In Star Trek Generations, William Shatner accepted the role where Captain Kirk dies. What does he want - the Genesis Effect to resurrect Him? He made the decision with Generations. Live with it.
Did people make this much fuss when Nimoy wasn't in Generations? Shatner is stoking this. He should ask to do the opening monologue and wish the film well.
--------
"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
Marc sounds like the same guy from The Mirror interview.
As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
So fans are organizing a boycott, eh? (Gee, I should have started a pool. So far every single one of my predictions regarding fanbase reaction to Trek 11 is coming true) Well, IIRC a large and rather vocal group of James Bond fans organized a boycott of Casino Royale, and we all saw how well that turned out. So well in fact that EON Productions is paying Daniel Craig the gross domestic product of Equatorial Guinea to make 4 more films.
If you want a film to go away, simply ignore it. Whining that so-and-so isn't in the movie just makes you look silly, especially if the actor you don't want receives any sort of acclaim. The "CraigNotBond" people got not only egg on their faces, but ham, cheese, syrup and the whole continental breakfast.
Al
The only "debacle" is contained in the minds of a bunch of fanwankers who just can't bring themselves to face reality, and as a result are making Trek fans look even more pathetic and geeky than than the common perception.
To quote the great Shat himself: GET A LIFE!!!
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
-
Sam Cogley wrote:
Quote:
The only "debacle" is contained in the minds of a bunch of fanwankers who just can't bring themselves to face reality, and as a result are making Trek fans look even more pathetic and geeky than than the common perception.
To quote the great Shat himself: GET A LIFE!!!
Says the guy whining on a Trek message board.
Too bad you can't quote anything from post-TOS Trek. Oh, that's right. Nothing they said is worth remembering.
You had the Trek you wanted, since 1991. And as a result, Trek has been completely forgettable, boring, and mindless. TWO DECADES of pure mediocrity, thanks to people EXACTLY like you. So why should anyone listen to people like you NOW?
look.
i like shatner. but isnt kirk dead? didnt he want kirk to die in generations? if it doesnt make any sense story wise then he cant be in the film.
personal note to shatner...
your career is at an alltime high in terms of respect, reward, and noteriety. you have surpased the "type cast" curse and taken yourself beyond being considered a "joke" by many. That is hard to do. i like you.
but...
kirk is dead. i know it sucks, it just is.
let it go.
dont make a fool of yourself.
dont come out to be bitter or jealous.
just keep doing good work.
to the fans...
think about what you are asking...
its too much. you want trek to continue (so do i). you want it to be done "right" this time after previous dissapointment (i share that dissapointment). so how in the hell could you get kirk in this movie? how would that work and still make a good film. the movie needs to be about star trek. not two hours of explaining a situation to put shatner as kirk in the movie just for the sake of doing so.
he's dead jim.
this is not guiding light.
this is not the wwe.
i know its science fiction but there are some rules.
this is star trek.
b.
I saw this petition today over at trekmovie.com
I have no idea who these people are put it can't hurt.
www.wewantkirk.com
I'll boycott any film that has Shatner in it.
--------
Visit My Blog
The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. -- the eminent conservative rag, National Review
Remember back during "Enterprise" there was talks about Bill making an appearance? If I recall, one rumored reason he did not was that those in charge did not want to pay the exuberant amount of money he was requesting. They gave the impression that he had the attitude that he was doing them a favor, thus they should pay out the nose. If there was any truth to that, I wonder if the same thing is going on again but on a much larger scale?
--------
“I’d give real money if he’d shut up! “ – Dr. McCoy : Star Trek VI
-
The difference is, Shatner was talking about the salary issue point blank. Not this time. Abrams and company, despite basically lying for over a year, haven't bothered to even send him the script.
I guess I'll just quote myself from a month an a half ago:
How do you get people talking about a tired movie franchise? Tell the fans of said franchise that their "icon" will not be in the film. Then, have him publicly "pout" about it.
Now, I will grant that there's been much more definitive language from Shatner in the past few weeks. However, in my mind, that still doesn't cancel out the possibility of them/him intentionally deceiving us.
If they had said absolutely nothing about Bill, and he ended up not being in the film, would these people still be boycotting it? I guess I can understand their unhappiness, as I felt pretty slighted when NEM was built up as centering around the Romulans and we ended up with... well... Nemesis. But to boycott the film? All that will do is help to ensure that no Trek at all comes out for decades. The Franchise is in new hands now, and we have no way of knowing whether the product will be good or bad until we see the final result. If you think otherwise, you're only feeding your own self-important smugness.
