Abrams Gushes Over Nimoy and Shatner

3 months ago TrekMovie confirmed that both William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy have some sort of contractual involvement in Star Trek XI. In the latest issue of Dreamwatch Magazine, producer J.J. Abrams talks up how happy he is to have them around…

the involvement of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy means a great deal to us on many levels, not the least of which is just the respect of who they are and what they do. They are the carriers of this torch and, without being too reverential; we want to show them the kind of appreciation and admiration they deserve.

Is this guy a fanboy or what? Of course there is still no definitive word on what the extent of their involvement is. It may just be for the promotion or it may be roles in the movie (which Shatner seems to be gunning for).

Star Trek XII?
Abrams also addressed the issue of the potential for sequels, but as usual didn’t really say much

You know, I would say that wherever it goes, it goes and hopefully boldly. I want to tell a great story and make sure that the movie works as well as it possibly can, and that it’s as thoughtful and entertaining as it can possibly be. If it works and results in another film, I would love to have that option when the time comes. But I’m not looking at Star Trek XII yet.

This issue of a sequel is fairly important. The in thing to do these days seems to be related trilogies (like X Men and Spiderman), and of course the ‘classic’ trilogy of trek films (II, III, IV) is considered the high point of the franchise. However if this film is truly set as ‘Kirk’s First Mission On the Enterprise’, that doesn’t leave much room before the original series pilot itself. One possibility would be to set the next film after the 3rd season but before the end of the ‘5 year mission’. Or they could just set a film during the Original Series itself…who knows.

Source: Dreamwatch (via SciFi Pulse)

newest oldest
Notify me of
Denny Krane

The original actors are too old and no one else can play their parts. They should put the whole idea to rest.

Duane Boda

I hope SOMEHOW that Mr. Abrams is reading this and has the wisdom
to get back to the very basic concept of telling and focusing on the actual characters first and foremost. IF he decides to tell of the characters without getting too touchy – feelie (girlie) about it all then perhaps Star Trek has a chance yet.
Put equal emphasis on all three elements of a story….that being the story being told….the characters and the special effects. IF the first two are done with any care then the special effects will be just the icing on the cake that we all been wanting and hoping to see and that Star Trek is worthy of.
Star Wars did it in their first film and their characters weren’t developed (well known) in any shape – form or fashion – it was just done right the
first time around so that shouldn’t be asking expecting too much as fans.

Josh

I would rather see a 70 year old bloated, swollen, red faced, pompous William Shatner and a dried up, shriveled, wrinkly, gaunt Leonard Nimoy than ANYTHING Trek has offered in the last 15 years.

Since we are addressing Abrams,

Shatner and Nimoy get my 10 bucks J.J.
Anything post TOS doesn’t.

Simple economics.

Josh

Oh and J.J.

Young Kirk and Spock MEET Old Kirk and Spock.

The names Vance, Josh Vance.

Duane Boda

The next film is doomed IF they insist on having Mr. Shatner or Nimoy in their roles as they look now. However….with trick of hand and computer enhancement then perhaps they could make a last run at it. Now….if it was set at Starfleet Headquarters on Earth with Spock and Kirk as instructors or consultants then it may work but never in their original roles even if for a fleeting moment where the story revolves around them. Its time for both characters to send/see the next ship off in grand style and lets all hope that its done with some first class story telling so people won’t be debating the validity of the story as their leaving the theaters – leave the characters as they should be both proud and true to their original roots and let the Enterprise travel untethered by its past poor storylines and older characters. Do it right or not at all. Or start anew.

Dave

Did anyone posting here actually READ the article or did they just imagine what they wanted it to say?

Shanter and Nimoy have some sort of “contractual involvement”. It didn’t say they were IN the film. Once again the pointless debate over Shatner and Nimoy being the film is going to dominate yet another topic thread in a pointless debate.

No one at Paramount cares if your ten bucks is going to film that features Shatner and Nimoy. No one at Paramount cares what era you want the film set in. No one at Paramount cares what your idea is on the perfect story that would bring these elements together.

