Shatner: Original Star Trek Had ‘More Soul’ Than JJ Abrams Trek + Bill Tweets To Space | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner: Original Star Trek Had ‘More Soul’ Than JJ Abrams Trek + Bill Tweets To Space January 7, 2013

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Celebrity,Shatner,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Once again (in a new video interview) William Shatner is drawing comparisons between his Star Trek and the new Star Trek from JJ Abrams, now saying that the original had ‘more soul.’ Bill also talks about how he had grown ‘tired’ with Star Trek but has again come to appreciate its place in his career. Watch Bill talk to CNN about Star Trek and his Shatner’s World Tour below. Plus find out how Bill established communications with the International Space Station.

 

Shatner: Our Star Trek’s had more soul

Speaking to CNN William Shatner once again contrasts his time with Star Trek and that of the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie, saying

JJ Abrams is a great filmmaker. The way he has brought a major audience into the franchise is to make a ride, so Star Trek becomes one of those rides with explosions and the wonderful people they have got playing those roles. He has made Star Trek popular once again with a far larger audience so he seems to be doing the right thing. The Star Treks we were in told a more personal story. Told a story that had more soul to it…but the large screen encourages explosions and shoot-em-ups.

 The Shat also weighs in on the important question: who would win in a fight, Kirk or Picard. Watch the clip below.

If you can’t see the video he says that Kirk could beat up Picard but in the real world Sir Patrick Stewart would beat him up.

Here is more with Bill and CNN’s Don Lemon, with Bill talking about his Shatner’s World Tour and his feelings about how Star Trek impacted his career as an actor.

Shatner tweets with ISS astronaut

A few days ago William Shatner exchanged some tweets with Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who was tweeting back from space on board the International Space Station. Here is part of the exchange.

This exchange prompted Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin to jump in…

 

Thanks to Bernie for the link

Comments

1. Dan - January 7, 2013

Oh Bill

2. Bob Mack - January 7, 2013

Gotta love Buzz Aldrin! There’s a hero for you!

3. Mike - January 7, 2013

Guess he’s still pissed Leonard got a gig in the first one and he never.

4. Andy Patterson - January 7, 2013

Hmm, the interviewer kind of leads Bill in the direction of the “scandalous” quote he supposedly says. But I agree with Shatner.

5. Lostrod - January 7, 2013

Doesn’t sound pissed to me. His comments were extremely complimentary to the movie.

He simply pointed out politely that the movie and TOS had different tones.

Regards.

6. Fred Dinage - January 7, 2013

Bill’s right. Let’s face it the JJ film was fun and dumb but in food terms it was a McDonalds take out compared to the caviar of the original true and proper series.

7. Greg2600 - January 7, 2013

He’s 100% correct, whether you like the Abrams Trek or not, it is a cinematic ride. Personally I don’t feel it’s what Star Trek should be, but I won’t blame J.J. because the sad fact is Hollywood would never allow him to make a “personal” story like that of Star Trek IV or even Wrath of Khan. Movies are now made almost solely for teenagers, and it’s very disappointing.

8. M-BETA - January 7, 2013

I think you’ll see that Shatner very VERY subtly flips the interviewer the finger when asked to do the Vulcan salute.

9. Basement Blogger - January 7, 2013

I agree with William Shatner. TOS had more soul than the 2009 movie. It’s as the PBS documentary about Gene Roddenberry said, it was the show “that had something important to say.” But he is correct in praising Abrams. He’s a marvelous filmmaker. But let’s face it. Tentpole movies are geared to teenagers unless you’re Christopher Nolan. See The Dark Knight and Inception.

That being said, the Supreme Court has said it wants to go deeper. And the first nine minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness is a very good start. I’m already thinking about the Prime Directive, its origins and the metaphor that Gene wanted us to get from it. I’m also hoping for some scientific ideas to go along with the explosions.

10. tony - January 7, 2013

just saw shats world was good time even did the meet and greet wish he could chat for a minute always rushed thought new star trek was great its not the same as the original

11. Dalek - January 7, 2013

That was a funny interview but I’m sure there will be the usual comments that twist it into “shatner bashed JJ abrams”, even though what he said about the movie was very kind.

12. TonyD - January 7, 2013

Shatner is spot on in his comments. The needs of an ongoing TV show and a summer blockbuster tentpole movie are very different.

TOS ran for 79 hours and had more of a luxury to be at turns introspective, funny, sad, adventurous and yes, it had its share of action and explosions.

A summer movie has a small window to find its audience and make its money and, for better or worse, needs to be tailored to appeal to a wider audience. It would be nice if JJ’s Trek was a little more thoughtful and well thought out (and who knows, STID may well be) but the emphasis will always be on the action and the solution will always involve a few phasers and a volley or two of photon torpedoes. ST:TMP tried the introspective, hard sci-fi route and it continues to be derided to this day as “boring”. Even TWOK had to basically throw out the hopeful ending of Space Seed, turn Khan into a revenge-obsessed villain, and end with an epic space battle to be viable.

13. Dunsel Report - January 7, 2013

Yeah, Bill’s right. There’s no reason a summer movie can’t go a bit deeper with its character development, though, and I hope Darkness does. Let’s hope it gives Kirk a nice dark winter of the soul. One of those moments of “no beach to walk on, no braid on my shoulder…”

14. MJ - January 7, 2013

What a load of horse shit from the guy who gave us the worst ST movie of all time, and who thought a paycheck was more important than having Captain Kirk die in an honorable manner.

Shame on you, WIlliam Shatner. SHAME ON YOU!!!!

PS: He is still carrying a grudge because JJ wasn’t going to let a 300+ pound bufoonish actor play in his version of Trek.

15. Carmen Figueroa - January 7, 2013

Hi sir i just what you to know i liked your show real fan ok. Long time show.

16. Dunsel Report - January 7, 2013

I thought “Star Trek V” had a better premise and gave the Star Trek universe more than “Nemesis…” did…

17. Exverlobter - January 7, 2013

Well, i guess Abrams will now return the favour, by giving Shatner NOT a cameo appearance in Star Trek 13!

18. K-7 - January 7, 2013

#17 That’s like some guy saying he prefers ugly hookers over fat hookers. :-)

19. Phil - January 7, 2013

Damn it, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer. Yep, more soul.

20. K-7 - January 7, 2013

In my post above, I was responding to Dunsel Report, not Exexlobster.

21. garth of I - January 7, 2013

how do you compare one TOS JJ movie to the entire TOS series and movies? You can’t.

not a great comparrison

22. Red Shirt Diaries - January 7, 2013

Gut, I wish this obese bufoon, who use to be the great William Shatner, would just shut the F up for a change.

23. Mad Man - January 7, 2013

Shatner hit that nail right on its head! HA!

24. mhansen0207 - January 7, 2013

#14

Totally agree. I’m sorry, but I never liked Shatner. To me the man is so full of himself and if he were in the new J.J. movies, I think he’d be singing a different tune.

Not to mention, this is coming from the man who delivered the worst piece of crap Star Trek movie of all time that was totally deprived of any soul.

People in glass houses….

