I know people who haven't regularly followed Trek in 10 or 15 years, but who would tune in to see Shatner return as James T. Kirk. They aren't represented on these boards, but are a great untapped audience.
Some of them would stay around and provide a great ratings boost, enhancing Enterprise's chances at a Fifth Season.
Kirk is a great fictional icon like Batman or Sherlock Holmes. If Conan Doyle could "kill off" Holmes, and bring him back, it would certainly be plausible in a sci-fi TV show with ongoing time-travel elements for Kirk to return.
But Shatner as a new character would defuse much of the excitement, buzz and momentum.
-
Gallifrey hit it on the head. There is a big untapped audience that STOPPED watching Trek, but knows Kirk. Kirk is more than just Star Trek--he's a fictional cultural icon. He is in the same category as Superman, Batman, Bond and more. He is not an ordinary guest star. That's why Enterprise has such a big chance. They can be the show that brought Kirk back to Trek. They blow it if they go with the moronic ancestor idea.
All fields of entertainment include crossovers: Music, Games, Books, Comics, Movies, TV-Programs, even stage shows. Why? Because people love them. The key is to harmonize properly and the fact that "the powers that be" are pushing in that direction with Star Trek is a sign of maturity and good health. Fans and the general public soak up Star Trek crossovers, especially ones with TOS actors, like bread soaks up barbecue sauce. Even a bad job of writing a crossover makes people happy. Actor crossovers are enjoyable but character crossovers are the best. The last Trek character crossover was in Broken Bow, but that was portrayed as an Archer memory. The last genuine character crossover, with characters side by side in the story, was Endgame. The last great one, IMHO, was Trials and Tribble-ations. Here's hoping they do a great job with the next CHARACTER crossover.
...as long as he's playing Kirk. But they're likely to have him playing Chef or something.
Every interview I read with B or B they tout how wonderful their show is and how the show isnt doing well, not because they have driven the franchise into the ground, but by other things like oversaturation of genre TV or their time period now he says he thinks Enterprise will do good like X-files on Friday? Brother? Keep Dreaming Rick.
And the idea that he has to get old Trek actors wreeks of Desperation. If Leonard and some of the others didnt like the other incarnations in the last few years and stayed away, they arent going to come flocking to this. Do we really need to see them in this Trek universe playing their Great Great Grandfather/Mother? No, we dont, just like we dont need seeing any of the other familiar villians or characters.
The whole idea of this show, like Voyager, was to start with a clean slate and it isnt long before they fall back on old stuff to get them by.
Remember when this show was going to be about The forming of the Federation and Boldly going where No Man had gone before?
Berman needs to go jump off a high bridge somewhere.
-
I've read and reread the article. And I'm hard-pressed to find anywhere where Berman said he expects Enterprise to be as successful as X-Files. Yes, he makes mention of the fact that shows like X-Files and JAG found success on Friday nights. But this is in response to the suggestion by many that the Friday move is a kiss of death for the show. He also doesn't say that Shatner will be playing any kind of ancestor... though I suppose that's a logical speculation.
What you have to say would sound more reasonable (and you'd be taken more seriously) if you didn't distort what was actually stated.
In any case, it isn't Shatner that people want to see again... it's KIRK.
-
Quote:
He also doesn't say that Shatner will be playing any kind of ancestor... though I suppose that's a logical speculation.
Experience in the Berman era says that the worst things that can happen, do happen. But HOPE remains. Berman has talked ancestor before. It's an AWFUL idea. I would feel more relaxed about this if he said James T. Kirk, post-Generations. You're right. He hasn't said either way.
But he really needs to address fan concerns on this issue, which is indeed just as important as getting Shatner if not more.
-
Agreed. It seems that some people just want to read any kind of news and jump straight into "This is shit" etc, rather than wait for the product and judge it on its own merits. So much pessimism from so many people; and so little basis.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
Again, it's NOT desperation, it's the RIGHT MOVE. Enterprise has had enough episodes under its belt. Trek is one big universe. Time to make it like that.
But I agree actors playing ancestors is STUPID. I don't want to see Kirk's ancestor. I want to see Kirk. The most benefit comes from that.
Oh my, where to start?
Bringing back Shat as Kirk: reeks of desperation. Would require more lame-ass time travel crap. Would be just another one-episode ratings stunt (like the Borg), and then they'd go back to the embarrassing spectable of Trip and T'Pol's rub-down sessions. But the most compelling reason of all not to bring him back as Kirk? Because Shatner himself is no longer the same man who once played the iconic hero. He's old, he's fat, and he's cultivated a public persona in recent years as a bumbling buffoon, a sad and pathetic caricature of his already ridiculous real-life personality. Shatner is now impossible to take seriously as an actor or a hero.
Shatner as another character, either an ancestor of Kirk or completely unrelated: Utter stupidity. Shatner will forever be just one character in the minds of Trek zombies - Kirk. It would be like bringing Duchovney back to the X-Files as someone other than Mulder. Sure it's possible to bring Jeff Coombs back as multiple characters, but not Shatner.
Bringing back the other TOS actors: Frankly there aren't as many to choose from as there once was. Kelly is dead, Doohan is about to join him, Nichols had her swan song in Snow Dogs. The only viable options are Sumu and Check-Out. Sumu won't do it, he's still pissed that TPTB passed on the Excelsior series idea. That leaves Check-Out. Yeah, bring him back as the distant descendent of one of the Beatles or the Monkeys!
As for Enterprise itself: crap, crap, crap, crap, crap. Any and all credibility this lumbering, arthritic "franchise" once had went swirling down the bowl (leaving a prominent skid-mark on the way down) with the alien Nazi cliff-hanger. Hello! We've now entered Battlestar 1982 territory!
-
I understand why you don't like Enterprise, but one thing that has been missing from Star Trek is the POSITIVE.
