It seems fairly clear why it is much harder to bring Shatner back as Kirk than Nimoy back as Spock. Nimoy has aged quite gracefully, and anyone can recognize him as the young Spock growing older. Alas, that is not true with Shatner, as pretty well everyone knows.
So if you present them both together, Spock's first question could be: My God Jim, what happened? How did you let yourself go this way?
That plus what time frame you can use pretty well kills the notion. If you go back pre-Generations, there is no way you can convince the audience that Shatner is Kirk. He has deteriorated visibly in the last 15 years. Same problem with Nexus- take a look at Shatner in Generations and him now. The Nexus is supposed to freeze time and you are not going to convince anyone time is frozen by throwing the current Shatner up there.
So that leaves an extremely aged and deteriorated Captain Kirk. The only possibility I can think of is that you do a kind of Kirk does not fit in the Nexus story- his spirit is too vital for that sort of idyllic and mundane existence. So his body reacts by aging - the 'powers that be' in the Nexus are really puzzled, and they decide the best thing to do is to advise him to eject back into the real universe to the right time period. Even this seems a little gimmicky and unnatural.
Or maybe we can say Kirk's body was whisked off the planet by the Talosians and they did their best to repair him, but all they could do was the current version.
--------
psp1
Okay...let's get Spock to steal the Enterprise and travel back in time to beam Kirk off that bridge! It would have been better with Scotty...but James Doohan is no longer with us.
--------
"I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I'd love someone to say, 'Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry's was nothing!'" - Gene Roddenberry
"...I think it would be wonderful years from now to see Star Trek come back with an equally talented new cast playing Spock and Kirk and Bones and Scotty and all the rest, as they say tomorrow's things to tomorrow's generations..." - Gene Roddenberry
Just watched the ComicCon YouTube-Video and the J.J. Abrams team has definitely got this whole Star Trek thing figured out! SPOCK IS BACK! (in more ways than just "the one")
This low profile fan in Sonoma just about jumped a hole through the floor when Nimoy walked out on the stage! (home office research consultant; )
This rivals the other great 2008 Paramount sequel we're all going to help break records on: The man with the hat is back! Indiana Jones IV!
J.J. also said something about looking for a young Kirk. Bravo!
Now, hmmmmm, J.J. mumbled something else about not bringing back the remaining guy to make this whole Star Trek thing complete, just to get him in the movie. I understand.
Now, hmmmmm, (tap, tap)....how to get the remaining guy in the movie and for it to not just be nice, but kick-a$$ awesome!
hmmm...still thinking...
He definitely needs to be returned to the living, not just some warm fuzzy before death setting.
He needs to return to the living in a way that we don't expect, hopefully in a way that's not already been done and not in a way that's total wormwood.
still thinking..
jeeeeeze, this is tougher than I care to admit.
Maybe part of the solution is that it should just be a simple return, without any explanation made in vain, and done with a smirk. A classic SHATNER smirk!
Heck, make him a member of the Q-Continuim or put him in a Federation-Timeship, I don't care...
JUST PLEASE BRING CAPTAIN SHATNER BACK IN THIS MOVIE!
-ABC
Shatner does not belong in a Star Trek reboot. It's not only that he's let himself go, aging far worse than Nimoy - can you imagine mountain-climber Kirk putting on that much weight? - but that he represents a part of Star Trek best left in the past.
When Bond was rebooted in Casino Royale, they dumped Q and Moneypenny but kept on Judi Dench as M. Why? Because she was never the problem with James Bond in the first place. On the contrary, she was always a strength, and why fix that which was never broken? Nimoy as Spock was never broken: he was always a strong actor - best of the original cast, in my mind - and was always a classy presence in fandom, never being obnoxiously attention-seeking or catty toward fellow cast members.
And Shatner?
Iconic though his performance as Kirk was, he can't really act. We all love the character of Kirk, but Shatner's success in the role owes more to personality than craft. Certainly, you may point out his Emmy nominations and wins for "The Practice," but there he's essentially playing a thinly veiled parody of himself, and Emmy's really don't mean anything. (See the annual omissions of "The Wire" and "Battlestar Galactica.") The man is not talented.
Off-screen, while Nimoy quietly dedicates himself to his photography, only occasionally condescending to an advertising gig, Shatner sells his persona as much as possible. (And Nimoy only ever appears
alongside Shatner.) I actually saw him pitching for a medical malpractice legal aid service on daytime TV recently. When not doing that, he's doing his part as "The Shat," being roasted, bickering with George Takei, appearing on radio talk shows, appearing on his website, "writing" stories that if not for the quality of his ghostwriters would be the most contemptible fanwank, etc.
Shatner represents parts of Star Trek best left behind: the hamminess, the attention-mongering, the endless commercialism. Like Rick Berman or Brannon Braga, he should be forgotten.