25. Nony - January 7, 2013

I don’t know I entirely agree with him…there were very personal storylines woven through the movie, which were remarkably emotionally effective considering there wasn’t really enough time to service them properly in two hours. Hopefully another two, with the new movie, will serve to deepen those storylines. And on the flip side, there were hours of utter shallow fluff in TOS, worse than anything you could criticize in J.J.’s movie. I understand why Shatner says what he does, and it’s perfectly legitimate, but it seems he is purposely choosing not to notice the substance that is there under all the money Paramount poured into the production. I’m sure he’ll say the same thing about Into Darkness, no matter what it’s about or how deep it gets, because it’s just his thing.

26. Jack - January 7, 2013

“Roddenberry had his own utopian vision about he perfectibility of man, and I never really believed that. And I don’t think the show demonstrates that. I think it is about gunboat diplomacy. In the final analysis, the Enterprise fires. They’re always shooting and bringing civilization, and coming to worlds where they don’t approve of tyrannical enterprises – no pun intended – and they substitute their own quote unquote enlightened version of how society is supposed to work, which is essentially American.”
- Nicholas Meyer

27. fansincesixtynine - January 7, 2013

I’ve always loved Captain Kirk and enjoyed Shatner. After seeing his show Friday night and meeting him, I have a whole new level of respect for the man. He is incredibly talented. I’m so glad I went.

28. Jack - January 7, 2013

It’s true, in plot after plot they show up, they destroy the (technological or ideological) oppressor so freedom can prevail and they leave — and sometimes say diplomats or federation scientists will follow to clean up. See: Iraq.

Sure, the opening spiel talks about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations and boldly going where no man had gone before… but how often did we actually see that (and just that, without conflict and without the enterprise righting a situation) happen?

29. dmduncan - January 7, 2013

I don’t find anything offensive about what Shatner said. He was one of the lead personalities who made the franchise what it became. Thus, I respect his opinion on Star Trek, past AND present.

30. Shatner Speaks the Truth - January 7, 2013

Rough day on the playground, MJ?

As for Shatner, his Trek movie may have been bad overall, but at least he didn’t forget the soul of the characters. Abrams used the Cliff’s Notes version.

31. dmduncan - January 7, 2013

28: “Sure, the opening spiel talks about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations and boldly going where no man had gone before… but how often did we actually see that (and just that, without conflict and without the enterprise righting a situation) happen?”

You mean how many episodes consisted of discoveries disconnected from competent storytelling? Thankfully, not many.

Remove the conflict and why bother? Conflict just reflects the nature of nature, and telling ourselves stories about dealing with conflict can be an important function of narrative TV and cinema. I think it’s a delusion of the modern mind that given the appropriate human actions, the universe can be turned into a continuously cozy place where headaches, hangnails, and hernias never occur.

Imagine what dull creatures we would be if embodied existence ever became something like that!

32. Magic_Al - January 7, 2013

These days, a Star Trek movie or TV episode play with equal stature on the TV screen at home, and in that context, Shatner’s Star Trek V: The Final Frontier wasted much less celluloid than episodes such as “That Which Survives” which is notably pointless and forgettable, so forgettable it doesn’t appear on as many worst-of lists as it deserves to. Episodes and movies that get criticized the most at least made an impression and generated some passion.

33. chrisfawkes.com - January 7, 2013

I think Abramms captured more of the original spirit of Star Trek that anything since tos.

But i get what he is saying. It does seem that Abrams team are stuck on a particular story style.

I would hope for something different in their third instalment.

34. mhansen0207 - January 7, 2013

#30

So, you’re gonna compare the writing of the characters from a movie where the characters were already established in 4 previous films & 79 hours of television and therefore could delve deeper to a movie whose sole purpose was to re-establish/revitalize both the franchise and the characters within a 2 hour timespan? And because it had to accomplish all that and it didn’t live up to your standards, it’s the “Cliffs Notes” version?

Yeah, real apt comparison.

35. Shatner Speaks the Truth - January 7, 2013

#34

It made a lot of money by copying and pasting and making everything shinier and louder. The only standard that counts now.

Enjoy the next one, friend.

36. Kev-1 - January 7, 2013

That puts Trek 2009 in good company, because TOS had more “soul” than just about any sci-fi property ever done. Spock’s lack of emotion seems to have been jettisoned in the new films. I always liked Kirk’s mental sparring (figuratively, and not with manipulative intent) in TOS. Don’t think it’s an either/or situation; Films could be successful with less of a blockbuster mentality.

37. MJ - January 7, 2013

@30 Never heard of you before, but you address me like you know me? Interesting. One might draw some conclusions based on this?

38. Thomas - January 7, 2013

36. Kev-1:
“Spock’s lack of emotion seems to have been jettisoned in the new movies.”

Spock NEVER lacked emotion in TOS; he just did everything a Vulcan could do to not be controlled by them, even going so far as to verbally distance himself from them. As the series went on and the character of Spock evolved, you could see that Spock had feelings, but did not wish to be governed by them, especially since he perceived them as indicative of his humanity. That’s why some people cried foul at ST09 when Spock Prime told his other self to “put aside logic…do what feels right.” Spock eventually came reconciled his humanity (and the accompanying emotions) and his Vulcan-ness, realizing that both made him what he was. You can even see this reconciliation beginning to happen a little sooner with Alt-Spock.

39. kmart - January 7, 2013

MJ, I don’t know who the hell you are, but based on your views of TFF (which has more of a TOS feel than ANYTHING else to come along, regardless of story and production issues) and That THING Abrams Made, it’s easy to understand why another poster would take issue with your statements.
I used to think folks who embraced the Abrams were just trying to put a good face on the newest incarnation, not wanting to badmouth in the same way folks in years past made excuses for TMP (for awhile anyway) or TNG or even Voyager and Lil ENTERPRISE, but now I’m convinced they’re just getting what they wanted, lowest common denominator space opera with the TREK named burned in.

MHANSEN, to use an example from this century, SERENITY was able to do damn near everything in 2 hours that FIRELY did in its all-too-short run, and do so without castrating the characters or turning them into buffoon-like parodies. That cliffs notes remark of the other poster is actually too generous; I don’t think the Abrams characters are even generally like the originals, and it isn’t JUST due to context.

The Abrams writers supposedly loved BALANCE OF TERROR; maybe they’d've been better off doing something I talked about ten or twelve years back, and redo BALANCE OF TERROR but position it as the crew’s FIRST mission, so you could credibly have some suspense over the issue of ‘those folks have pointed ears!’ BoT lends itself to feature adaptation because it is easy to expand on it without diluting the thrust; you could add a section where the crew is trying to evacuate some of the folks on the asteroids, establishing another arena for the story beyond the bridges of the two ships.

40. kmart - January 7, 2013

MJ
Oh, and going by the other post of yours, what is the issue, that you think Shat is a buffoon or that he is 300 pounds? Just how much weight is too much, Admiral? It’s okay to be, say, Doohan-sized, but no more? The waistband must be drawn HERE, huh?

Jackass.