You can’t visit a topic on this site unless you bring a stick so so everyone can beat a dead horse already.

Duane Boda

You’re right of course – Paramount doesn’t care and thats THEIR problem.
They and everyone involved in the production of this film better start caring NOW or its due time to shoot that so call dead horse in the head before anyone takes any bets (invests) any more money into this dead project.
And Paramount better drop those 2 dead horses (Shatner & Nimoy) now before they lay manure all over the screen before anyone sits down and has to smell this film…..better yet….just shut down this site and the film altogether.

Getting Shatner and Nimoy involved would be exciting. Dead horses? That’s just dumb to say.

Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk is a HUGE draw–especially in their most famous roles. Both of them are in phenomenal shape for their age and can easily handle a movie with a parallel plot.

Bringing back Kirk is not only due, it’s long OVER due.

Shatner and Nimoy = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Shatner and Nimoy are who I want to see on the screen. Age means nothing.

Locutus of Landru

WOW!……now theres an intelligent thing you just wrote “Duane” ,
in reality thats an agiest and ignorant thing to coming from any sane
persons perspective, well, perhaps you are on crack?, or is it just maybe didn’t any of your parents kids live?

YOU WILL BE ASSMILATED FOR THE GOOD OF THE BODY!

Doug

re post 6.

Dave is right. My personal hope is that Shatner and Nimoy will be in the movie simply to introduce the story arc, and set up the historical tale. It’s a nice way to pass the torch and tie the old and new together.

Regarding the story… old kirk/ spock meet new kirk spock is the lamest idea i’ve heard. how many times do you want to play this theme. Let’s not forget that Picard and Data just spent the last trek movie meeting variant versions of themselves, and it was pretty bad and unnecessary, not to mention leaving little room for the other actors to get a bit of action.

All the “Academy” stories strike me as being kind of boring too. Although it’s never actually stated… the natural way for Kirk and Spock to have met, is that Kirk takes command of the Enterprise from Christopher Pike, and Spock is already there, as has been established in the Cage, and the Menagerie.

I personally would like that story. Kirks takes command from Pike, and then there first mission together!

Doug

Locutus of Landru

Yeah but Doug, Both Shatner and Nimoy could “the reminicing about the good o’l days”, if it was done right and pull it off….. because they embody what Star Trek is REALLY all about…imo, not the endless dronings of Picard, and the ever annoying post tv series version of Data we have seen since Generations.

just my 2 cents

Doug

Just to be clear, I advocate the idea of Shatner and Nimoy “reminiscing about the old days) I think that’s the best way to use those actors. I agree, they do embody the true essence of Trek, along w/ deForest Kelly, I loved McCoy’s character.

I grew up with original Trek on WPIX in NYC at 6:00 every evening. Couldn’t wait to watch them!!.. on the flip side, I never was a Trek basher for everything post original series. I loved TNG and DS9… both had really great episodes, along with some true losers.

(Voyager was boring, and Enterprise downright sucked for the most part in my opinion, but I still am hopeful for some new stuff w/ Abrams)

Doug

Doug

re post 9

“Shatner & Nimoy = $$$$$$$$$$”

I assume you mean box office, but really the dollars are their salary’s. They will demand a mint to be in the movies, and I guarantee you regardless of whether they love the characters, Nimoy and Shatner will not be in this movie if their prices aren’t met.

d

Kirk Lives

I am now 100% convinced that Shatner and Nimoy will be in this film as Kirk and Spock.

JON

Abrams refers to Shatner/Nimoy as “carriers of the torch”,and that he wants to show reverence.Sounds to me like there will be some kind of “passing of the torch” theme in the new movie.A form of endorsment from the old cast to the new.ALSO Mr Pascale.I’ve read from some posters here that there was a whole second 5 year mission that was never covered giving even more TOS territory to cover.

Dom

Love the headline!

Abrams must be really keen on those guys . . .

Sorry, I have a one-track mind!!! ;)

Training? Kobayashi Maru scene? 2006 effects and DIRECTION instead of treating it like a ham-fister episode of a tv show? Character reboot?
I say hell yes.

