Nervous | Report this post to moderator
By: Lt Santiago (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:16:13 on Feb 14, 2008

Does anyone else get nervous when they think about Star Trek moving to the summer? Maybe I don't have enough faith in our favorite show here but if it doesn't compete it could mean the end of Trek for a longer time...

--------

"In every revolution, there's one man with a vision" -- James T. Kirk

Reply

Quote

May | Report this post to moderator
By: Steve Krutzler (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:05:57 on Feb 14, 2008

Wow, Paramount thinks a Trek movie can actually stand up to the competition in May for the first time since -- well I can't remember. No TNG movie ever came out in the summer, that's for sure. Especially not the high-profile summer opening weekend.

--------

It's a rip-off. / We're stepped on, and cheated! / We're flat, stone-cold lied to / But we're not defeated / No!

Halen. "The Dream is Over."

Reply

Quote

• RE: May | Report this post to moderator
  By: Captain's Blog (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:23:48 on Feb 15, 2008

  Wow, indeed.
  
  --------
  
  "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

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: May | Report this post to moderator
  By: OV-101 (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:51:37 on Feb 14, 2008

  I definitely find this news to be encouraging. I know JJ is happy with the extra time as well. I know there are things, lines and shots he wanted to add but was not able to due to the strike. So, he can now go back and make any additions he thinks will add to the movie. Like you said Steve, this certainly add to the credibility to the movie. I think I can wait 6 months if it means a better product.
  
  --------
  
  "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
  -- John Wayne
  
  "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
  --Dr. Leonard McCoy
  
  "I'm a politician, which means I am a cheat and a liar, and when I am not kissing babies I am stealing their lollipops."
  -- Jeffrey Pelt, The Hunt for Red October
  
  "Liberals, Intellectuals, Peacemongers, IDIOTS!!!!"
  - General Decker, Mars Attacks
  
  "It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
  - Q from Q Who

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: May | Report this post to moderator
    By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 15:13:05 on Feb 14, 2008

    I also find this encouraging. It means a better movie and bigger marketing campaign from the studio. Star Trek is really back on track.
    
    Gustavo
    
    --------
    
    TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
    
    gl2000@uol.com.br

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

Talk about a strong vote of confidence | Report this post to moderator
By: NX-47 (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:08:40 on Feb 14, 2008

Quote:
" ‘Star Trek' is moving to summer because its has so much boxoffice potential," Par spokesman Michael Vollman said. "It does not need any script tweaks. They're two-thirds of the way through shooting, and we would have delivered a great movie at Christmas."

Looks like the studio is firmly behind the project, which, while not a guarantee of success, is a guarantee that all involved are striving for success. When compared to the studio's overall environment and attitude during the ENT years (with Berman at the helm), the current studio's attitude is a 180-degree shift in favor of Trek.

Say what you will, but it's amazing what fresh blood can do for a franchise.

--------

THAT is the Exploration that awaits you: not mapping stars or studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of Existence.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Talk about a strong vote of confidence | Report this post to moderator
  By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 06:33:14 on Feb 14, 2008

  I agree, NX-47, these decisions are being made by greater minds than ours and if a few months longer to wait means the final product will be perfected, then I am happy to sit it out. I still think it's a bit odd, though.
  
  Gustavo
  
  
  --------
  
  TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
  
  gl2000@uol.com.br

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

nnnerves... | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:06:33 on Feb 14, 2008

This is a high stakes gamble. What else to say. It is possible that we will get a better movie (?) but the situation becomes increasingly unpredictable in 2009. Maybe they will decide on the final release date later on, early next year.

Reply

Quote

RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:39:47 on Feb 14, 2008

First of all, this is something that shouldn't be "let go." It's a major disappointment and dark cloud over this movie.

And Bean is probably right. Putting Shatner in the movie is a no brainer, guaranteed to make the movie more money, but Abrams made the ridiculous choice to not put him in--and of course, lie about it.

Given the mental midgets that are on the anti-Shatner side, I expect a full diatribe attacking me personally. It's funny that I didn't even post in the other thread and that happened.

However, I can understand that. There is no logical argument to keep Shatner out. So attack the defender.

There is still time to do something about the Shatner debacle. Hopefully the extra time will help Abrams do the right thing. Given the history of Paramount and Trek, I doubt it.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:59:42 on Feb 14, 2008

  Quote:
  First of all, this is something that shouldn't be "let go." It's a major disappointment and dark cloud over this movie.
  
  To you (and only you, from what I've seen).
  