41. Jack - January 7, 2013

31. Exactly. But people here talk about a Trek that didn’t quite exist, at least not on TOS… when comparing it to Abram’s work. A trek with no conflict, humor or action. Yes, trek 2009 wasn’t about much more than the search for belonging, the not-always -clearly-good consequences of risks, and how the characters overcame prejudices to start out on the path to be who we know … but yet it gets called a mindless action movie because it didn’t have an easily digestible, self-evident, after school special moral, like Trek IV (we need whales ), Trek V (nobody can help you find God out there),
or Trek VI (we’re all racist).

TOS was a great show — but it wasn’t a bunch of guys standing around navel gazing and marvelling about how amazing humanity and the universe is — that was first season TNG.

42. MJ - January 7, 2013

@40. Ah, great, you are off the discussion and starting the name-calling. Congrats! Enjoy your intellectual bankruptcy in this discussion with me, dude. ;-)

43. MJ - January 7, 2013

“TOS was a great show — but it wasn’t a bunch of guys standing around navel gazing and marvelling about how amazing humanity and the universe is — that was first season TNG.”

Well said, Jack!

44. kmartq - January 7, 2013

42,
I went back & forth about including that, but realized it wasn’t name-calling, it was an honest evaluation, arrived at after calling you on your ham-fisted posting.

I think ‘intellectual bankruptcy’ at least indicates there was some thought to begin with, so if that is what you think about how I think, enjoy yourself; keeping that in mind, I will NOT accuse you of being ethically bankrupt.

I guess we all have to know our own limitations, huh? Just don’t look too close or somebody will come along and call it navel-gazing.

And once more, with feeling, that feeling being utter sincerity: JACKASS!

45. K-7 - January 7, 2013

kmart, name-calling is name calling. Please spare us your lame excuse for name-calling. Be a man and admit you name-called. Otherwise, if you can’t take responsibility for your own actions, then please take your sorry act somewhere else.

46. MJ - January 7, 2013

“kmart, name-calling is name calling. Please spare us your lame excuse for name-calling. Be a man and admit you name-called. Otherwise, if you can’t take responsibility for your own actions, then please take your sorry act somewhere else.”

Well said, K-7. I may be pompous and can be an ass at times, but I never make up excuses or try to bend reasoning to cover up any bad behavior of mine. I fully stand by everything I have ever said here, and don’t try to mince words to avoid being direct and taking responsibility for my actions.

47. JP Saylor - January 7, 2013

AMEN! The new movies are great movies but don’t encapsulate the true essence of Star Trek.

Make a new series! Fringe and other series demonstrate the ability to make and a desire for more, great, new sci-fi series!

The problem is, they’re using Hollywood actors and you couldn’t get them all to agree to doing a series. Star Trek is just another gig for most of them. Pegg and Quinto might be the only exceptions.

48. Jack - January 7, 2013

Kmart — why redo Balance of Terror? It was pretty terrific the first time.

49. Buzz Cagney - January 7, 2013

Maybe a bit more of the soul will surface once we come to love these actors in these iconic roles, if we come to love them?. Beyond Karl Urban they were just kids play acting for fun. Play acting very well, for sure, but they weren’t the actors that injected the soul into these characters.

50. Red Dead Ryan - January 7, 2013

Well, its clear kmart is a bitter person, judging by his cheap, department-store quality name calling remarks.

51. Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay) - January 7, 2013

MJ — I actually agree with you in some respects and others I agree with your points in some.

Here is my simple breakdown…

TOS – Had a few deeper character episodes but on a whole was fairly shallow compared to later series. Also was not very consistent with its own universe.

LATER SERIES IN PARTICULAR DS9 – Had much more depth than TOS… But of course they ran for longer runs and had to skirt around Roddenberry’s … ummm what’s a nice way to say it… Roddenberry’s ideals that had changed from TOS and were no longer conducive of a good show. Yes they had to get creative in show creation to make them good.

FILMS – These should be “Rides” as Shatner called it… The films have a much larger budget than an episode and that is all put into a smaller package. You SHOULD have a feel that it is Star Trek but not bog it down overly so. STII and newer for the most part felt more like rides to me than any of the series episodes. And overall that is good. TMP was not a ride… Well maybe a slow ride to sleep as every single time I put it in I fall asleep in the middle and awaken later to find they’re pretty much doing the same thing going through a cloud. TMP is what happens when you try to make Trek movies more like the episodes.

Just my thought… Ooooh maybe I’ll get called a name now?

Just remember though, Naysayers are gonna nay…

52. RenderedToast - January 7, 2013

Totally agree with him, and that’s as a big fan of the Abrams movie (might go as far to say that it’s my 3rd or 4th favourite Trek film).

Original Star Trek had far more substance even though some of that substance is now terribly dated. The point is, they tried to make something more than “good guys fight the bad guys with lasers” that most television or movie sci-fi had been up to that point, and that the Abrams Trek film is, under all the glitz and glamour. Even the original series movies kept that heart, in an age when you could do that in a film.

What Abrams and his team are doing is making Star Trek relevant again, but they’re not going to carry it beyond a 3rd film. Everything these days is about making a trilogy, then doing something else. That means a new Star Trek will have to come, most likely on television. It’s there that we can hope for something with a little more “soul”, as Shatner puts it – perhaps even a new crew that can rival the iconic ones we’ve had before. The franchise is in excellent health, and that we can thank Abrams for.

53. JohnRambo - January 7, 2013

I can’t take Shatner for serious anymore, it seems like he’s losing his mind.

Star Trek( i’m not calling it TOS) was the best and its still the best Star Trek show….. but Star Trek has to move on.

JJ and his Team brought Star Trek back beyond anything that came before, and it was simply brilliant.

I can’t wait to go INTO DARKNESS!!!:-D

54. Red Shirt Diaries - January 7, 2013

kmart showed his true colors. He tried to pretend he wasn’t name-calling when everybody saw that he was. You can’t get more disingenuous than that. MJ can be an ass at times, but he always takes full accountability for what he says and doesn’t try to hide under lame platitudes.

kmart has lost all credibility here.

55. Nemesis4909 - January 7, 2013

I can’t say too much about Into Darkness as I’ve not seen it yet but here’s what I can gather.

Star Trek – Villain bent on revenge

Star Trek Into Darkness – Villain bent on revenge

Is the third movie just going to be that again? Give me something new please.

As I’ve said before modern sci fi seems to be about massive stakes and large scale destruction and it seems that Star Trek is no different now *yawn*

56. Buzz Cagney - January 8, 2013

#54 I’m sure he/she won’t lose any sleep over that. This is a web forum, not real life, so who really gives one.

57. WillH85 - January 8, 2013

He’s right, but sadly I just don’t think that a Trek movie that has the heart of either TOS or TNG could rake in nearly the money that J.J.’s did. To get that kind of budget you have to have something that appeals to a wide audience. I think it’s possible, though, for a Trek series with heart to return to the small screen.

58. K-7 - January 8, 2013

MJ, Red Dead, Red Shirt,

Please forgive kmart. Years of Blue Light specials have rendered him a moron.