Josh

It must either be something in the water or a sign of the coming apocalypse,

but when Star Trek “fans” can in any way, shape, or form have something negative to say about Captain KIRK or Mister SPOCK, being featured in a STAR TREK film, something is seriously Fubar.

This is the perfect and prime example of how messed up Star Trek is and how Rick Berman destroyed it.

I want to see a Superman fim that doesn’t have Superman in it.
I want to see a Rocky Balboa film that doesn’t have Rocky in it.
I want to see a James Bond film that doesn’t have James Bond in it.

That’s about how ridiculous some people sound, and Star Trek is in the sad, petty state it’s in BECAUSE Shatner and Kirk WEREN’T in it, the last 3 times.

Phil

I find the headline extremely VILE and repugnant. Where I live to “gush” is the act of a woman……

Duane Boda

The fact that is that any film still might tank at the box-office regardless of who starred in it. It has to have a good (firm) storyline and well represented characters who are well defined and care about each other.
The last 3 films bombed simply because the stories were either poorly received or just had a lack of direction. I’m certain that the Star Trek X would have done a lot better had it been released at a time when our country wasn’t
involved in a battle overseas in a place we didn’t belong sent by a President who he himself never had the nerve to serve his country in the Vietnam War and had his Father slip him out the side door. Bush is not only a war monger but a big pussy too. Anyhow…Star Trek needs a good story to succeed.

John N

#21 – Josh – You’ve always come across as a pretty sharp guy (passionate, but sharp), so I’m a little surprised that you’ve gotten caught in the same trap that so many others have.

No one is suggesting that this Star Trek film shouldn’t have Kirk or Spock.

Many are suggesting that this Star Trek film shouldn’t have Shatner and Nimoy.

So your post would have been more accurate as follows:

I want to see a Superman film that doesn’t have Christorpher Reeve in it.
I want to see a Rocky Balboa film that doesn’t have Sylvester Stallone in it.
I want to see a James Bond film that doesn’t have Pierce Brosnan in it.

I’m not going to fall into the trap of debating the first two, but the last one is the most interesting, because the fanatical extremes that I hear on this site remind me of the crap that went on last year when Daniel Craig was cast as the new Bond.

“Bond is not BLONDE!” they shouted. “He’s too UGLY!” they cried.

Well… I saw “Casino Royale” last week, and personally I’m glad the studio ignored THOSE fanboys. Craig is right up there with Connery, and may even surpass him. The film has made $100 million worldwide in it’s first 5 days of release.

If only Star Trek could fare so well…

Josh

Given the historical parallel perhaps this IS indeed a ripe time for growth for Trek.

You have two inescapable quagmires, societal upheaval, two unpopular Presidents, political scandal , and a serious lack of imagination coming out of Hollywood.

Perhaps “Good” Trek comes on the heels of societal and cultural Bullgarbage.

John N

#22 – Duane – while you are entitled to your own polictical beliefs , the final part of your comment has to be one of the most ill-conceived that I have ever heard.

Here are the top 5 domestic grossing films released the same year as Nemesis:

$403,706,375 Spider-Man (2002)
$340,478,898 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
$310,675,583 Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002)
$261,970,615 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
$241,437,427 My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

Gee… why didn’t the political climate sink THOSE films?

You were more accurate at the beginning of your post… Nemesis failed because of story, direction, original concept, etc…

Josh

John N, I haven’t seen Casino Royale and I won’t. Daniel Craig IS too ugly. He isn’t James Bond. The film is too much Bourne and not enough Bond.

When a childrens film such as “Happy Feet” tops Bond in it’s opening weekend, that’s a pretty sad harbinger for the status of Bond.

Casino Royale defeats the entire purpose of Bond and escapism.

I don’t NEED to see Bond as a mere mortal, i see that everyday I get up out of bed and look in the mirror. Broccoli missed the point of what has kept Bond going 40 years. People don’t want to relate to a pug average Joe being thrown into circumstances beyond their control, people go to movies for escapism and to see winners, people succeed.
Bond dancing with a smirk his way through danger after danger is the whole point of his charm.