Yes, Kirk's death happened, but so what? No one is undoing that event, but rather, moving forward. Death need not be the end in Star Trek. Too many amazing things happen in that universe. The whole point of Star Trek is that there are always possibilities.
The premise of Enterprise involves the Temporal Cold War. Having KIRK involved with that not only fits, but it is perfect. What better place for Kirk now? He's still out there, making a difference and having amazing adventures.
And the idea of Shatner not being the same man is utterly ridiculous. Shatner is in incredible shape and health and can EASILY reprise the role. It's fortunate the man takes such good care of himself, and let's not forget that in the REAL WORLD, John Glenn was shot into space at an OLDER age than Shatner.
And given the kudos Shatner has received from THE PRACTICE, calling him a buffoon is ridiculous. Shatner is a successful serious and comedic actor. And the man can still play Kirk EASILY.
No one expects a restored Kirk to do the flying dropkick or double fisted punch while nailing T'Pol. But the Kirk of Balance of Terror and TWOK, the brilliant tactician--the hero--is EASILY still playable by Shatner.
Don't get me wrong; I think James T. Kirk is the definition of "hero" when it comes to the Star Trek franchise, and it would be wonderful to see him back in action on the small or big screen. But I have yet to be convinced by anyone who's posted so far as to why James T. Kirk needs to be brought in to breathe life back into Enterprise. Do you mean to tell me that among the writers and the fans who have written outstanding Trek fiction, there's not one original idea or concept worthy enough to replace the rather soap-opera-like plot of bringing a past character back from the dead? Are we so at a loss for something new and exciting that we'll settle for a ratings tactic? And, you know damn well that's what it is. Why else would Rick Berman even consider the notion of bringing William Shatner and other TREK icons back on Enterprise? Because he needs to lure the disgruntled amongst us back to Enterprise in order to save it from the cancellation axe next season. It's all about ratings, folks. Forget intelligent storylines, compelling dialogue, gripping action...if it doesn't get the numbers, Enterprise might as well bend over backwards and kiss its own ass goodbye. And do we really want Kirk's return to be handled that way, as a desperate ratings ploy? It should be grand, explosive, bold, like Kirk himself.
I know we all hated Kirk's death, and the way it was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. To bring him back in a believable and acceptable way would take a great deal of forethought on the part of the writers, and I think it's a rather precarious task for Enterprise writers to take on. It would demand quality storytelling because you know damn well no one will settle for less. I'm not saying Enterprise's staff of writers aren't capable of this. But I think that idea is something best left for its own entity, like a movie or miniseries event. It doesn't really fit on Enterprise. Besides, wouldn't Kirk's presence in Archer's time period qualify as a continuity error, and don't we complain about continuity enough already when it comes to Enterprise? So, what are we saying here, that the fact that Enterprise had an episode featuring the Borg is horrible and reeks of continuity tampering, but having Kirk come back to life on Enterprise is a keen idea? People will moan and groan about the fact that the Xindi were not mentioned in any other Trek yet were responsible for a devastating attack on Earth, but we'll accept without question the return of James T. Kirk on the same series? Sorry, folks, you're still not sellin' me on that one.
Yes, Kirk should come back. The fans want it, William Shatner wants it, and Rick Berman knows it should be done. But his return has no place on Enterprise. Shatner can play anyone on that series and make it good, because that's what Shatner does. People like StillKirok may not believe that, but I do, because Shatner cares enough about Star Trek to put effort into the work. But Kirk deserves his own spotlight, while Enterprise should exist on its own merits rather than hinge all its hopes for any kind of future on the exploits of someone else. Despite what the bashers may say, Enterprise deserves better than that.
-
First off in this instant Kirk wouldn't be brought back from the dead he would actually be just brought from another frame in time. An as for his "Place on Enterprise by the true reality of Star Trek and its story line originally told this Enterprise shouldn't even be Enterprise. However as the history went, there were two captains of The Enterprise before Kirk's time and no mention until created for a new B&B series called Enterprise, was there ever an Archer. Yet the point is by that fact, there shouldn't be a Kirk in this continuity but this is supposed to be a prequel to that before mentioned history.
That's why there shouldn't be Borg or Ferengi because it was clearly put out they didn't show up until Next Gen time line so to have them in this time line works against what was very clearly stated as first contacts and such a threatening race named or not would be part of Trek history therefore recognized by any Trek Captain with a brain for his own required history as a starship captain.
Now this wouldn't be just the redirect of a disgruntle fan, this is the facts laid out by their own hands as the reality of Trek an so it’s been accepted as such. Yet here they are throwing out the rule book and rewriting it as they go thus throwing out the Fact that this is supposed to be a pre-history of what is Trek so when you have a massive event like "The Earth” attacked by a weapon that carved its way into Florida and many other places you would think by example of how thoroughly they use there history to help solve modern problems this might of come up.
Then on the same breath you think it so hard to believe Kirk the time jumping king couldn't end up once again in the past were he has ventured many times before? Where Archer who has been jumping to a time long after Picard isn’t as far fetched? Oh and you are right Bring Kirk or any character from the future into this show at all is a gimmick from the Borg to Future guy to anything is not writing its all flash and games to make you say wow what’s this and that’s why the bashing. Not at the hatred of the characters or just the show its they laziness and the games when he so boldly put this show in its own predicament by making it a prequel instead of a continuation of a great show just another ship of the Federation in the time line of the first five year mission or even after Kirk’s first five year mission all would fit with no complaints and little continuity problems. Do they have to be so arrogant to believe that the Enterprise was the only Federation starship to ever make a difference?
--------
Register and vote for Witchblade on DVD at http://tvshowsondvd.com
-
Right now, we have to be realistic. The only active Trek venue is Enterprise. There is not going to be a movie centering on the return of Kirk. There is not going to be a TV movie centering on the return of Kirk. Kirk's only forum in canon is Enterprise. That is a given. And yes, Enterprise is better than not having it at all.