:-))

59. Nachum - January 8, 2013

You left out the tweet where Hadfield started worrying about his red shirt. :-)

60. Nick - January 8, 2013

Aha …

Since being a young one I loved the TOS cast, but I could always tell Shatner was non-genuine in so many ways.

61. MJ - January 8, 2013

“Since being a young one I loved the TOS cast, but I could always tell Shatner was non-genuine in so many ways.”

Yep!

62. Dom - January 8, 2013

Hmm… 79 live action episodes, 22 cartoons and six movies versus one new Trek film that was very much a transitional movie. With respect to Mr Shatner, that sounds a little judgemental to me.

63. MassiveMarbles - January 8, 2013

Shats right!

JJA is all about the making MONEY from so-called ‘blockbusters’ every few years! These people are the worst kind of leeches!

(This is NOT about the legacy of a man with a vision that was shared by millions of admirers. )

TOS, as we all know, was like a struggling boxer starting out with a meager beginning and a dream.

I say down with Abrams, who was NEVER a trekkie to begin with! I want to see a new series with guts from real trekkies who want to keep Gene Roddenberry’s memory alive!

64. NCC-1881 USS Courier-Times - January 8, 2013

I like both TOS and JJST.

65. VOODOO - January 8, 2013

I agree with Shatner. At the same time Abrams gave modern audiences a film that they would enjoy and at the same time made ST relevant again.

66. gingerly - January 8, 2013

LOL. Don’t ever changer Shatner.

67. William Kirk - January 8, 2013

100% agree with Shatner.

68. ME!! - January 8, 2013

Agreed 110%, Bill.

The Original Series had more soul than any other incarnation of Trek, though I like all the rest to varying degrees. But the Original Series is still the best & most fun.

69. Admiral Kent - January 8, 2013

While I fully understand the criticisms of the JJ-verse, I think with his films we’re seeing the “Yesterday’s Enterprise” version of the original crew: Nero’s actions created a more militant and unstable alternate timeline…very post-9/11, and timely.

“Come, come, Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!”

Besides…TNG was dumbed down for the big screen too. I was expecting more grandiose, TMP style science fiction from that series.

70. Granite Trek - January 8, 2013

Who do you know better, someone you’ve spent a couple of hours with, or someone you’ve known for years, maybe decades, and spent many long and intimate hours with? Which person would you feel was deeper, which would you feel you have more of a connection to?

That’s the difference between Classic Trek and JJ-verse Trek – many years, many hours of series and movies, versus one recent 2 1/2 hour movie. And it really doesn’t matter how well the next film is made, it’ll always be that way, unless the JJ-verse spawns many movies and TV series over the next few decades.

Unless, of course, you’re a kid and you’ve known both Treks only a few years. In which case, all bets are off. But still, having hours upon hours of series episodes to watch versus one movie would probably lend itself to a deeper connection for Classic Trek, even for young fans.

71. Jack - January 8, 2013

63. Roddenberry wasn’t trying to make money? Come on.

72. Jack - January 8, 2013

Shatner’s got an opinion — fair enough. But Trek V had Kirk grappling with a fourbreasted cat woman, Kirk on a horse in a full-on TOS-style/western shoot out, and Uhura dancing naked. Is that soul?

Again, with reference to Trek 09 — everybody keeps talking about all the explosiions. What explosions?

The Kelvin exploded and the Narada exploded. Every other Trek movie, including TMP, had explosions. The Voyage Home showed a clip of the Enterprise exploding in Trek III. TOS had explosions.

If he’s talking strictly about pacing, then yeah.

The thing is, I don’t think Shatner has ever really understood why Trek worked — for a long time he thought it didn’t work, and then he thought it was because of him. He’s been trying to figure it out for nearly 50 years. Fair enough, he was an actor doing a job.

I honestly don’t understand why everybody argues that this new universe is so certainly not Gene’s universe. Even the comment at 69 that this is a militant universe a la yesterday’s enterprise. ignoring te new movie for a second, what is that based on. Sure, we didn’t see our guys staring out portholes and reciting poetry (which was mostly a movie invention) — but we also saw a very short, tight adventure. These characters start out with the same DNA (character-wise) — but what do we expect, a TOS caberet act where we see Kirk quoting Shakespeare solely because that’s what we think he’s supposed to do?

What we got: an adventure set in a much better, more optimistic time with a group of people working together for the better good despite hugely different backgrounds and personal dofferences. That, my friends, is Star Trek to the core. All the other stuff is window dressing.

73. pilotfred - January 8, 2013

he has a point

the best episodes of star trek did have a soul

with any luck the next film will have more of a soul

74. Kev - January 8, 2013

Damn it Bill, I love you but give the new guys a break.

you had 3 years, an all around great cast and a good number of episodes to develop a soul for trek in the old days before the films began.

and even then it was the trekies that kept tos on the air for as long as it did, and even as it ended they tried to keep it on the air for just a little bit longer.

two of which I believe were the great Doug Drexler and Steve Neil

these guys were given a hard task, bring back trek after a 5 year hiatus after Berman had driven it into the ground by playing it way too safe and predictable with voyager and enterprise.

not to mention treating the audience like there idiots.

along with Piller with the movies, that were like a remix of the old films rather than new ones with all new stories save for Generations and First Contact.

flawed as they may be, they atleast tried something different with those two.

hell I’d wager if it wasnt for DS9 trek would have died sometime around the end of the 1990′s and not 2004.

and they had to do that in a way that it would do its best to appeal to the fans and the new comers to the trek lore.

and they somehow did it and now this is there second outing to give it the feel they want and the soul we all want to see them accomplish with it

basically give it a rest and give it time bill

ye oh little faith

but if this one and the next one suck well you were right, just give it time that’s all I ask.

75. samfromrigel7 - January 8, 2013

Shatner is mostly right about the 2009 film. I liked the film very much.No movie is perfect, and he {Shatner}gave some constructive suggestions.

If whoever works with to JJ told him that everything he does, says and
produces is perfect then he would not have to challenge himself as a filmmaker. He would not have to try anymore. No one can debate how talented JJ is, but everyone can be better. What’s wrong with that? Is that not a very Star Trek like theme?

If Shatner isn’t qualified to offer suggestions to the franchise, then who is?

Everyone wants balance in a Star Trek film {or any film that matter}. Good characters, good story,intelligent, interesting, engaging, exciting etc.

The franchise is in good hands with JJ and company. Plus suggestions from the pioneers of the series. Does anyone think Nimoy didn’t have some creative input when they were filmimg the 2009 movie?

I like what I see with the franchise, with the new movie and I am optimistic with where the franchise is going.

Considering the amount of mileage the franchise has, it was a difficult task for JJ and company to jump start the franchise and they did that.

76. I am not Herbert - January 8, 2013

Shat knows Trek! =D

77. Eliasj - January 8, 2013

I ll agree with Bill Shatner.. Maybe because I am 33 and I grew up with the first six movies! I wont lie, the Original Star Trek series never appealed to me but the movies…Oh…the Tos movies made me a Star Trek fan.

Ok, I felt a (tiny) bit bitter after Abrams movie, but I got over it because it is more than meets the eye!