As far as the studio ignoring the fans, you can see the results in the form of “Happy Feet” knocking a new Bond film.
No one but mindless action fans are buying tickets.
Every Bond fan or Bond website I’ve visited indicates a disturbing REJECTION of this film, something no previous Bond entry has endured, even the Timothy Dalton entries.

Daniel Craig is NOT Bond. Daniel Craig is the second rate answer to Jason Bourne.

VOODOO

The politcal climate in the Untied States at the time Nemesis was released had nothing to do with the poor reception Nemesis received at the box office.

Picardsucks

Yeah!!!!! Maybe now Paramount can stop pretending this film is not ALL about real original Star Trek in some thinly veiled attempt to not hurt the feelings of the few hard core next gen era fans, who aren’t busy chanting or fiddling with their crystals or Joan Biaz music collections. Kirk and Spock, Punches, drop kicks, trechorous duplicitous iron curtain ottoman Turk klingons, hot chicks, Logic, real peril, friendship, family, brotherhood, wonderful allegories set in a flowing action adventure with real meaning, Triumph of humanity admist our human frailties. No more pretentous psedo-intellectual pablum -pink couches- ships councelers – children on the the flag battleship of the fleet- tea sipping- sexually repressed or completely asexual- technobabal – lack of any villans of consiquence – flute playing – noble samuari apachee honorous misunderstood by our own limited human perceptions spiritual klingons – zeoluosly politically correct devoid of any interesting human conflict or emotions – bland Rick Berman era Poop!!!!! All the Next Gen era Trek (except DS9) is dead long live Star Trek. MAY THE SHATNER BE WITH YOU!!!

Duane Boda

# 25 – Hmm…..well lets see. You in a way already answered your question.
ALL of the films you mentioned (2002) were at a time obviously when this nation was when we(didn’t know) that we would be spinning our wheels by spending future taxes and resources that we don’t have and can’t afford.
Not to mention the loss of life….their is no God given excuse for that. Recent studies and Washington D.C.’s assessment is that we won’t be out of there until at least 2010. Yet another Vietnam – their is no denial of that true fact!

Adam

With respect, Josh, many people who have seen Bond (the majority that I have seen) like Daniel Craig as the new Bond. And I fail to see how you can make judgements on an actor in a film you haven’t seen yet.

Thomas Jensen

Yeah, do the story after the third season, during the original five year mission. Or with the second five year mission. Then there’ll be no problems with when Kirk & Spock’s first meeting happened. Just go on from the third year onward. There is a space in time where not much has been done between the original mission(s) and the launch of the refit Enterprise. That’ll work.

Duane Boda

# 27….Perhaps….but oh boy lets all go to the theater for some escape from the reality of war and loved ones outside. The lights dim…a supposed Young Picard appears (another nutjob) their are battles in space….people are traumatized and blah….blah…blah…a prime (main character) is killed….
This story makes no sense and goes nowhere fast….the lights come up and you leave…Gee….(1/2 day later) asking yourself…..why did I go see that film?

Josh

#30

I don’t need to put a pistol to my head and pull the trigger to know NOT to do that.

I’ve read and heard enough about it to know I don’t want to go see it.

John N

#29 & 32 – Duane – First things first… I’m not on a Star Trek web site to debate your political beliefs.

Secondly, if you are saying that a darker story may not have resonated with an audience that was looking for escapism at the time, I can see your point.

Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that Nemesis would have done any better released in a different climate, but neither of us can prove that, so there’s no point in arguing it.

John N

#33 – Josh, there’s a BIG difference between deciding that you’re not interested in seeing a movie, and KNOWING it’s quality.

As Anthony has previously said (to you I believe) … you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Josh

Who are YOU to presume to try to tell me facts pertaining to myself?

How presumptuous is that?

You liked the film, fine, but dont presume to lecture those that have no inerest in it why they SHOULD like it.