  
  Quote:
  Given the mental midgets that are on the anti-Shatner side, I expect a full diatribe attacking me personally.
  
  Nothing like taking the high ground with regards to those who are "attacking you" and not outright flaming them. Oh...wait...troll.
  
  Quote:
  There is no logical argument to keep Shatner out.
  
  Yes there is. The story they came up with DOES NOT NEED WILLIAM SHATNER! Christ. Even a retarded two year old could grasp this concept.
  
  Quote:
  the Shatner debacle.
  
  How is it a debacle when it's just one person throwing a hissy fit over and over ad nauseum?
  
  --------
  
  "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Bean (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 17:30:35 on Feb 14, 2008

  Quote:
  And Bean is probably right. Putting Shatner in the movie is a no brainer, guaranteed to make the movie more money, but Abrams made the ridiculous choice to not put him in--and of course, lie about it.
  
  Wow, what a fine example of completely and totally misunderstanding a comment.
  
  Let me be clear about this, unless it serves the story, I am FIRMLY against having Shatner in the movie.
  
  Quote:
  but Abrams made the ridiculous choice to not put him in--and of course, lie about it.
  
  Ok, so I posted a thread weeks ago asking people to show me proof that Abrams lied.. nothing. Do you now have that proof?
  
  --------
  
  "The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Yesterday's Lemmiwinks (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:06:17 on Feb 14, 2008

  and of course, lie about it.
  
  Oh, of course.
  
  Still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is, dude...
  
  --------
  
  "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)

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• It Was Hardly An Attack | Report this post to moderator
  By: Jean-Luc (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:42:22 on Feb 14, 2008

  IMO it was "heavily sarcastic humor".
  
  Believe it or not, half of me is still on your side of the fence on this. I admit that with the strike over and an extra five months to work on it, the chances of the possibility of getting Shatner in do increase. I just don't want to see it detract from the original plot of the film by putting too much emphasis on Shatner or editing out other good scenes due to time constraints. I know it's apples and oranges, but as an example NEM left out scenes with Wesley and between Picard and Data but wasted time on the dune buggy scene. I don't want Shatner to become the dune buggy!
  
  --------
  
  "Outer Space: The Last Frontier.
  These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."
  
  Patrick Stewart--SNL, Stardate 9402.05

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: It Was Hardly An Attack | Report this post to moderator
    By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:06:17 on Feb 14, 2008

    How could it DETRACT from the plot of the film? You would be adding the biggest celebrity in Star Trek history, and a box office draw. You would be saving Kirk's life, which is basically what the movie seems to be about.
    
    Shatner could never be a dune buggy. Wesley isn't that important of a Trek character. There was no bitterness with his departure. There was no unfinished business. With Kirk, the character was given an awful fate, for no reason, and like it or not, there is a significant portion of the fan base still pissed.
    
    Nostalgia always sells. But in this case you not only have nostalgia, but necessity. Shatner in the movie is the best way to truly pass the torch. Not only that, Shatner and Nimoy together, something Nimoy has advocated, would only add to the film. How could it possibly not. It would actually take some level of talent to have Shatner in the movie and screw it up. Berman did it, but he killed the character.
    
    Kirk and Spock need that final scene together. That would not only heal a lot of animosity that still exists, but it would help the franchise in the future because now Kirk's adventures wouldn't have a bitter end.
    
    Abrams' excuse is bunk considering that the movie is basically dedicated to stopping Kirk from dying.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: It Was Hardly An Attack | Report this post to moderator
      By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:46:05 on Feb 14, 2008

      Quote:
      How could it DETRACT from the plot of the film?
      
      
      Maybe because this movie isn't about undoing the events of a movie from 14 years ago. Events which your lord and saviour agreed to be a part of (gotta get that paycheck, donchaknow).
      
      
      Quote:
      there is a significant portion of the fan base still pissed.
      
      Again, show us this "significant portion". All I ever see bitching about it is you (and Captain Patti/Scorned before he/she/it was banned).
      
      Quote:
      Abrams' excuse is bunk considering that the movie is basically dedicated to stopping Kirk from dying.
      
      Actually the movie is dedicated to bringing in the general audience/creating the next generation of fans...which you don't do by expecting them to know, remember, or give a fuck about the events from a previous movie which came out 14 years ago.
      
      
      --------
      
      "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:19:46 on Feb 14, 2008

  Quote:
  Putting Shatner in the movie is a no brainer
  
  How can you be sure?
  