78. Obsidian - January 8, 2013

He’s right. But there’s only been one JJ movie. More soul is probably coming. We hope. 2009 was an excellent movie, showing great potential for “soul” in following movies.

The 423rd request from me: “Please bring trek to TV! One movie every 3 years is not nearly enough! If it can’t be weekly, then give us two or three 2-hour TV movies per year!”

The 32 request from me about trekmovie.com: “Please switch to Disqus!”

79. Damian - January 8, 2013

I don’t think you could really compare the original series with Star Trek (2009). Movie goers today have much different expectations than they did close to 50 years ago. I agree in the sense that Star Trek (2009) didn’t have the same “soul” of the original series, as it were, but I wouldn’t expect it to. These actors did a great job, a fantastic job in some cases (i.e. Karl Urban), but they still weren’t clones of the original actors. I little is going to be lost in translation. For me, that’s ok. This is not an attempt to remake the original series, but a new universe with new possibilities.

Funny, Rick Berman said much the same thing when Star Trek (2009). He noted he loved it as a movie, but it seemed to be missing something. For me, it’s just easier to take them at their word, that they thought it was a great movie that just needed a touch of something more (frankly, if they were being disingenious, whatever, makes no difference to me).

To William Shatner and Rick Berman, I say thank you both for many good years of Trek that I still enjoy watching on a regular basis.

Rick Berman appears to have moved on (other than the comments he made, he has stayed out of the way and appears content to be retired). William Shatner, it was a great ride and you will always be the original Captain Kirk. That should be enough. Let the new team do their thing.

80. steve - January 8, 2013

Shatner never fails to be interesting. It’s one of his gifts.

81. dmduncan - January 8, 2013

41. Jack – January 7, 2013

31. Exactly. But people here talk about a Trek that didn’t quite exist, at least not on TOS… when comparing it to Abram’s work.

***

That is true. To some fans, TOS — or even all former Trek — becomes idealized into something faultless.

82. Jack - January 8, 2013

“If Shatner isn’t qualified to offer suggestions to the franchise, then who is?”

He’s a TV star. He showed up, sat in make-up, stood on the mark, accepted directions, and delivered his memorized lines. Trek was a steady job for three years.

Heck, I like the guy. I’ve read all “his” books.

What bugs me is this ‘JJTrek is all about explosions’ There was certainly a personal story there, on top of the adventure. What do you want a 2-hour Trek movie to be? No FX, pretty stars and a love story?

And look at how the TNG people, experts at television, generally bungled the movies. Even TMP, which I like, didn’t capture the spirit of the original. I think Trek 09 did. Story problems aside, it felt every bit like Star Trek… unless you were expecting 1966 effects, sets and all the original actors.

You want to see TOS redux, watch the fan stuff.

83. Spacerguy - January 8, 2013

You know whats great about this thread? We’re all trying to be so logical!

Even those of us gunning each other with such furious passion, theres that inescapable logic again.

I believe it was Spock who said logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

84. john - January 8, 2013

@Jack

To each their own.

It didn’t capture the spirit of the original nor even the decent TOS movies. 09 Trek to me was more like one of the prequel Star Wars movies.

It was a decent ride at times but it wasn’t the same. BTW the salon lights all over the Enterprise bridge didn’t help much either. I am hoping that the new movie has the bridge looking like a Starship bridge and not a Supercuts.

85. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2013

I doubt Shatner would be saying what he’s been saying had he been in the first movie. He was being diplomatic, but if you read between the lines, he’s clearly bitter.

I like Shatner, but its time for him to move on. Let Chris Pine enjoy the limelight as Kirk.

As for the J.J Abrams flick lacking the spirit of the original series, those individuals making that claim obviously missed the Kelvin scenes featuring George Kirk’s sacrifice and his son’s birth, and the cave meeting between Spock Prime and Kirk. That was Trek at its best right there.

86. Jack - January 8, 2013

I am hoping that the new movie has the bridge looking like a Starship bridge and not a Supercuts.”

I think they’ve stuck with Supercuts, John.

Although, I’ve just realized that nobody has complained about the bar code scanners in a long while. So that’s something.

87. indranee - January 8, 2013

Oh the Shatman! Love the guy!

88. indranee - January 8, 2013

Re the Shatman’s take on JJ Trek: it’s called “enlivening it”. It was dying. And JJ didn’t let it die. As simple as that.

89. MJ - January 8, 2013

@85 “I doubt Shatner would be saying what he’s been saying had he been in the first movie. He was being diplomatic, but if you read between the lines, he’s clearly bitter.”

As he has gotten older, he has become even more petulant than when he was younger, and his sense of entitlement is so out of control that it is moving past Warp 9 now.

90. Jack - January 8, 2013

85. I got Shatner Rules in one of those ‘steal the gift’ games at a Christmas party. A short, decent, goofy read. He has some interesting points — but I really do think that he never really understood the popularity of Trek. It’s hard to tell when he’s being facetious, but for decades he said he thought Trek was an embarrassing joke. People would tell out ‘beam me up Scotty’ and (he says) he thought he was being mocked. I wasn’t trying to be mean with my ‘he’s a TV star” comments, above. But, I think we can be pretty naive, as fans, in thinking that they all took this job believing it would change the world.

“What’s the difference between and actor and a movie star. An actor is someone who pretends to be somebody else. A movie star is somebody who pretends that somebody else is them.”
– Nicholas Meyer

91. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2013

Didn’t Shatner’s “Get a life” SNL skit occur around the time “The Final Frontier” came out?

92. Jack - January 9, 2013

91. I’d thought it was around the release of Trek IV, the height of Shat’s 80s popularity.

93. Trekkiegal63 - January 9, 2013

That’s interesting, first post didn’t show up at all, but the second correcting it did. Odd.

Anyway, I feel that Shatner has a point. I’ve always considered TOS to be a parable (an allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth or moral lesson).

The ST:2009 movie, while a great film, was missing that aspect of it. Now, to be fair to JJ and company, there are hardly ANY parables produced in Hollywood anymore (sign of the times, I suppose), so it’s really not surprising that he’d use such a different approach to storytelling. It is a shame, though. It was an aspect of TOS I thought enriching.

94. Disinvited - January 9, 2013

#91. Red Dead Ryan

It wasn’t Shatner’s skit as he readily admits that he had nothing to do with its creation. It was created by then SNL writer, Robert Smigel. Shatner just good-naturedly agreed to play Smigel’s fictional Shatner.

95. Disinvited - January 9, 2013

#95.

Perhaps this would help some to better understand the GET A LIFE skit’s inception?: Smigel is the man behind Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog puppet.

96. Jack - January 9, 2013

Can’t a film have something interesting to say without blasting a message at the audience? A few of the actors, and Roddenberry, talked a lot, years later, about the idea that Trek was all about parables and allegories, but I don’t think the majority of episodes actually did that.

97. Greg2600 - January 9, 2013

No they actually did. Many may go unnoticed today because the issues are no longer at the forefront, but nearly every episode had a clearly definable theme. That’s the core of science fiction. To tell those kinds of stories via the lens of fantasy. Couldn’t really find the morality play in ST09.