It doesn't get worse than it is now. Kirk's return is very much necessary, and thankfully, it looks like Berman at least realizes how important Shatner is to Trek. But he has to realize how important Kirk's return is.
Understand this--Kirk's return WILL be a success. That's as guaranteed as you can get. Shatner's return is a decent bump, but KIRK's return is a MAJOR bump.
And if they do it right, they will be able to have a major spotlight on Kirk if wanted in any venue.
Kirk's return on Enterprise OPENS DOORS FOR FUTURE USE OF THE CHARACTER.
Of course the character deserves major spotlight, but it would be easier to do if you don't have to explain how he is alive. Enterprise can get that out of the way.
There is no other option right now for the character. It's PASSED time. But it can happen now. It will be watched, and if done right, it will be a classic.
Kirk is COMPLETELY different from the Borg and Ferengi. Unlike those species', it CAN work. It's actually very simple to make it work because Kirk is one individual, not a race, and the premise of the show allows for Archer to deal with people from his future. There would NOT be a continuity problem with Kirk's return.
Shatner's return will not bring life to the franchise. KIRK'S return will. It will pump people up. It will be a major lift. Shatner alone would be nice, but it will not have the lasting effect they need. KIRK would put forth that effect.
NEWSFLASH: TREK IS IN TROUBLE. TREK NEEDS SOMETHING BIG. There is NOTHING wrong with going for it.
In fact, there is something wrong with them NOT going for it.
...why are Berman and Braga still working on Trek??? There were rumours afloat a few months ago that their days were numbered...
Now we have these awful statements from "King Hack" Berman that he's working on a "prequel" movie and now these ludicrous statements about bringing back Shatner (not that I have a problem with Shatner being back...just BERMAN bringing Shatner back) and other old cast members...
It's just ridiculous. Paramount...do the "right thing" and give the axe to Berman and Braga.
They suck.
--------
Quack!!!
I'll admit upfront that I don't have the profound affection for Kirk that most people here have. I grew up watching the show in reruns, sure I liked Kirk, but I still think that bringing Shatner back as Kirk would be an obviously desperate and rather silly move, especially if they start bringing back other Trek characters as well. Trek actors fine, but really how many ancestors or time travel stories do we really want to see. Alot of people decried the Nazi alien storyline and the addition of more time travel plots, but yet so many are eager to see Kirk? [maybe it isn't the same people, but that's my impression]. So what exactly are those who support Kirk's return envisioning? He'll come rescue Enterprise from some stupidity on their part or galactic disaster and then what? Return to his time? Take a shuttlepod into space? Die again?
I'd rather see some good episodes focusing on the Enterprise crew than some desperate ratings-ploy ressurection. Sure next year will probably be Enterprise's last, but does that mean it should stop focusing on its own characters and plots? I don't think so.
Just another perspective.
-
This is Season 4, not season 1. If Season 1 was filled with actors from other shows, you would be right about desperation. But at this point, the characters on Enterprise are well established, and could use the boost that KIRK (not just Shatner) could provide.
Star Trek is one big universe. LET Enterprise be the show that exploits that. That is the RIGHT thing to do.
OF COURSE so many people are eager to see KIRK. THIS IS A DECADE OVERDUE. People have been clamoring for KIRK's return since 1994. And his appearance on Enterprise could be used to further the TCW.
An ancestor appearance would be meaningless. Bringing Kirk back to kill him again would be meaningless.
But bringing back Kirk, and giving him a positive future would ROCK.
KILLING KIRK WOULD BE DUMBER THAN KILLING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If they brought Kirk in and killed him again, even better, it would be more negative than before. It would be awful. So no, killing him again is NOT an option. The point is to restore goodwill, not shatter any hope.
If KIRK appears on Enterprise, time travel/TCW has to be involved, so no need to give him a shuttlepod. He wouldn't stay in the 22nd century. He goes back to what he was doing post-Generations/pre-Enterprise--on to the next adventure. We know he's out there, and finally, some goodwill is restored to Trek. That's the end. But getting there is the fun part. That's where the ratings will lie.
Kirk's return (again, not Kirk's ancestor), has to be done with some goals in mind:
1. Bring back Kirk post Generations.
2. Have Kirk used to forward Enterprise's main storyline.
3. KEEP KIRK ALIVE AT THE END.
4. Enjoy the ratings boost and allow for a second return should all sides want it.
But it all starts with it BEING KIRK.
The idea that they are even considering an ancestor idea at this stage is mindboggling to me, and it really concerns me. I've seen how hard people have worked for his return. I've seen how disappointed people have been at the character's fate.
CAPTAIN KIRK NEEDS A HAPPY ENDING.
LET this be the year of the crossover, but it has to start with KIRK.
Understand this--Enterprise NEEDS the ratings. So calling it a ratings ploy by doing something that makes people happy is ridiculous. It's the RIGHT thing to do.
But again it has to be KIRK, not an ancestor or they will take the best guest star ever, and taint it with disappointment.
Shatner alone will boost the ratings. Shatner as Kirk will REALLY boost the ratings.
The sound of Wagner's 'Ride of the Valkeryies'....
The helicopters appear on the horizon then sweep over the set...
And as they deliver their payloads of TNG and TOS guest stars the solitary figure of a bare-chested man named Rick Berman stands on the beach set. He watches various actors look around the new lower-budget sets and smiles in the knowledge that this will get the ratings up...hopefully?
I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
--------
Nowhere in the article does Berman mention Captain Kirk's return. He says Shatner's return to Star Trek. The actor, not the character. Expect to see William Shatner play a prominent role in one or two episodes (Shatner has his own series now so I doubt he'll be a regular) as a guest star, but I wouldn't hold my breath expecting the return of Captain James T. Kirk.