I don’t like Daniel Craig as Bond, that’s good enough for me, AND you.

VOODOO

Duane #5

Why would Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy “doom” the next Star Trek film? Don’t people age in the Star Trek universe? Have you see the real life age and physical appearance of some of the leading military men in the US armed forces?

There is no reason Shatner and Nimoy can’t appear as the elder statesmen of the Star Trek universe.

From an artistic point of view. I think it would be quite interesting to see these men portray these same characters 40 years after they created the characters. This is such a unique and almost unpresented opportunity to have characters of their iconic stature played by the original iconic actors over four decades later in a major motion picture.

Clearly, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that they are the long term solution to the problems that the ST franchise has at the moment.

But, from a strictly commercial point of view it makes all the sense in the world to have them back for Star Trek 11. Their mere presence offers this film a level of credibility that it would not be have without them.

Plus, I feel their return would make this film an event film. If the return of Shatner and Nimoy (even if in a somewhat limited manner) as Kirk and Spock does not bring out the legions of Star Trek fans, nothing will. Their on screen appearance as Kirk and Spock would make this a box office winner. Much like the original TOS films were. Many people may be too young to remember when Star Trek was a big deal at the box office. A Kirk era ST film was about as big as a current James Bond film. They were major events. Unlike the last couple of Trek films that were duds (Nemesis didn’t even make $50 million in 2002 dollars) at the box office.

On the other hand when you adjust for inflation. All the TOS films made over $100 million. And a couple (TMP+TVH) made over $200 million. TMP was the #2 film the year it came out. To compare that to current films Spiderman 2 was the number 2 film of 2004. That’s were a ST film should be at the box office. Not making the top 50 of the year is a disgrace for this once powerfull franchise. (Jesus I sound like a dork, don’t I)

To the vast majority of the public, they (Kirk + Spock)are Star Trek. Is it any coincedence that when the other series needed to boost their ratings they went back to TOS for help?

Or, is it a mere coincedence that the biggest selling Star Trek book (and there are thousands at this point) in the history of Trek literature is “The Return” by William Shatner? In this book Kirk is returned from that horrible ending he was given in “Generations”

Many people (fans of the original and most popluar iconic series) felt alienated after Kirk was killed in such a meaningless and disrespectful (to Kirk and TOS fans) manner. Data’s cat was treated w/more respect than Kirk (the face of the franchise) was.

You can trace back almost to the day they killed Kirk off the commercial failure of the entire franchise. His death was such a polarizing subject among old and new fans it split the fanbase up. The majority of Kirk/TOS fans (which are the majority of ST fans) simply didn’t care anymore about the Rick Berman’s (who is on record as saying he didn’t like TOS)bland incarnations of Star Trek and the bland characters that were introduced in those series.

People want the return of the real thing. The character and the fans deserve better than what Rick Berman gave them (in regards to Kirk)

Has their ever been a worse end to a major fictional character in the history of film? This is the chance to right that wrong.

Also, this is a no lose scenerio for people who feel Shatner and Nimoy are too old. A younger version of Kirk and Spock are going to be introduced to carry the series on. It’s simply the best of both worlds for ST fans.

Bring back William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as Kirk and Spock and the massive fanbase Star Trek once had will follow.

John N

#36 – Hey Josh – go nuts… throw anything away that you want to, along with all of the books that you won’t read because of their cover.

Who am I? I’m someone who doesn’t trash things on second-hand information. That’s good enough for me.

I know that Anthony’s mom reads these things, so for me, the disucssion ends here.

Duane Boda

# 34 : Well….I wouldn’t want to debate facts either – their not personal beliefs but facts that are being played out day by day and dollar by tax dollar but the sadder fact is people are dying there. BUT….this isn’t the correct forum for such a discussion so I’ll won’t add anymore to it. I’ll gladly link you up to site that has all the facts if thats what you want but why….I know you don’t.
Enough said…..

Josh

# 38
Well you can not trash things on second hand information, but Im not going to go waste 10 precious bucks to go see something I have no interest in just to be able to come back here and say John, I didnt like it.