  Quote:
  guaranteed to make the movie more money
  
  Even if it ruins the story?
  
  Quote:
  Abrams made the ridiculous choice to not put him in--and of course, lie about it.
  
  Sounds like a nasty conspiracy theory.
  
  Quote:
  I expect a full diatribe attacking me personally
  
  No, not you personally. I wouldn't do that. Its just that we don't know enough about the story to dismiss what Abrams has said. I think he is innocent until proven guilty. So I won't call him a lier, when he says the story doesn't lend itself to having Shatner in it. This may be a dark cloud for you and some other fans, maybe a lot of them, at least until we see the movie. There ARE things about Star Trek, more important than Shatner - I'm sure you agree. If the movie satisfies these things of greater importance, I'd say we have a winner. Definitely. I can only hope.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
    By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:03:30 on Feb 14, 2008

    There is absolutely NO WAY that putting William Shatner in the movie can hurt, kill, ruin, or do anything but have a positive impact on the story. If that were to happen, that would mean that Abrams and his team would be among the most incompetent writers in Hollywood. The only way to have Shatner in the movie and not make it better would be to end it with Kirk still dead. A reset ending. I'd like to think Abrams is not that stupid.
    
    HBasm, not going on a personal diatribe puts you a level above several others on this forum, and that's a good thing. It leads to a much better conversation.
    
    There is no conspiracy theory about Shatner. Abrams lied. Period. He said he was desperately trying to get Shatner in the movie, but then didn't bother to even show him the script. He didn't even have the decency to let Shatner know personally that he wasn't using him. He had Nimoy do the dirty work. Low class.
    
    But if you truly want an answer to the question of whether the movie would be better with Shatner in it, Leonard Nimoy flat out said so back at ComicCon.
    
    As of now, Kirk dies a lame death on a mountain. That is a HORRIBLE ending and it taints any further use of the character. Kirk is the chief protagonist again, and there is nothing more important than protecting his life in the story. From what we know, the main plotline is Spock going back and time to protect Kirk. Could one seriously argue that there's room to protect young Kirk, but not old Kirk? To borrow a line from Star Trek, that's illogical.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
      By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:39:47 on Feb 14, 2008

      Okay, so it all comes down to one thing: You want a story that resurrects Kirk played by William Shatner.
      
      You DO think that Abrams and his team, are stupid people, dumb and incompetent, or maybe they have a personal grudge against Shatner, since they're not offering him a role... Am I correct?
      
      You can't imagine a story that wouldn't benefit from having William Shatner in it.
      
      Well... I can't say I really understand you.
      
      Quote:
      He said he was desperately trying to get Shatner in the movie, but then didn't bother to even show him the script.
      
      Why should Abrams show Shatner the script when he is not in it? I think its quite enough that Abrams has "apologised" in public, several times, by saying the story doesn't call for Shatner and it would be difficult to put him in... I easily understand this. I mean, I wouldn't want him to pop up on the screen for no good reason.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
        By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:07:31 on Feb 14, 2008

        The character Captain Kirk needs to either be resurrected, or his death prevented. Whether it be Shatner or Pine in older makeup, it's vital to this franchise. And given that they came to the conclusion that Shatner should not be in this movie, yes, Abrams and his team are morons.
        
        Abrams was going off on how desperately he wanted Shatner in the movie. Desperate was HIS word, not mine. To not even show him the script and talk about the role, is not the sign of someone even making a good faith effort. So he lied. Abrams has NEVER apologised. He barely addressed the issue after getting people's hopes up.
        
        Like it or not, Shatner IS in demand for this film. He DOES represent money for the franchise.
        
        There is no way that a professional writer can't figure out a way to get him into this movie.
        
        And Critch--for the last time--SHATNER WAS NOT OFFERED A ROLE. You are 100 percent WRONG on that. You either misread something, or are making something up because at NO TIME was Shatner ever offered a role. He did not turn anything down. He was not even brought into the conversation to that point. If you honestly believe that Shatner's presence in this movie would make it fail, then you simply have no concept of anything when it comes to this movie. But then again, you are trying to spread the mistruth that Shatner was ever offered something. That did not happen.
        
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
          By: rico (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:36:45 on Feb 14, 2008

          Seriously...therapy should be an option for you. Maybe some time outside as well. This has been (and still could be) fun banter/discussion with others...but you're entirely too heavy about all this.
          
          It's like it's life/death to you...and that's why most people mock you...rail against you...dismiss you. People get personal with you because this IS personal to you. You have some weird emotional (read personal) involvement with needing to see Shatner in this movie.
          