And the whole "bringing back other previous Star Trek actors and characters to Enterprise" smacks of pure desperation on the part of B&B. Maybe if we can get LeVar Burton to play Geordi's great great grandfather, the ratings for that week will go up. Maybe if we get Rene Auberjonois to play a Changeling who gets sucked into a time warp and is sent into the past from the 24th century the ratings for that week will go up. Hey, maybe if we get Michael Dorn to guest star as a Klingon for a week or two we'll get ratings to go up. B&B are desperate.
Like I've said in other posts, expect the series finale of Star Trek: Enterprise in May of 2005. Expect to hear nothing more from Berman and Braga in regards to Star Trek (as I doubt Paramount is going to green light another Star Trek feature film with Berman at the helm, regardless of what he says). And expect Paramount to bring in someone else to run their storied franchise. I'm hoping for JMS but we'll just have to see.
-
You are right that Berman is not mentioning Kirk yet. But to bring back Shatner, but not as Kirk would be the second dumbest move Berman has ever made. Why cloud Shatner's return to Trek with disappointment.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DEMAND FOR KIRK'S ANCESTOR.
THERE IS A TON OF DEMAND FOR KIRK.
These are two FACTS that cannot be denied.
It would be a major blunder to NOT make it Kirk. The ratings would NOT be as high. The disappointment would be immense.
-
The demand to see Kirk again is there, yes. But if Berman & Braga bring back Shatner to play Kirk, there's the question of how to do it first of all. I mean time travel is possible, but Shatner really doesn't look like the same Kirk we saw even as recent as Generations. So bringing him back and saying it's Kirk from before he went into the Nexus and all that won't work because Shatner the actor is older, and basically just doesn't fit the character anymore. It wouldn't work and would make Enterprise look even dumber than it already does. Kirk and Picard worked well together, but Archer is so much younger that he'd make Kirk look like an old fat guy and not the Captain Kirk everyone would be hoping to see. It would be shades of "Flashback" on Voyager where sure, they do a homage to the Original Series, but they made the Voyager crew look better than Sulu's crew. Anyone remember Janeway's line about how their style of doing things (TOS crew she means) would land them in the brig in the 24th century? That was a B&B shot against TOS. If Kirk was brought back to Enterprise, I'd expect more shots like that.
And bringing Kirk back from death in some way will just be B&B admitting they shouldn't have killed him off in Generations, and Berman will never admit that mistake.
No, Shatner will be back, maybe as Chef, but not Kirk.
-
Shatner doesn't have to look like we saw him in Generations. His return could have happened 10 years before this Enterprise episode, off camera. This WOULD be an Enterprise episode, and Kirk would be a guest star. They don't need to dwell on the HOW--just that it happened.
As for the plot, that's the writers' job. They just need to realize the goal. Kirk returns, lives, helps Archer, and goes back to a future century.
As for admitting a mistake, they HAVE admitted it. And they KNOW it was a mistake. It WAS a mistake. So it's time to fix it. I would applaude that.
Kirk's death was merely at someone's whim, it wasn't crucial to the Generation's story. Star Trek is a fictional entertainment, not reality as yet, so the death of any character should not be immutable. So many continuity errors have been made (ie, no Romulan War, the existence of the NX-01 itself, the pre TOS technology at parity with TNG) that restoring Kirk may be the fix that reconciles all the other mistakes. In addition, Captain Kirk was the soul of Star Trek in that he never gave up, never compromised. Yes, that's tough to do in life, but this is television. Throwing away one of the greatest, most beloved characters in television history made no sense. That was called "eating the seed corn", and it unnecessarily hurt Star Trek. I think Mr. Shatner and Rick Berman can find a reasonable way to resurrect the character, surely the fans could suggest myriad possibilities.
-
So there are no replicators or shields on TNG?
--------
Hoshi: I was hoping you'd put up a fight.
T'Pol: I'm surprised you're not exhausted from all the beds, you've jumped into, recently.
"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"
-
Clearly the timeline diverged from the Trek universe as it was supposed to play out from episode 1. So everything that's happened to the NX crew since then, is an alternate timeline. How alternate depends on Archer's battle in the Temporal Cold War. Having someone like Kirk appear, a future hero who guides Archer as close to the original timeline by steering him in the right direction when it comes to galactic affairs, would work.
In the original timeline Klaang didn't crash on earth, ergo Phlox wasn't recruited on the NX-01, Hoshi wasn't needed as desperately and might not have made the final crew, TPol had no mission to oversee etc.
Clearly the aim of the good guys in the temporal cold war is the establishment of the Federation. Kirk's future is at stake. Kirk getting a shot to help save that future would be a smart move.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
Berman has managed to do an enormous amount of damage to Star Trek already. Enterprise destroyed the Borg, the Ferengi, and the Romulans, as well as wasted a huge opportunity to develop this time period. He has sent Star Trek down the drain in both popularity and quality. And now he wants to take on an even greater task: Destroying Captain Kirk.
First of all, bringing back a dead character is stupid, unless there is a really good reason to and a point made out of it. Spock's rebirth in The Search for Spock was incredibly meaningful and well worth it. Bringing back a second dead character sets a terrible trend. If Captain Kirk is brought back, who's to say that he can't always be brought back. Who's to say that anybody can't be brought back? So the next time Star Trek character dies, especially if its Kirk, it will be totally meaningless from a dramatic standpoint, because if they've already brought back two characters from the dead, why wouldn't they do it again? Thus Kirk becomes immortal, and people's favorite Kirk quote about risk looses all meaning, and we can never be sure that a character is truly dead once they die. Even if you think it was a bad idea to kill Kirk, that doesn't mean you have to disagree with this.
And as if all that wasn't bad enough, Berman has ruined so many other great opportunities and plotlines. Just look at Nemesis, Enterprise, and Voyager to see wasted opportunities. Now he will bring down Captain Kirk as well.
