo. I said “an”, and I digress.

So I was waxing the mammories there talking about the late 70s and early aaaaayties and my childhood, Star Trek, and all that. AS I spoke of earlier, I did like your treatment of your trekmovie11madeyouwonder, obviously you write a bit and such is the discourse of men and women, created equal e pluribus unim, etc et al.

I’m sorry, 12 representatives of InBev came over to discuss the Budweiser takeover this evening and I find myself a bit intoxicated from the intensity of these 10 cities.

So is Shatner in, of F~CKING out?

THE WOMEN??

=h=

638. Tom - September 13, 2008

636 TrekMadeMe Wonder

I’m in. And away we go

639. COMPASSIONATE GOD - September 13, 2008

638..er–639 posts! Wow!

Shatner news being able to generate this kind of response says much.

640. Harry Ballz - September 13, 2008

#639

Yeah, that a certain eight individuals have WAY too much time on their hands!

641. Xai (take care, Texas) - September 13, 2008

#640 Ballz

Bingo…. far more realistic. If this was 641 different people posting and all gushing “Shatner, Shatner…” I’d be more impressed.

642. Xai (take care, Texas) - September 13, 2008

630. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 12, 2008

“Perhaps if word could reach Mr. Shatner that ALL of us fans would take on the responsibility to donate our time to a worthy charitable project, then perhaps Mr. Shatner will find it in his heart to do us a favor and appear in the movie – also as a charitable gift.”

TMMW, you’re assuming that the people actually producing the film still have the part open.

643. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2008

C’mon guys.
This is not going to help the cause.

Is there in truth no beauty?

644. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2008

642. Xai

Assuming?

Of course they do. The green screen is always on in Hollywood, just standing by as we patiently wait for our Captain.
.
Quote me now, “SHATNER WILL BE IN THIS MOVIE.
He probably will not sign until march or april, but he will be there.
Be patient.

In fact, I am pretty sure that the story was designed for the return of the Kirk. Perhaps this is all a viral marketing strategy to create BUZZ..
BUZZ is cheap but can painful for us fans.

By the way, I was watching ST II the other night. I found Kirk’s remarks (after the Kobyahi Maru simulator test) to be very Interesting.

McCoy: Would’nt it be easier to train a new crew?

Kirk: “Galloping around the Cosmos is a game for the young, Doctor.”

Uhura: “Now what is that supposed to mean?”

645. Harry Ballz - September 13, 2008

Actually didn’t McCoy ask, “wouldn’t it be easier to put an experienced crew on board”, not train a “new” crew?

646. Xai (take care, Texas) - September 13, 2008

644. TrekMadeMeWonder – September 13, 2008

It’s your opinion, but to believe Shatner’s “in”, you also have to believe that your buddy, Bill, lied to you. All have said that he’s not in it and I know you’ve read the threads regarding it.

Would he lie to his fans? Or is this another instance of “he didn’t know”?

I’ll assume you are pulling my leg. I can’t imagine anyone keeping a part open until a month before the premiere on the chance an actor might decide to join the film.

But, if you need to keep the dream alive….

647. Xai (take care, Texas) - September 13, 2008

good eye, Ballz

648. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2008

645. Harry Ballz

Ouch.
I was paraphrasing.

646. Xai
We’ll see.
I still stake my (shakey) rep on it.

649. Sal Bando - September 13, 2008

I had an ending in mind for this movie. After the story had ended we see spock at the gravesight of kirk,where he actually sheds a tear. Then one of the Metrons appears and says to spock , Kirk had showed mercy to the Gorn and because of that it was time to make the promised contact with humans. Then he asks spock would you like me to raise him for you and spock says “only god can do that” and the metron says “why do you have to be god to do something good” It would be “civilized” to raise him “Metron says behold “and kirk appears. At that time kirk is at first dazed but then says to spock what happened? The metron says he came back for you as you did him. Then the metron begins to disappear but as he does so he produces Edith Keeler and says this is for you Captain to have left her dead would have been a crime. The movie ends the kirk death is righted and the end for all us 40 yearolds Startrek Original comes to an end. As we all know all things end eventually.

650. Xai - September 13, 2008

649 SAL

while it would be an ok fanboy ending, the non-fans attending would be completely lost.

651. Harry Ballz - September 13, 2008

Aw, screw the non-fans, me likey!

652. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 13, 2008

Great episode.
Kirk & Collins was great. But the story was a tragety.
It can’t be brought back.

And I think it points out the problems with time travel plot lines.
Everything that’s happened always had to happen. You really can’t change things. Ultimately your right back where you started.
I want this Trek to “Go boldy where no Trek movie has gone before.” Although City was great, but not a story that could be brought back commercially.. Hopefully XI wiil be a creative surpise, taking the time travel plotline to an unknown level.

653. MAT - September 13, 2008

648. TrekMadeMeWonder

Now if only Bob will comment on your shakey rep.

654. James R. Kirk - September 16, 2008

Damn! Looks like we stalled short of 700.

655. TrekMadeMeWonder - September 16, 2008

No, there is another.

656. James R. Kirk - September 16, 2008

Boston Legal next week. I know for a fact I’ll see the Shat there.

657. Harry Ballz - September 17, 2008

If the Shat gains any more weight you won’t need a T.V………..

………you’ll be able to spot him from outer space!

658. MAT - September 18, 2008

Hu Hu Hu Hu.

659. Dian Marker - May 10, 2011

I surely have to think a lot more in that direction and see things i can do about this.

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