Duane Boda

# Voodoo….(cool nickname) Yeah….I agree that they could appear in a well written story as elder spokemen of Starfleet Command. What I questioned was their position or need for them to refill their prior roles on the Enterprise.
Good characters in a good storyline….sounds good….too many goods? ; )

John N

#39 – Hey Duane… just for the record… I’m Canadian, and was proud that my country didn’t (officially) support the invasion of Iraq. Unofficially, they deployed troops to Afghanistan, which relieved U.S. troops to be re-deployed in Irag, but that’s another story. I always felt that the war was an illegal one, and did not have sufficient proof to justify it.

Anyway, point being that I probably agree with you more than you give me credit for, which is unfortunate. Just because I don’t agree with you about the reasons that Nemesis failed doesn’t mean that I’m not politically aware.

Duane Boda

#42 : Take it easy….I don’t even know you nor did I ever imply for a mere nanosecond that you weren’t politically aware…..to each their own I say.
Now whether a person agrees with me about Star Trek X thats their own personal business or problem – not mine. Grab a beer – roll a joint – do whatever makes you happy – Ok?

John N

#43 – It was your comment of “but why….I know you don’t” in #39 that clearly implied that you felt I was either a) ignorant, or b) that I have a closed mind.

Sorry if you felt that I’m over-reacting, but those are two categories to which I do not belong. Cheers.

Sanfranman

Kirk is dead, right?

Re:33,

…”Ill bet you credits to navy beans, he’ll go see the star trek movie, when it comes out mister!”… Lt Desalle told the young ensign with the rather bad “beatles/monkees” wig who doubted him…

New Horizon

#37-Bring back William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as Kirk and Spock and the massive fanbase Star Trek once had will follow.

Well, I certainly won’t. Nostalgia kills so many things. Star Trek 5 and especially 6…was sticky sweet with nostalgia for the old days. Next Gen went out of its way to avoid original series references when it first came out, and it forged an identity for itself…it moved on. That’s what I would like to see Star Trek do..I’m sick this constant traveling back to the same reservoir. Sure, if they want to do an original series based movie…go for it, but have the guts to do it without gimmicks and cameos.

Star Trek - AS TOS WITH DS9 COMBO!

#47?

you couldnt be more wrong …if you tried.

Picardsucks

Next Gen Era never happened Voila Kirk never died, just grew a bit older a bit plumper but can still throw a mean punch and still looks ten years younger than Patrick Stewart anyway. Yes it appears that the only solution is that the whole zeolously left wing next gen era never happened. No synthohol, no androgony. A world where it is ok to have clearly defined villians, ok to appreciate the alure of beautiful women who can be strong women and relish their beauty at the same time, drop kicks and phaser pistols galore!!!!! If it means sacrificing DS9 to the cannon gods to wipe clean the terrible Next Gen era slate then so be it. Perhaps in this Orginal crew, no let’s just call it Star Trek (no more prefixes or suffixes) we can tip the cap to the Next Gen that never happened by saying tachyion 15 times for no apparent reason .

MichaelJohn

I think it would be interesting to have a prequel that took place when Kirk and Spock first met etc, but it would also be more interesting if that was just part of the overall story, not the entire film.

As much as I love Star Trek TOS, I really don’t want to see Nimoy and Shantner or anyone else from original series in the movie, unless it’s a small cameo.
They are all way past their prime…

Having said that, I don’t want to see two new younger actors trying to mimic the acting of Shantner and Nimoy in the original series either. I think that would be a big mistake!

I’m sure many regulars to this site have already checked on the internet based “Star Trek- The New Voyages”. As much as I admire the effort and work they have put into that series, I can’t help but feel they ended up “lampooing” the original characters by having new actors try to “act” like the orginal cast. It just didn’t work for me…

I hope the new cast and director bring a fresh perspective to the original series, but without changing things so much that similarities to the original series are lost.

By creating and new ship and crew for Star Trek XI, they will have a “logical” place to go in future sequels.

Mike