Rick Berman = Enemy of Star Trek
-
q]First of all, bringing back a dead character is stupid, unless there is a really good reason to and a point made out of it. Spock's rebirth in The Search for Spock was incredibly meaningful and well worth it. Bringing back a second dead character sets a terrible trend. If Captain Kirk is brought back, who's to say that he can't always be brought back. Who's to say that anybody can't be brought back?[eq]
I agree with some of your concerns about Berman. But not the comparison to Spock.
Spock's rebirth was meaningful. But his death in Wrath of Khan was even more so. Watch that scene, and then Kirk's death in Generations. Kirk's death seems more like a plot accident, an afterthought, driven by a studio that wanted to move on with a new cast. It is partly because that death pales in comparison with the meaningulness of Spock's death in Wrath of Khan that people want Kirk back.
I think that people will understand that Kirk's situation is unique, and won't expect that to happen with every character who dies. He was the central character in the franchise for much of its history, and deserved a much better end than he got. Like most great fictional characters, he should be allowed to fade from our view alive and well, looking forward to the next adventure.
-
Quote:
Enterprise destroyed the Borg, the Ferengi, and the Romulans
You have a gift for overstatement and you use it well. Kudos my friend!
If it's Kirk, I'm sure it'll be a timetravel/alternate universe kind of thing anyway. Not sure what to make of your resurrection rant :-)
--------
-
Killing him was stupid; bringing him back is a step in the right direction, and restores optimism to the legacy of the character.
Captain Kirk is one of the greatest characters of all time. And Star Trek the original series is one of the greatest television shows of all time. The character deserves better. And within the Star Trek universe he is one of the greatest, most admired Captains and tacticians of Starfleet. To say he wouldn't be useful in Archer's time is bull.
What would be interesting from Archer's point of view is that he's never heard of Kirk. He won't look at Kirk in the same awe that Picard and Sisko did. He'd be a fish out of water, and they can play with that dramatically, kind of like how Kirk didn't know Gary Seven's agenda in Assignment Earth and whether or not he was good or an antagonist.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
Er...that's all nice, but none of it addresses any of the points I made.
Quote:
To say he wouldn't be useful in Archer's time is bull.
I never said that. However since it's Enterprise, all the character will probably act like idiots, including Kirk. That's one reason why I DON'T want him on the show.
-
Quote:
I never said that. However since it's Enterprise, all the character will probably act like idiots, including Kirk. That's one reason why I DON'T want him on the show.
I never said that you did say that. Sorry, I was continuing a string of collective thoughts on the subject. But to say Kirk shouldn't show up because he will act like an idiot is a bit pesimistic. I enjoyed the end of season 3. I thought it was consistent at last. Enterprise has some very talented writers that are beginning to shine despite the shows earlier problems. Mike Sussman and Manny Coto are massive fans of the original series. They could easily do the character justice.
And to do Kirk justice, they are one step ahead. Shatner has an idea he intends to pitch. Forgetting Star Trek V (as he didn't actually write that himself) Shatner has proved he can write good Trek stories. A fourth trilogy of his best selling novels is forthcoming.
Best case scenario: Kirk's Return, Story by William Shatner, Written by Mike Sussman and/or Manny Coto
Even if Berman and Braga write it, there's no indication it will be worse than Generations (and let's face it nothing is worse than Kirk's current fate). But that was largely due to Ron Moore, and he's gone now.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
What gives you the impression that any of the Enterprise writers would know what Kirk is really about?
Quote:
Even if Berman and Braga write it, there's no indication it will be worse than Generations (and let's face it nothing is worse than Kirk's current fate).
Generations may have been hastily put together, but the writing certainly wasn't bad. And if you accept the fact that Kirk died in it and really look at the dialogue and plot development, you'll see that the writers knew what they were doing. Can you make any criticisms about the (relevant parts of) the script, beyond simply saying that you don't like the fact that Kirk died? Because in my mind, they were honoring Star Trek tradition. Although of course others on this site would disagree. :-)
Quote:
But that was largely due to Ron Moore, and he's gone now.
Ronald Moore, you should know, is one of the best writers Star Trek has ever seen. He played a heavy part in writing episodes such as "The Defector," "Sins of the Father," "Reunion," "Disaster," "Ethics," and wrote great episodes such as "Family," "Redemption," "The First Duty" (Maybe the ONLY episode in which Wesley is bearable to watch), "The Next Phase," "Chain of Command, Part I," "Tapestry," "Gambit, Part II," "The Pegasus," "All Good Things...," "The Search, Part I," "Defiant," "Rejoined," "The Die Is Cast," "Sons of Mogh," "Rules of Engagement," "Paradise Lost," "For the Cause," "Trials and Tribble-ations," "Soldiers of the Empire," "The Darkness and the Light," "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?," "In the Cards," "Rocks and Shoales," "Waltz," "The Sound of Her Voice," "Once More Unto the Breach," "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," several of DS9's final episodes, and the script for First Contact. So if I wanted Kirk to return, I'd be very happy to see Ronald Moore write it.
-
Quote:
Can you make any criticisms about the (relevant parts of) the script, beyond simply saying that you don't like the fact that Kirk died? Because in my mind, they were honoring Star Trek tradition. Although of course others on this site would disagree. :-)
I didn't say Generations was a bad film for the sole reason of Kirk's death. I am saying what I say.
The first 10 minutes on the Enterprise B was excellent, barring the fact that Harriman was an inept Captain that never should have bene given the position.
Up until the Saucer Crash the film was quite dull. Extended talky scenes in crew quarters -that belonged in the episodes.
Duras Sisters, weak comedy villains. Bad plot device the readout in engineering of the shield frequency -- If that was the case then no alien would ever be allowed in engineering if it was that simple to penetrate shielding.
Torpedoes do NOT operate on a frequency basis.
Picard should not have beamed down to V3 with a Federation transporter effect (minor quible).