          Gain some emotional intelligence, dude. Even the "we'd love to see Shatner in the movie" crowd seems to give you a wide birth these days. Surely you see this?!?

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

    • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
      By: critch (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:19:49 on Feb 14, 2008

      Once again, you're a liar and an idiot. Kirk turned down the only role he was offered, a cameo. Both Nimoy and Abrams said that the main reason he couldn't be in this movie was because he was DEAD.
      
      The worst part of this is that we have to put up with 5 more months of your crap.
      
      Kirk DIED. Shatner signed off on his death. Get over it.
      
      You want Star Trek to fail. Everyone knows that but you. Wanting Shatner in this movie is tantamount to wanting it to do as bad as Nemesis.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:19:44 on Feb 14, 2008

I just hope this extra time helps Abrams do the right thing and actually get Shatner in this movie.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:27:07 on Feb 14, 2008

  And just think, the delay has given us a whole 5 more months of this sort of thing!
  
  Al

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: pepe (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:47:08 on Feb 14, 2008

  Why do you want Shatner in the movie? He has spent most of his career playing himself, are you really interested in an old rather overweight actor reliving the experience or remember him in the good old days?
  
  If this is a NEW movie why have OLD people playing roles they left years ago? Like it or not, Shatner passed the role on to new blood in Generations.
  
  I mean would you like to see Charlton Heston playing Ben Hur II?
  
  I have lived with Star Trek since I was born, Star Trek is more than Shatner Nimoy or Ppatrick Stewart, it is a vision, a dream if you like of a different future. I don't need Shatner in it, I need to see that those values are still there. That's why DS9 was so much better than Voyager or Enterprise, they didn't have the Trek mythos in them.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
    By: SuperDave (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:13:17 on Feb 15, 2008

    Ha ha, this all reminds me about how Jack Nicholson was pissed because they didn't ask him to play the Joker in The Dark Knight.
    
    --------
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: critch (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:20:44 on Feb 14, 2008

  Too bad Shatner turned down a role in the movie, isn't it?

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:27:58 on Feb 14, 2008

  Quoting GustavoLeao from the other day...
  
  "StillKirok, please grown up.Forget Abrams and Shatner, man. Let it go."
  
  
  --------
  
  "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
    By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:11:56 on Feb 14, 2008

    And I will say again - it is time, more than ever, to let this Shatner discussion end. Let it go.
    
    Gustavo
    
    --------
    
    TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
    
    gl2000@uol.com.br

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: | Report this post to moderator
      By: rassmguy (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:28:14 on Feb 14, 2008

      Agreed, Gustavo--the Shatner thing is a non-issue.
      
      --------
      
      Rich Handley
      Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
      Available now from Hasslein Books
      www.hassleinbooks.com
      

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

  • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
    By: Gothampunk (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:37:49 on Feb 14, 2008

    here here. it would be nice to have a moratorium on 2 things -- Shatner's non-involvement in the movie, and "I"m boycotting the movie if..." attempts at humor. Oh, and world peace.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
      By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:14:27 on Feb 14, 2008

      So you are advocating censorship--as long as your opinion is allowed. How about censoring any of the anti-Shatner opinions? After all, you are in the minority anyway.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
        By: Gothampunk (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:51:00 on Feb 14, 2008 | (1)

        Quote:
        So you are advocating censorship--as long as your opinion is allowed. How about censoring any of the anti-Shatner opinions? After all, you are in the minority anyway.
        
        I was advocating self-censorship, Paisan, whether the comments be pro- or anti-Shat. The horse is dead*. As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you mean. What minority am I in? I have never posted a comment that could be construed by any sane person as "anti-Shatner."
        
        *As an idiot ex-boss of mine once said, in a classic malapprop, "You're beating a dead herring."

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

• RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
  By: Bean (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 04:43:34 on Feb 14, 2008

  Well, it took longer than I thought it would, but someone finally brought it up.
  
  I seriously doubt this will make any difference.
  
  --------
  
  "The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Still Hopeful | Report this post to moderator
    By: Rorschach (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:42:18 on Feb 14, 2008

    Oh, boo hoo...Would someone please get a crowbar and pry George Lucas off of me? It's time for J.J. Abrams to get a shot at raping my childhood...
    
    
    A few more months won't hurt anything. I'd rather see it in the spring/summer than on Christmas day.
    
    --------
    
    
    "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us."

    
    

    Reply

    Quote