98. Trekkiegal63 - January 9, 2013

#96 Jack:

I think we must have taken different things from TOS entirely, because from my perspective (not saying you have to share this perspective, mind) most of the allegories and parables didn’t even bother to be subtle:

“Where No Man Has Gone Before” = Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“The Enemy Within” = Only by accepting all sides of ourselves can self-actualization be obtained.

“Arena” = You may think you’re the top of the food chain but don’t let that make you too cocky.

“Space Seed” (see also ST2) = messing around with evolution and genetics inorganically… maybe not the greatest of ideas.

“A Taste of Armageddon” (see also “The Matrix”) = You can’t rely on machines for everything.

“This Side of Paradise” = Drugs are bad.

“The Devil in the Dark” = Life is full of variety. Probably not a good idea to go around killing things without getting the whole story first. Group mentality? Yeah, avoid that. Symbiotic relationships can be obtained.

“City on the Edge of Forever” = do not mess with the space/time continuum.

…. and that’s just the more obvious ones. And only the first season. I could go on with more, trust me (for example, “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” is the most obvious parable in the history of EVER).

And yes, a film doesn’t have to contain a message, but I actually prefer it. I enjoy things more that inspire thought. Doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong, just mean that is what I, personally, prefer. Some people like films like “Inception”, some don’t *shrug*.

99. CAPT KRUNCH - January 9, 2013

TOS and TREKS 1-6 did have soul and a bunch of the shows and a few of the movies were very entertaining for their time. Today’s audiences have very short attention spans and wont stand for too much of a lull in the action of a movie. JJ knew this and that’s why he has made TREK in his image…fast paced, action packed……it’s exciting!..
He has put life into the old girl!
I grew up on TOS…loved it more than anything..then TNG came out…it was quicker with more action and explosions, but it didn’t change my opinion of the franchise…it was the time it was made in. DS9 and VOY added a litle more action and sex, and when ENT came out in the 2000′s with more action, more sex, more explosions…I welcomed it as well. Call it evolution if you will of a series, As long as the characters are strong and the story is good, it’s still TREK.

100. Jack - January 10, 2013

98. Agree with you about Battlefield. And that’s exactly the episode I was thinking of when I read ‘parable’ that and The Way To Eden. Trek did them, but I think the frequency gets overstated. And some of the ones you mentioned aren’t clunky parable-y. Like Edge of Forever. It told a story first. Personally, I’d rather it work as a story first, — if there’s takeaway and insight, brilliant… but I don’t want to see another Final Frontier, Insurrection or Nemesis.

Heck, Trek ’09 was about choices, about deciding how your origins will define you, about taking a leap of faith, how living in the past destroys you, the futility of blind allegiance, about living a life with a purpose, about why doing what’s expected of you might not help anyone, about the power of love, friendship and emotion…

101. Trekkiegal63 - January 10, 2013

#100 Jack:

Well, to be fair Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis had other issues, the least of which was the parable aspect. Parables, when done correctly, can be awesome, like in the case of, as you said, “The City on the Edge of Forever”. Insurrection and Nemesis’ problem was that the Powers That Be at the time were too afraid to take risks. I’m not sure if you’ve read Michael Piller’s account of what went down during the creative process of Insurrection (if not, you can find an account of it here: http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.com/2010/09/fade-in-making-of-star-trek.html – trust me when I say it’s interesting reading) but I can’t help but think that Insurrection, in its original, pure form, as Piller had intended it, would have translated to a much better film than what we actually received. Nemesis tried too hard to be the Wrath of Khan but failed because they couldn’t follow through like Khan did. For example, Data’s sacrifice had less of an impact than Spock’s because of the existence of B-4. Final Frontier made the grave error of addressing the division between science and religion (and not executing it very well, to boot). It’s been 88 years since the Scopes trial and this topic is still very much a hot one in our society. I don’t think audiences ready for it yet in 1989 (which, in retrospect, was over twenty years ago – it always shocks me when I ponder how much time has passed). Unfortunately, the puritanical roots of the United States still shine through in a lot of ways.

Now I’m not claiming ST:2009 didn’t have great qualities. Goodness no. I saw it six times in the theater (don’t judge, my business offices at the time were right next to a theater – watching Trek makes a great extended lunch on a lazy Friday afternoon ;)) I loved the message, as you said, of overcoming adversity. Of not allowing a ‘victim’ mentality to prevent a person from going on to accomplish great things. It’s a trait both Kirks share, as Shatner’s Kirk had to overcome the events of Tarsus IV and something I greatly admire in Kirk. James T. Kirk is probably one of the most adaptable characters out there. I’m just claiming it wasn’t as prevalent as themes go. There was a lot going on in that movie, and it moved fast. I think Capt. Krunch hit the nail on the head when about the short attention spans of audiences in this day and age. There’s almost an… ADD approach to filmmaking now that wasn’t there when the TOS cast was making films. And some of the ‘soul’ does get lost in that pace, I’m afraid. The inclusions of tropes, such as the romantic trope, was another issue I had with the film, but I already went over that, in detail, in another thread, so I won’t go into that again. But yes, overall ST:2009 was a good film. And based on what little we know, so far, about the sequel, I’m getting that this next film just might contain more of the ‘soul’ we’re aching for now that the characters and their universe is established and they can focus more on telling a moving story that is ripe with poignancy.

102. kmart - January 10, 2013

k7 reddeadryan, whoever else commented on this,

I just love that you can sidstep the real issue I was addressing, which was MJ potshotting Shatner as Kirk on the basis of his weight.

It really does take a jackass to make a remark like that, but what it takes for folks to let that stand without comment (and NOBODY here did comment on it) … well, honestly, I find THAT a lot worse, because it is only when we let a wronghood stand uncorrected that the steamroller really gets going.

And for TODAY’s good deed, I’ll re-mention what I said in another thread … if you want a deal on TOS in BR, hop over to deepdiscount and get a brand new set for about eighty bucks.

103. Red Dead Ryan - January 10, 2013

I think what Jack is trying to say is, that a story should be written first, with parables and metaphors weaved into them afterward as an addition of depth and perspective.

The movies Jack mentioned had clumsy/bad storylines, and as such, the the allagories came off as ham-fisted and obvious, even though the writers may have had the right idea.

It’s all about execution. If the story is poorly executed, it doesn’t matter what the story is trying to tell us.

104. Trekkiegal63 - January 10, 2013

#103 Red Dead Ryan:

Yes, of course. On that I agree entirely. It’s not that these films contained allegories that was the issue, but rather how the allegories were addressed. Like I said earlier, an allegory, when done well (like the “City on the Edge of Forever” example, and many other TOS episodes, and as “Insurrection” would have been before Berman got ahold of it and watered it down so drastically) has the potential to be brilliant, but there is a formula to it. A good Trek film is made up of many components, the allegory being one aspect of it. There is also the wit, the loyalty (a.k.a. brothers-in-arms, that sense of family and familiarization), the intelligence (this may seem superfluous but considering how many movies try to ‘dumb things down’, I adore that Star Trek has always assumed that their audience is smarter than the average bear) and last, but certainly not least, the quest.