Data acted like a muppet. It was the death of the character until they rewrote the chip arc in later films. Again seeing Data like a clown belonged in an episode not a film.
Picard is French. Why is his heaven a British Victorian Christmas?
Kirk's heaven was a stupid idea: Log cabin, making eggs for a woman we've never heard of. We never ever saw the woman. It should have been Edith Keeler; not Antonia.
Picard having to talk Kirk into helping him was also stupid. Kirk was the one who faught against Paradise in "This Side of Paradise" and was the only member of the crew who intentionally beat the effect of the spores and recognised his life was about the next challenge, not paradise.
They could go anyplace any time so Picard chose the most dangerous part of the timeline.
Kirk need not have jumped for the remote. The weapon was cloaked and could not fire. They had already defeated Soran with the controller out of reach.
The epilogue of the cat in the barrell belonged in a TV episode. Fluff. Who cares about a cat when Kirk's just baked it in the worse death ever?
Oh and flying a ship into the nexus actually works even if it destroys the ship, look at Kirk and look at the Lakul. All of them ended up in the nexus. There was no need to destroy any stars.
Quote:
Ronald Moore, you should know, is one of the best writers Star Trek has ever seen.
Again I didn't say he wasn't. And I agree he is one of the best. Generations didn't show that and it was his idea to kill Kirk. It is widely accepted by both fans, actors, film-makers, TOS writers, and media that Kirk's death was the sloppiest bit of writing in the characters and franchise history.
Ron Moore also said in a recent interview that in retrospect aspects of the film didn't make sense and that it didn't turn out as good as it could have been for many reasons.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
Wow. A guy (I'm assuming you are a guy) after my own heart. 
I had the same argument recently with many of the same references regarding GEN as being the beginning of the end of the franchise - essentially the dismantling of all there was up until that point by people who never originated it (both TOS and TNG) in the first place.
--------
"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701
-
Well, I mean criticisms relative to Kirk, but I'll try to address the ones you present nevertheless.
Quote:
Up until the Saucer Crash the film was quite dull. Extended talky scenes in crew quarters -that belonged in the episodes.
You could say the same about The Wrath of Khan.
Quote:
Duras Sisters, weak comedy villains. Bad plot device the readout in engineering of the shield frequency -- If that was the case then no alien would ever be allowed in engineering if it was that simple to penetrate shielding.
When are there ever aliens allowed in engineering who a) belong to a nearby enemy ship and b) somehow are in contact with that ship?
Quote:
Torpedoes do NOT operate on a frequency basis.
Whatever.
Quote:
Picard should not have beamed down to V3 with a Federation transporter effect (minor quible).
Maybe they beamed Kirk aboard the Bird of Prey, but rather than have him materialize there the transporter beam was merely redirected.
Quote:
Data acted like a muppet. It was the death of the character until they rewrote the chip arc in later films. Again seeing Data like a clown belonged in an episode not a film.
He was a "clown" for one scene, which ended very dramatically and led into several other dramatic scenes with him.
Quote:
Picard is French. Why is his heaven a British Victorian Christmas?
The same reason he has a British accent? :-) I dunno, was this really such a big screw up?
Quote:
Kirk's heaven was a stupid idea: Log cabin, making eggs for a woman we've never heard of. We never ever saw the woman. It should have been Edith Keeler; not Antonia.
Eh, I can't really think of a refutation for this, just that it didn't bother me.
Quote:
Picard having to talk Kirk into helping him was also stupid. Kirk was the one who faught against Paradise in "This Side of Paradise" and was the only member of the crew who intentionally beat the effect of the spores and recognised his life was about the next challenge, not paradise.
Very true. However I think the events in the first part of Generations make this believable. Kirk is starting to reject his heroism because of his fame. He's being turned into exactly how the fans think of him - a larger than life figure who isn't really a person (not to say that fans shouldn't do this, I mean he IS Captain Kirk :-) ). He is seen just how all the fans see him, as superhuman and "immortal," rather than for being a hero who actually would risk his life to save thousands of people he's never met. So rather than playing along, he would prefer live his own life and not be bothered by the demands of being a famous hero. So there are an extra set of circumstances here which differentiates it from "This Side of Paradise." And in the end Kirk decides that being a hero really is wroth dying for, even without any of the fame. So he sacrifices himself for thousands of people he doesn' know.
Quote:
They could go anyplace any time so Picard chose the most dangerous part of the timeline.
The very fact that time travel exists and is as easy as it is makes all of Star Trek since "The Naked Time" loose every bit of credibility. I choose to ignore it as a technicality, and I see no reason why Generations must be any different.
Quote:
Kirk need not have jumped for the remote. The weapon was cloaked and could not fire. They had already defeated Soran with the controller out of reach.
I can't remember the sequence exactly, but why could it not of fired while cloaked?
Quote:
The epilogue of the cat in the barrell belonged in a TV episode. Fluff. Who cares about a cat when Kirk's just baked it in the worse death ever?
It didn't bother me...
Quote:
Oh and flying a ship into the nexus actually works even if it destroys the ship, look at Kirk and look at the Lakul. All of them ended up in the nexus. There was no need to destroy any stars.
More technicalities which don't truly effect the meaning of the plot or the characters.
Quote:
Again I didn't say he wasn't. And I agree he is one of the best. Generations didn't show that and it was his idea to kill Kirk.
I got the impression it wasn't his idea, but even if it was I support it and I think Moore was the one (because I have little faith in Braga's abilities) who made the meeting of Kirk and Picard into something much more than the silly gimmick it probably started out as.
Quote:
It is widely accepted by both fans, actors, film-makers, TOS writers, and media that Kirk's death was the sloppiest bit of writing in the characters and franchise history.
I don't know if that's true. I know on this site most people consider it sloppy, but I know people who've watched Star Trek since the 60's and they like Kirk's death just fine.