Abrams knows it: he's just too polite and conscious of Shatner's ego to come out and say it.
-
Excuse me?
Shatner is Star Trek, no bloody A, B, C, OR D.
I could care less about Nimoy's involvement. I want my Captain back for one last ride. If Spock's there in sidekick mode, hey, so much the better.
Abrams may be polite, but he isn't crazy either. You can believe Shatner will be in that movie. If he isn't, I guarantee you, despite what you might want to think, that movie won't go anywhere after people trash it right out of the gate, just like that Berman Era turkey, Nemesis, only worse.
No Shatner?
Please.
-
Quote:
Iconic though his performance as Kirk was, he can't really act. We all love the character of Kirk, but Shatner's success in the role owes more to personality than craft. Certainly, you may point out his Emmy nominations and wins for "The Practice," but there he's essentially playing a thinly veiled parody of himself, and Emmy's really don't mean anything. (See the annual omissions of "The Wire" and "Battlestar Galactica.") The man is not talented.
-
Quote:
When Bond was rebooted in Casino Royale, they dumped Q and Moneypenny but kept on Judi Dench as M. Why? Because she was never the problem with James Bond in the first place. On the contrary, she was always a strength, and why fix that which was never broken?
I tried to to call you on this one yesterday but the site seemed to be a tad unpredictable for me yesterday but as soon as we are being honest you better prepare to brace yourself and be educated.
As someone who has seen all 21 bond movies, and even read a few of the books including Casino Royale which was the very first bond novel. I feel it is my duty to point a few things out to you as to why exactly 'Q' and Moneypenny were not in the movie Casino Royale.
For a start it has absolutely nothing to do with the characters being what wrecked the bond movie franchise. What wrecked the movies was all the over the top gedgets as in invisable cars and stuff like that. Also what wrecked it was the over the top CGI sequence in 'Die Another Day' but more on that later.
The main reason 'Q' which stands for Quartermaster wasn't in the movie is because he wasn't in the book Casino Royale and neither was Moneypenny. They didn't introduce us to 'Q' til the second book which was Dr No and even then he only got a quick walk on to show Bond the safety features of his new PPK hand gun. Incidently Q's real name in the books was Major Boothroyde and he was based on a real person who Ian Flemming served with during the second world war when he worked for British intellegence.
Now you may or may not see Q in the next movie, but if you do I should imagine it would be in the same capacity as you have always seen him. Though the hardware will probably be less OTT.
What ruined Bond was the more outragious gadgets such as invisable cars and the like, that's what people had a problem with, not the Q and Moneypenny characters who were there for a bit of comic relief.
Another aspect that ruined bond was the heavy use of CGI in 'Die Another Day'. You know the part where he surfs along the avalance which is created by the satalite type weapon that lal has created. The sequence alone did a hell of a lot of damage to the credabillity of Bond.
You see in all the bond movies up until this point the stunts had always been REAL and performed by REAL people. Hence why Casino Royale went down so well because it brought that aspect of REAL STUNTS back to the movies and as such brought back the grittier aspects of the character.
Now I quite liked Daniel Craigs portrayal. In fact aside from Dalton in the 80s who was ok, Craigs Portrayal is closer to the Bond that you read about in the books. I re read Casino Royale before seeing the movie last year, and having done that I really appreciate Craigs portrayal all the more. The fact is in the Books Bond is a cold blooded killer. No passion, no quippy remark well perhaps a little one. He just goes in does the job and leaves.
As to Star Trek and Shatner. Well am not the worlds biggest Shatner fan either, but appreciate where his fans are coming from.
Am glad to have Nimoy back, and the thing I liked from the original show the most were Spock and Bones arguing. In my oppinion it was DeForest Kelly and Nimoy who were the two class actors on that show.
Though one of the things I do like about Shatner is his abillity to laugh at himself and involve people in that, which is why he won the emmy.
As to new Battlestar, am not even going to go there with you.
The only shows worthy of my attention at present are Lost and Heroes.
-
YES, YES, YES!
Couldn't have said this better...on the bond front especially. Good to know that another person recognizes Dalton as close to the real bond as was portrayed in the old regime. Even the actor that protrayed Q said as such...and he (the actor that played Q) was evidently one of Ian Flemming's friends if I remember right.
On the Shatner front...he's an entertainer. Who cares if he takes more acting/commercial gigs than Nimoy? This post seems a bit petty.
-
Quote:
Shatner does not belong in a Star Trek reboot. It's not only that he's let himself go, aging far worse than Nimoy - can you imagine mountain-climber Kirk putting on that much weight? - but that he represents a part of Star Trek best left in the past.
Sheesh, give the guy a break, he's 70+ years old! I think the Shat deserves an extra slice of cheese on his Whopper every now and then...!
--------
"Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise."