A good Trek knows that the journey is more important than the destination.

I’m not saying ST:2009 didn’t have any of that. I’m just saying that there was too much going on, it moved fast, so it wasn’t as evident as it has been in the past. And to be fair, they had a tall order in that one. They had to reintroduce everybody to a new audience, as well as apease those of us who were fans of the original series. The first TOS film, ST:TMP, had its issues as well. As a consumner, I am no where close to writing off Abram’s interpretation just because I believe that TOS had more soul. It’s really much too soon to do that.

105. Disinvited - January 10, 2013

#102. kmart

You task me and I suppose I should respond.

I have managed an excess of a half of a century of years, and in all that time, I have never seen:

the maimed made whole,
the bald maned,
the plain turned beautiful,
the unclear of thought given the clarity of genius,
etc.

because someone pointed out the obvious to them in a barbed fashion. In fact, quite the vice versa.

106. Jack - January 10, 2013

I think good stories, by definition, contain themes and truths, probably more than the writers intended. I don’t even think it’s a matter of weaving them in there. And we’ll disagree on this, but I loved the pace of Trek 09. If it has to be slowed down to hammer in messages, then maybe those messages aren’t naturally there. The movies I mentioned failed, on top of everything else, because their main intent was to be an allegory. That was the only point of those stories. They had no other reason to exist. The characters did things they might not normally do to fit the ideas in those stories.

If those ideas have to be talked about — announced –, in speeches and repeated discussions… then they’re not really there.

i really don’t think City on the Edge of Forever is an anti-time-travel parable. Or an anti technology parable. Or as an anti-do-gooder parable. Or as a make-sure-to-inject-safely parable. Or a parable at all. It’s about having to make terrible choices.

107. Trekkiegal63 - January 10, 2013

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Because I believe firmly that writing with the intent to convey is message, when executed correctly, can and does strengthen the story. And I’m not just talking about film. I’m also talking about literature. Some of the greatest works ever written: Plato’s “The Republic”, Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”, Jonathon Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”, George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”, Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick”, Richard Adam’s “Watership Down”, Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” and C.S. Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia”… All excellent, all allegorical, specifically written to be allegorical, and all so significant in their impact. I will never forget the dark feelings that “Moby Dick” and “Lord of the Flies” elicited within me, nor the hope and joy “The Christmas Carol” brings. It sticks. As a Trekkie I was always proud that Star Trek meant something, was more than the sum of its parts, more than mindless t.v. and film geared towards the sixth grade vocabulary (that’s an actual statistic, btw). I guess what it comes down to is we each take something from the media we enjoy. You enjoy your fast-paced action, I enjoy my allegory.

108. Jack - January 11, 2013

107. Again, those all work as stories first, apart from The Republic, Animal Farm (arguably, I remember being caught up in the story as a kid even though I got that it was about the USSR etc)… and maybe Gulliver’s Travels (which is pretty much pure satire). I never said I liked fast-paced action. I don’t think Trek 09 was an action movie. And i never said I didn’t like ideas. Quite the contrary. But I don’t like being spoon-fed. If the ideas don’t naturally come out of the experiences we see ofthecharacters, than they’re not really there.

Good scripts, stories, novels generally follow the rule ‘Show, don’t tell.’ The messages flow from the characters decisions and actions.

Look at Prometheus as an example of how not to do this. It isn’t about anything. It mentions all of those ideas, the same way the family guy makes references to the 80s (without necessarily making real jokes). But it doesn’t do anything with any of it. The characters blather about creation and the meaning of,ife. But it all amounts to window dressing.

Look at Nemesis, where Picard muses over and over and over about what shapes us — is it nature or nuture? Does nuture change our nature? Do lousy experiences justify terrible acts. They would have been interesting ideas had they been allowed to come naturally from the story. Instead we get people saying all this stuff, but we don’t really see it.

If you have to tell the audience the moral — then it’s probably not really there in the first place.

I don’t want mindless, or soulless — but i disagree that only obvious allegories have mind, soul or a greater message.

I want more from Trek than a simple allegory and a flow chart on a white board — “okay, this one is about global warming and Syria.”

Roddenberry always talked about the power of allegory and how the network wouldn’t let him talk about the Vietnam War and yet he ‘snuck’ it into an episode. But what is that episode actually saying about any of it? It ends up being a rousing celebration of the US Constitution.

TWOK isn’t designed solely as an allegory, arguably, and yet it has more soul and ideas than most TOS episodes.

109. Trekkiegal63 - January 11, 2013

You realize you’re not actually arguing against me, right? I said, and I quote “writing with the intent to convey is message, when executed correctly” you said “those all work as stories first”.

Yes, they worked, didn’t they? They are excellent, awesome even, but here’s the thing, let’s take “Moby Dick”, for example: Melville did not randomly nor subconsciously decide that the theme of “Moby Dick” was going to be obsession and revenge halfway through writing the book. He didn’t sit down and write a story about a captain hunting a whale because he hated Sperm Whales and thought his story would be mindless fun. No, he had a very specific purpose in mind the moment he typed the first sentence. And the story worked because it resonated.

I use “Moby Dick” to highlight my point because it is a relevant example, it’s been used so,so often in Trek. Arguably the best of the Next Gen movies, “First Contact” not only borrowed the same themes but out-and-out referenced the book. Lily said to Picard “Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale!”. Khan, the best of all Trek films, in my opinion, which you were kind enough to bring up, also used this theme and referenced the book. Khan quoted this passage “…To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.” from the book, in the movie.

The point I’m trying to make isn’t trying to downsize the importance of a story. I agree that yes, the story is very, very important. The point I’m trying to make is that stories containing allegories, and I repeat, when executed correctly, make more of an impact than stories that do not. Referencing Shatner’s interview, stories that contain allegories have ‘soul’.

An allegory is an important tool when reaching for a reader/viewer. It resonates because it has a point. And in my opinion, everything should have a point.

Can an allegory swamp a story? Yes. It happens. Sure.

But can an allegory strengthen a story? YES!!! This is what I’ve been trying to say. It can, it does, and the best of literature and cinema contain them.

110. Jack - January 13, 2013

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainObviousAesop

111. Jack - January 13, 2013

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anvilicious

Audiences then weren’t unaware that war was bad, that racism was bad, that Nazis were bad etc. As a really young kid, I thought Star Trek had helped open the dialogue on all this stuff. And I was dumb, and wrong.

Some great literature incorporates themes and symbols, but so does a lot of crappy, pretentious dreck.

If you liked the message episodes, fair enough. I’ve long had an axe to grind against the general argument that “Trek was always an allegory/parable.” Look at the 79 episodes. Not the case for the bulk of ‘em. Although the worst episodes were indeed allegories.

112. Trekkiegal63 - January 14, 2013

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

You’re making the assumption that the shows which contained allegories which you deemed the worst (I emphasized you in this case because favored episodes and least favored episodes are subjective and vary from fan to fan – for example, my least favorite episode is “Turnabout Intruder” because of its wildly sexist undertones, but I’ve met several fans who insist that “Spock’s Brain” is much worse) then ANYTHING containing an allegory must therefore be lacking or be “crappy, pretentious dreck”.