Quote:
Ron Moore also said in a recent interview that in retrospect aspects of the film didn't make sense and that it didn't turn out as good as it could have been for many reasons.
That's true, but I also remember reading that he doesn't regret killing Kirk.
-
The point was you asked me for my criticisms on the film on the basis that you thought my only problem was with Kirk's death; it wasn't, and I provided you with reasons why I didn't think the movie gelled very well.
The fact that things didn't bother you are irrelevant to your proposition: the proposition was based on my opinion of the film, which I duelly gave you.
As I said even Moore admits it was written during the 7th season of TNG between episodes, it wasn't a total focal project. It will be interesting to see what they say about it in the commentary.
As for Ron Moore not coming up with the idea. For certainty I can tell you it was exclusively his. Read "The Making of the Trek Films" by Edward Gross and Mark Altman. Also consult Star Trek Monthly magazine, don't have the issue number, but it was an article entitled "The Man Who Killed Kirk".
It basically went like this, they were brainstorming ideas, Moore came up with "what if we killed Kirk". It didn't come for Berman or Braga. Paramount's response was "Are you sure?"
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
Quote:
The point was you asked me for my criticisms on the film on the basis that you thought my only problem was with Kirk's death
I asked for "relevant" parts of the script, those having to do with Kirk. Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is what I asked. The only criticism you gave having to do with Kirk was
Kirk's heaven was a stupid idea: Log cabin, making eggs for a woman we've never heard of. We never ever saw the woman. It should have been Edith Keeler; not Antonia.
The others may have mentioned Kirk, but didn't directly have to do with his character or his role in the movie, only with gaps in logic in the story or science.
Quote:
The fact that things didn't bother you are irrelevant to your proposition: the proposition was based on my opinion of the film, which I duelly gave you.
I know. I'm not trying to refute your points by saying "it doesn't bother me." That would be silly. If I was trying to make any point with that, it's just that those criticisms aren't necessarily such huge problems, which I don't think they are. You may have been bothered by Edith Keeler not being in the movie, but I don't believe that means the writing was sloppy or Kirk was dishonored.
Quote:
As for Ron Moore not coming up with the idea. For certainty I can tell you it was exclusively his.
OK.
-
Quote:" If Captain Kirk is brought back, who's to say that he can't always be brought back.
William Shatner will always be Captain Kirk. He is 72 years old. There is not much time to do a cycle of "dead, rise again, dead, rise again". I think that people want the hero to go on. Even after Shatner has died. He is like Sherlock Holmes or James Bond.
Quote:"Who's to say that anybody can't be brought back?
Unfortuately you can't bring back Deforest Kelly and Mark Leonard. James Doohans health is not good. Once the actor dies so does the character.
(**Note** ANYONE here is for "recasting" of some dipshit as Kirk, Spock, Picard etc is not only a moron but NO fan of Trek.)
Quote:"Thus Kirk becomes immortal, and people's favorite Kirk quote about risk looses all meaning, and we can never be sure that a character is truly dead once they die."
It has been established that Kirk has cheated death before. It is therefore within his character.
Quote:"Just look at Nemesis, Enterprise, and Voyager to see wasted opportunities. "
WOW you must be the kind of person that sees the glass as "half full". Using those examples I would say that the glass was bone dry, cracked, chipped and with a dribble hole.
Quote:"Rick Berman = Enemy of Star Trek"
I totally agree.
-
Quote:
William Shatner will always be Captain Kirk. He is 72 years old. There is not much time to do a cycle of "dead, rise again, dead, rise again". I think that people want the hero to go on. Even after Shatner has died.
It's not as if Shatner will be dead within a year. If he can do Star Trek now, then he can probably do it in five years. As far as I know he is in good health (but I don't really know, so correct me if I'm wrong).
Quote:
Unfortuately you can't bring back Deforest Kelly and Mark Leonard. James Doohans health is not good. Once the actor dies so does the character.
Right, but I'm not talking about the actors dying. I'm saying that if in the last episode of Enterprise, say, Lt. Reed dies, nobody will take it seriously. They'll just say "Oh, characters never die on Star Trek, they'll always come back to life," which is, in fact, what many people do say. And if I hear somebody say that I tell them that they're wrong, that in fact the only character to ever do that was Spock (besides instances like "The Changeling" where a character is brought back to life within the episode in order to show the powers of Nomad, or in "Mortal Coil," where Neelix's resurrection is used to set up the story of the episode). But if Kirk is brought to life it will set a trend, and deaths on Star Trek will no longer be taken seriously.
Quote:
(**Note** ANYONE here is for "recasting" of some dipshit as Kirk, Spock, Picard etc is not only a moron but NO fan of Trek.)
I also am opposed to this, although perhaps "moron" is a bit too far... :-)
Quote:
It has been established that Kirk has cheated death before. It is therefore within his character.
But then don't we loose what makes us human?
"It is our mortality that defines us"
--Picard in Generations
From "Emissary":
Sisko: What is the point of brining me back again to this!?
Jake: We do not bring you here
Jennifer: You bring us here.
Bolian: You exist here
Sisko: Then give me the power to lead you somewhere else, anywhere else!
Opaka: We cannot give you what you deny yourself. Look for solutions from within, commander.
Sisko: I was ready to die with her
Bolian: die? What is this?
Jennifer: the termination of their linear existence
Sisko: I never left this ship
Jennifer: you exist here
Sisko: I exist here.
I don’t know if you can understand, I see her like this every time I close my eyes. In the darkness, in the blink of an eye, I see her like this.
Jennifer: none of your past experiences helped prepare you for this consequence
Sisko: and I have never figured out how to live without her.
Jennifer: so you choose to exist here
(Sisko nods)
Now Kirk, in The Wrath of Khan:
I cheated death. I tricked
my way out of death and patted myself
on the back for my ingenuity. I
know nothing.
...
How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life.
...