Jean-Luc Picard, Yesterday's Enterprise
-
Like you say, it may well be that Shatner represents a part of Star Trek which, though beloved, is anachronistic and should be laid to rest. But offering your flip assessment that "he has no talent" is lazy and obviously meant to take the shortest route to offensiveness. Yes he may be Superintendent of the David Caruso School of Acting, but to reduce him as you have, to rob him of his Emmys and to declare NOW, forty years later, that the choices he made when portraying Kirk HURT Star Trek is disingenuous in the extreme. It worked for HIM and for the time, and it made an international icon out of him. Indeed there would be no Star Trek to reboot today without his contribution. In so far as Star Trek is Kirk and Spock, and Kirk is Shatner, Star Trek in many ways is Shatner. Honestly.
-
Quote from Wanderer01:
Off-screen, while Nimoy quietly dedicates himself to his photography, only occasionally condescending to an advertising gig, Shatner sells his persona as much as possible.
By such reckoning, George Takei can never be seen as a heterosexual conservative character, because of all his public appearances as a gay activist.
Verily, Shat should've stayed in his Shakespearean closet.
"To be, or not to be..."
----------------
Ubuntu Studio Review @ Performance PC
Quote:
"The truth is: it needs to be worthy of him - it needs to be worthy of you - it needs to be worthy to the movie. We cannot just shove him in. It would be a disaster. You would hate it, he wouldn't like it...it would be bad."
Enough said.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
Quote from StillKirok:
How could they be trying to work him in and not have him in the script?
From the get-go, Nimoy opined that he and Shat might play bookend roles, or to set up the story. As Nimoy said, just after he got the call from Paramount, last year: "They might possibly want Bill and I to set up the story as a flashback" (report).
So, only the lead-in (and, perhaps, lead-out) portion of the current script need be edited to add Shatner, and this can be done later in the production schedule. The main story, about young Kirk and Spock, wouldn't require rework.
----------------
Ubuntu Review @ Laptop Magazine
:: Ubuntu Linux ::
-
I hope they can finesse any "book-ending" in such a way as to keep it from becoming an ugly cancer on the main story. I keep picturing them sitting around like in "Mind Meld":
"Wow, thanks Spock for using that awkward plot device to bring me back to life--which I will refer to in my dialogue now so we don't have to waste time showing it. Anywhoo, now we get to sit around and reminisce about old times. Speaking of, remember when we first met and you really hated me?"
"Ha! Yeah Jim, I remember I thought you were a total ass. The year was 2264 and you were a cocky young go-getter fresh out of the Academy. Why, I remember it like was yesterday-yesterday-yesterday..."
I'm assuming Nimoy would never have signed on so enthusiastically if it wasn't handled in a credible way. And, as much as I'd love to see Shatner (minus thirty pounds) reprise Kirk for a bit of the movie, I'm afraid it'll feel really forced if he does.
But people aren't stupid. They KNOW the character comes from Shatner and Nimoy, and we already HAVE an older Spock. They don't NEED to introduce a 40 year old legendary character.
Telling the origin does not require ignorance, and Kirk and Spock have been a part of our culture in the same manor as Superman and Batman.
As for simplicity, yes, it can be done simply. Depends on how they want to use older Kirk. It depends on whether the character is going to be a significant part of the movie, or just a cameo.
As for not believing Abrams--I won't buy it until I see it.
What he did yesterday was blow smoke up our butts. He and Shatner have spoken since Shatner announced he wasn't in the film. Why would Shatner still take that stance if Abrams said that to him? And why wouldn't Abrams tell Shatner that he's still interested?
This comment is inconsistent with Abrams' ACTIONS.
So no, I don't believe him.
-
Here's what I think, for what it's worth:
Shatner is simultaneously building buzz for the movie, yet putting pressure on Abrams and Paramount to include him in it. The bit about talking to Nimoy and being told Leonard was in it but he wasn't was just that - a bit. It's almost as if someone concocted this little mini-drama to distract fans from trying to discern little bits and pieces of the plot and production design. It's bullshit, but it's brilliant bullshit.
And personally, I think Abrams already has a younger Kirk in mind - he just doesn't want to announce it until he gets Shatner on board, just as he did with Quinto and Nimoy.
--------
A generation which ignores history has no past and no future. -- Robert Heinlein
PCLinuxOS
falcon
Now, this may be the Trekfanboy in me, but I think with Nimoy and Quinto on board and Abrams trying to get Shatner in, I think the movie is going to be great. It does clear up some things, that it will take place in both the 23rd and 24th centuries.
And I suspect, that Shatner's involvement will be hush-hush until late in the game. I really do believe that he'll be in it and it will be meaningful. I would not be surprised if they brink Kirk back to life in some way...thanks to the help of both 23rd and 24th Century Spock.
I can't believe it's 17 months away.
One of Many
--------
"Well, I've got pictures!" - Phlox, The Cogenitor
(1)
| 