I’ve already proven this is not the case with the list of literary works, and even Star Trek movies and episodes, in previous posts. I said it once, I’ll say it again… some of the greatest literature and movies (shows) contain allegories: the ones that stick with us, the ones referenced again and again because the moral of the story was a profound one (revenge leading to obsession a la “Moby Dick”) that they will, apparently, still be relevent in as late as the 24th century (Picard and his relationship with the Borg in “First Contact”).

“The Wrath of Khan” – an allegory (see “Moby Dick” reference in post above). My second favorite Trek film, “The Undiscovered Country” – a big, whopping allegory if there ever was one (Berlin wall anyone?). My third favorite Trek film “The Voyage Home”, also an allegory (environmental concerns – specifically endangered species).

I will concede to your point that not ALL of Trek has consisted of allegories. There have been five series with 716 episodes between them and eleven (soon to be twelve) movies. Even *I* think 727 (soon to be 728) allegories would be a bit much. But there is no denying that Trek contains more than small percentage of them, and when done well (the three movies I just mentioned, for example), Trek shines for it.

I’ve also come to the conclusion that you and I are never going to agree on this topic and for two very good reasons. Reason One: You see allegories as a Bad Thing. I see allegories, when executed correctly, as a Good Thing. Reason Two: we both appear to be equally stubborn in our stance.

113. Disinvited - January 14, 2013

#111. Jack

I grew up in the Jim Crow South before and during STAR TREK and you might think what was going on could be summarized by an oversimplified “X is bad.” but you’d be wrong.

I wish I could take you back in time so that I could watch you try to get the phrase “owning slaves was evil” published in the local paper unmolested. You see, Johnny Reb was not in any way bad but Yankees were damned.

We might have been told Nazis were bad, but beyond opposing us in a war, any photographs depicting what they did that made them evil was blocked for many various excuses; the real reason was that public outrage would threaten our missile defense/space program which depended on Nazis. Suppressed, just as the Kirk/Uhura kiss was on local tv. Perhaps it might give you a clue as to the active habitual suppression of various things from that era if I tell you that for 90% of my life WW II was documented solely on black and white film?

I knew racism was wrong but plenty in my local community did not. Clearly my political leaders didn’t with all the separate and unequal laws for blacks back then.

Like it or not THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. and STAR TREK got me me to see that not everyone that lived in the Soviet Union was a monster out to kill me. And I dare suggest that later via the videotape underground Trek served a similar function over there.

114. Oh Landru, My Landru! - January 15, 2013

I thought that Shatner had been offered a cameo but turned it down? Or that it wasn’t enough screen time and Abrams couldn’t work it out so they kind of mutually decided against it.

I think it’s funny everyone is up in arms over what he said. Shatner rarely (if ever) watches his own work and I doubt he’s seen ST09. He’s going on what he’s heard and going against the grain so people will talk about him…as always.

Do I think Shatner is full of himself most of the time? Yes. However, that doesn’t stop me from respecting his work as an actor. I also acknowledge that he’s a flawed human being who tries to do his best. There are lots of people who adore having their ego stroked who don’t give back to the community. At all. Ever.

I can also manage to realize that Captain Kirk was a JOB for him. Expecting an actor (or anyone, really) who does not know you to immediately understand why something is so important to you is ridiculous. It’s equally ridiculous to go up to someone and say “Hey, you remember that thing you did when you were working that different job 40-odd years ago? It was AWESOME!” and expect them to immediately know what you are talking about. Just like any other occupation, what someone thinks is their most inspiring action might be something else entirely to the one who was inspired.

Most people who like Star Trek enough to post about it online and/or discuss it beyond “Yeah, I’ve seen it. I kind of liked it.” are those that the show touched in some way or another. Maybe it was your refuge at the end of a long day, maybe it taught you something, maybe it inspired you. The point is, everyone is unique and just as the feelings that a song might stir someone inside vary widely, so does Star Trek. Those feelings are what lead to different interpretations and different ‘truths’.

What it is to YOU and what it is to ME might be completely different – and that’s okay. The persistent arguments among fans that THEIR view of ST *must* absolutely be everyone else’s view as well just boggles my mind.

115. badrunner - January 17, 2013

Picard could talk Kirk into hanging himself, that’s how it would go down. Kirk wouldn’t even get a chance to go hand to hand with Picard. If they did, Kirk would win and so would Shatner.

Shatner pretty much nailed it, the new movie is basically a thrill ride. After the thrills wear off, it’s pretty empty and not to mention a disgrace. I walked out of the 2009 film thinking I missed how they saved Vulcan, as a Star Trek fan you were never asked to accept a defeat as large as taking away a major piece of the story before. Which is why I was a little confused at how late in the movie the destruction of Vulcan came and how they were going to put things right, which I was thinking the entire ending of the movie, since it was a time travel movie. And when it didn’t happen I was left confused and cheated.

We’ve seen Transformers become a huge hit because of special effects, yet the story is utter crap, I guess finding enough people to fill seats isn’t that hard anymore when you have an open slot for a shoot em up all thrills movie, so I’m not surprised it did well enough for a sequel.

They’ve said it more than once they know they’ll be pissing off older fans of Trek but will be creating new fans. So with that said, I’m just not sure I’ll be buying a ticket this go because of the previous film. No thanks.

116. K-7 - January 18, 2013

@115 You’ve got to be kidding me. Picard couldn’t hold up Kirk’s jock-strap.

And your whining about Vulcan is childish.

117. pattypie - January 19, 2013

I saw William Shatner throw out the first ball at a Dodgers-Cubs game in August of 2012. We were in box seats 10 rows back from the field between 3rd base and homeplate and he sat about 6 rows down from us in the celeb seats on the field. He looks great for his age and is maybe 20 punds overweight (as a lot of us are). He is nowhere close to 300 pounds. I’d guess around 200.

118. Kenji - January 24, 2013

@115

The people who come onto this site, which is for the Trek nerds, claiming that they will not consume the next Trek product, are not credible.

Why not just admit that you will be there opening night, albeit with your arms crossed, lips pursed, forehead wrinkled, mentally taking note of all the things that you will find horrible that you can then post on the Internet later.

119. ilker - January 30, 2013

How right Mr.Shatner, how right… God bless you.

120. Jeff Terry - February 4, 2013

I agree with Bill, JJ Abrams has ruined Star Trek and will probably ruin Star Wars too. I can’t wait to see if he does a remake of ‘Space: 1999′ and ‘Lost In Space’. That’s all Abrams seems to be doing these days is remakes of classic sci-fi.

121. Joel1245 - February 5, 2013

The fact of the matter is, if Shatner was still young today, he would gladly take the role of Kirk in today’s Trek films without thinking twice. There’s no way he would sit there and have to think about it, reasoning, “Today’s Trek doesn’t have much soal”. Give me a break Bill. I don’t buy that for a second.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.