And yet, in the midst of our sorrow it should be noted that this death takes place in the shadow of a new life, the sunrise of a new world, a world that our beloved comrade gave his own life to protect and nourish. He did not feel that sacrifice a vain or empty one, and we will not debate his profound wisdom in these proceedings. Of my friend, I can only say this, that of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most...human.
What I’m getting at is that death is a very important part of life. Kirk is someone who never gives up and fights to the end, but there has to be something for him to fight against, if you know what I mean. It’s about the human struggle, and if there’s a struggle, there has to be a risk of loosing. It’s not about being at some immortal state where he never dies and just has fun all the time, it’s about the journey getting there. And Kirk fought and continued on that journey to the very moment he died. I might be making this seem more complicated than it is... Anyway, you brought up Kirk never giving up, and this is my response. It's not meant to propose an opposite view, just a different, more complex spin on the same thing. One which, if it doesn't justify Kirk's death in the first place, I believe it does justify the point that bringing him back to life would be against his character.
(EDIT: BTW, pretending to make a scholarly analysis on how to interpret Star Trek is fun. Not something I get to do every day... :-) )
Quote:
Just look at Nemesis, Enterprise, and Voyager to see wasted opportunities.
Quote:
WOW you must be the kind of person that sees the glass as "half full". Using those examples I would say that the glass was bone dry, cracked, chipped and with a dribble hole.
I’m confused now...you’re saying that “wasted opportunities” is an understatement?
Quote:
Rick Berman = Enemy of Star Trek
Quote:
I totally agree.
I know. :-)
And perhaps once Enterprise is canceled and people get over the shock of having lost Star Trek they’ll realize this as well.
-
Quote:
Quote:"Rick Berman = Enemy of Star Trek"
I totally agree.
Scorned, I must ask, if you believe this, then why don't you think Berman will completely botch Kirk's return?
--------
The supervisor is Verizon!
-
I don't expect him too. Shatner himself has written his return. He mentioned it in Toronto several months back. Shatner doesn't need Berman. Berman needs Shatner. To get the "curse" off his back. Berman will do anything to keep his job etc. He will therefore have to kiss Shatners ass. That means playing it Bill's way. If Berman has something in mind that Shatner doesn't like it. I am going to assume Bill will just say "No, fuck you Rick." Bill doesn't need Berman!
Quote:""Bill luckily has landed a wonderful role on the new David Kelley spin-off of THE PRACTICE, but Brannon and I have plans within the next few weeks of sitting down with Bill and discussing some possible ways of his being involved in this season of ENTERPRISE"
He is the "Shatman". He is everywhere these days.
In the grand scheme of things Shatner has fame and Berman has nothing. Shatner will always be remembered and Berman is a nobody. They better bring a truck load of money and knee pads to the meeting.
I personally don't give a shit about some stupid blue Nazi ending. This whole time travel diarrhea is boring. I don't care if ENT is now 'Quantum Leap". All I want to see is the RETURN of Captain Kirk. Nothing else matters!
-
Quote:
In the grand scheme of things Shatner has fame and Berman has nothing. Shatner will always be remembered and Berman is a nobody. They better bring a truck load of money and knee pads to the meeting.
Well. You know what they say. If you can't be famous. Be Infamous.
Truer words were never spoken. Especially in regards to Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (who, I must admit, I have never really had any problems with. Each to his own, I guess.)
Now, off to watch American Pie 3 again. Everytime I see it, it cracks me up (as do the other Pie's).
Tootles.
Flynn 19
--------
'Rose, you were fantastic. And you know what? So was I.'
-The Doctor, Doctor Who (2005)
I don't feel the character will be done justice by the current producers. If he's going to play someone else, then, whatever. I'll be ok with that. But not as Kirk.
--------
"Serenity" is the movie "Star Wars" prequels wish they could be.
-
Noo, if they bring in "The Shatner" he's gonna have to be "The Kirk", Producers have once or twice brought back the same actor as different characters (Wesley's Red Squad Leader, and Tom Paris) But those things have always irked me. How do you explain that?
Ughh... No it's not really Kirk it's his Great Great Grandfather that looks a whole lot like him...
LAME
The entire thing is a gimmick, and I'm 100 percent against it. Let Kirk rest in peace.
-
Shatner is far more high profile than Paris so it would be MUCH worse. Shatner was THE CENTRAL CHARACTER in Trek for longer than anyone else. It's impossible to see him in another role. The ancestor idea is AWFUL. LET this be the year of the crossover. LET the TCW take priority like the Xindi did last year, and LET KIRK be the kickoff.
-
To have Shatner return to Trek after 10 years and not play Kirk will be an incredible cheat to the fans. There's just no reason he should play another character when there's unfinished business with Kirk.
Second point, the idea itself may be Shatner's own idea, as he is on record saying he's come up with a plausible way to get Kirk on Enterprise. Shatner has written some of the best selling Trek books of all time and has a fourth trilogy in the works after this one. Contrary to fan speculation, he is not ghost written.
Third point, Enterprise has taken off in its third season to general acceptance by the fan, much like DS9 and TNG in their third seasons after arguably weaker first and second seasons. So saying the Producers are going to screw things up isn't necessarily the case. Coto himself is a massive fan of the original Trek, alongside Mike Sussman, so they have at least 2 TOS afficionardo's on the writing staff, one in a Producer's role both who have proved they deserve to write such a story.
--------
"Men don't use sex to get what they want. Sex IS what they want" - Frasier
-
To bring in Shatner as any role other than a post-Generations Kirk will be the DUMBEST move since killing Kirk in the first place. Berman has a BIG TIME chance to right a MAJOR wrong in Trek history. The ancestor idea is ridiculous. There is NO demand for an ancestor. It has to be James T. Kirk.
If Berman does that, he will be rewarded big time and heal some major wounds. James T. Kirk, with a happy ending.
(1)
| 