Star Trek is much bigger than one man.
--------
"A billion robot lives are about to be extinguished! Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one..."
-Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama: Crimes of the Hot)
----
"The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!"
-Shran (ENT: Proving Ground)
This whole Shatner thing is getting out of hand. I have no respect for fans that are planning to boycott this film, all that will do is hurt trek. It is ultimately selfish and petty just because their pseudo god Shatner is not in it. I have nothing but respect for the man that gave us Captain Kirk but I ask again what will boycotting the film do for trek? What if the film is excellent? How do we look to the general public when we plan to boycott something dear to us? We look like a bunch of whining complacent fools who can't look to the future and accept something as it is. If Kirk cannot fit into the story in a logical way then there is no reason to have him in it. I don't want some gimmicky "HERE'S KIRK!" inclusion, that is dishonest and disrespectful to Star Trek. Bring on 2008 and bring on Star Trek XI with or without Shatner! Here's hoping for a great film.
-
I remember when it was leaked that Spock would be "killed off" in ST II. There were talk of boycotts then, and we know how that turned out as far as fanboy reaction.
As I remember, Abrams "desparately working" was in refererence to writing an older Kirk into the script, not negotiating with Shatner to appear. Abrams had basically said he wanted the appearance of older Kirk not be a lame plot twist just for the sake of Shatner's appearance. That would not only get the fan base upset but kill interest for the casual movie goer if the film got lame reviews.
-
The ones who are most adamant about Shatner's inclusion, to the point of calling for a "boycott," seem to have the stifling sense of entitlement that keeps the general public ( I almost typed "norms") away in droves - if the fans of any particular series is THIS myopic about their entertainment, who wants to be a part of that?
Worse, are all the mindless accusations made by many of these same fans, actively badmouthing the filmmakers, trashing their efforts before they see a single frame of action, and without any verifiable knowledge of how the negotiations and deal-making have actually taken place.
I also think it's funny that most of this armchair movie moguling is probably coming from Never Done Jack, Two Thumbs Don, and Sidekick Don't Say Dick - people who "have never even directed traffic," as Nimoy put it at an appearance earlier this year. That they seem to fail to grasp the irony makes it all the more amusing.
Their only criteria for this film's success is including Shatner. That's apparently it. Uh huh. For the sake of argument: How many years of film school did it take you to reach that conclusion? Or did you work your way up from the Paramount shipping office to the boardroom using nothing but your wits and elbow grease to be able to confidently make that assertion? Chances are, none and no, you didn't, respectively. Oh, but you've been WATCHING Star Trek for decades you say. Give this man a WGA card and an office on the lot, post-haste! He's got the best idea to BBK from the contrived plot device, er, Nexus! Smashing! Because that's all the audience wants to see. A bloated mess of a film to correct the mistakes of another bloated mess of a film. Right.
This film needs to ilicit widespread curiosity - that is what will get butts in seats, and DVDs off the shelves. You don't need to have Shatner in it to achieve this end. The fact it's even being made has made a lot of people very curious, for a variety of reasons that are all too obvious, and this post is long enough so I shall not list them, and instead take a small bow.
--------
"Doctor, doctor, such unprofessional behavior. Into that little room, please."
-
Boycott? No. Is Shatner Kirk? Of course. Is Shatner Star Trek? No, certainly not by himself - but he is important to the franchise, a major, major part of Trek, important to be beginning of this whole institution, and absolutely able to increase the viewership (is that a word?) of this film. I hope they can find a role for him that is meaningful - perhaps a couple of poignant minutes with Spock in a flashback (to the older Spock, of course) that simply sets up a scene in the past (a deja vu scene, maybe). But if they cannot manage that... should we boycott the film? No.
So what, Shatner is not in the movie. Did the 7th seal just rupture as a result?
Moon of blood? no
Seas a boiling? no
Shatner not in a star trek movie? check
its not the end of the world people. Give the movie a chance before crying that Shatner isn't in it. Besides, the last Shatner Trek, kinda sucked...
--------
Today is a fabulous day to dye - The Metrosexual Klingon.
-
Good one!
Seriously, I was telling my mom upstairs how those guys are making all of us look bad...
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
-
Quite honestly, I can't believe you guys even ran this story. Public comments by a fan constitute news? The whole boycott idea is just silly, and will ultimately be only a footnote in Trek history.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
(1)
| 
