Unbelievable? | Report this post to moderator
By: Elara_Bern (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 17:47:55 on Aug 20, 2006

Its amazing some of the post I see, this really is about William shatner, its about the writing. If a damn good story is written for this star trek film, one that is creative, clever and can make a cameo appearance happen for William Shatner. Once that clicks and is shown well through the film then it will work. You are wrong I would absolutly go see the movie if William Shatner was to make a cameo appearance and added bonus would if Leonard nimoy would do it to.
But again it can be done its all in the ideas for the writing for this Star Trek film and what they can come up with but its got to be good and its has to work. The story idea for this film is were it all starts. Which actors appear comes second after the story is finalized.

Reply

Quote

No Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: psp1 (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:06:50 on Aug 17, 2006

The work that Shatner is doing now on Boston Legal is truly amazing. It's better than anything he has done in his career. Playing the addle minded Denny Crane who believes in his own greatness is the perfect role for him. The chemistry with Spader is obvious.

Bringing him back as Kirk would be a travesty both to him and Star Trek. Kirk was a great Captain (the best ever by far), and we should not tarnish him by subjecting him to carnival tricks. The miraculous resurrection of Spock strained credibility enough- it's a mistake to compound that error with another gimmick.

Star Trek needs to move on- as do Kirk fans. Let him rest in peace and do something totally different. Maybe a spicy intergalactic war with the Kelvans set 500 years in the Federation future ( yeah, war movies are a common theme, but they also WORK to bring in audiences and expose human flaws during stressful times).


--------

psp1

Reply

Quote

• RE: No Shatner | Report this post to moderator
  By: Kiwi6009 (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:05:22 on Aug 18, 2006

  Nicely put.
  
  
  Still would love to see a Kirk adventure though, however the unshakable fact remains that no plot contrivance yet conceived would satisfy enough fans to warrant a return for Kirk to the silver screen. In fact the thought seems to polarise this BBS.
  
  
  I guess its like saying 'gee I would love a motorboat', while knowing the chances of gaining such personal gratification under the current circumstances are close to zero.
  
  
  I LOVE the way BL is self referential for Shatner, with plenty of nods to TJ and Kirk, and perhaps Shatner himself.
  
  
  Long may he continue to blow solar flares out of his ass. ;)
  
  
  --------
  
  Before you cross the street,
  Take my hand,
  Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans....

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: No Shatner | Report this post to moderator
  By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:51:02 on Aug 17, 2006

  Kirk is Star Trek

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

William Shatner will bring in the crowds | Report this post to moderator
By: Alawi (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:43:25 on Aug 16, 2006

William Shatner is at his peak now. His work in BOSTON LEGAL has garnered him critical and commercial success.

His "Denny Crane" is a mischevious, womanizing, charming character and he always outshines all his cast. I mean don't forget this is the same Shatner that stole SHOWTIME from both Robert De Niro AND Eddie Murphy. People love him, he has a charisma and charm.

Several ways you can bring him back (if you are JJ pay attention):

1. I think they could bring back Kirk as an old, grizzled Admiral, who is overseeing a fleet of ships going into battle - you know the Henry Fonda role in movies like THE LONGEST DAY, BATTLE OF THE BULGE or MIDWAY. It can be done.

2. De-age him like they did in X3 THE LAST STAND for Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan and give him a cameo appearance in some kind of cross-over flick that spans timelines. There is still a lot more you can do with this technology.

3. Have him appear with Nimoy at the beginning and end of the film,as bookends.

There is no reason why William Shatner, still very much young at heart and spirit, cannot appear in a next STAR TREK and kick arse.

Reply

Quote

• RE: William Shatner will bring in the crowds | Report this post to moderator
  By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:01:18 on Aug 16, 2006

  There are a million ways to bring Kirk back post nexus. You gotta get the Shat involved with this film.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

The Rub | Report this post to moderator
By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:43:45 on Aug 16, 2006

I'm probably going to piss some people off with this, but the truth is, when you tie a franchise to a single actor you also give it a death sentence. Shatner is nearly 80 years old. He's awesome and great and everything else, but to borrow a phrase from his last album, "You're gonna die." Some would say that his ability to be the leading man in a multimillion $ action sci-fi blockbuster is already dead. A gripping character drama, yes. A comedy, yes. A ST11 cameo, yes. Running and punching? It was already a little hard to take in Generations. That was 12 years ago. Kirk first started talking about his age, his "worn-outness" in TWOK. THAT was 24 years ago.

If I said that to my 16-year-old self who, in 1987, was trying to find a reason to hate TNG, I'd be pissed off too. But at the same time, that was almost 20 years ago. If we fans have an imagination rigorous enough to accept the idea that Shatner at 80 can still do an action movie convincingly when no one else will, then why can't we use that imagination to accept someone else playing Kirk in his heyday? Sure it's risky and it's uncomfortable for a fan at first. But the bottom line is that unless we learn to move on, Star Trek's life span is ticking down to 0. I believe Star Trek is timeless and it has many more stories to tell.

How good would a movie with Shatner and none of the other originals be anyway? Seems like an unimaginative and desperate gasp to me. Exactly what Star Trek DOESN'T need right now.

Reply

Quote

• RE: The Rub | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:08:41 on Aug 17, 2006

  Star Trek has always been about breaking barriers. Who says an older actor can't still find purpose? That alone would be a cool subject for a movie. In Star Trek, in the 24th century, you had admirals over 100 years old. 100 in the TNG era is like 60 today.
  
  Kirk at 80 years old wouldn't be a big deal, since the character ages with the actor. Would he be hitting on 20 year olds and doing double fisted punches and flying drop kicks? No.
  
  But the Kirk of TWOK, the man born to be on the bridge of a starship, certainly could still exist.
  
  Plus, you also can counter Kirk's age with a flashback story with a younger Kirk. This not only allows you to tap into the younger Kirk era with the main TOS characters, but it sets up the franchise for a future.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: The Rub | Report this post to moderator
    By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:09:27 on Aug 17, 2006

    I'd probably be okay with Shatner bookending a larger story about young Kirk. But if we have to get him undead first, then I think THAT has to be your movie. And IMO, that's just the wrong way to go right now.
    
    Just to clear up any misunderstandings, I agree with you that an older actor has lots of purpose to fill (give me Peter O'Tool over Colin Farrell anyday). But everyone has their barriers (I don't want to see O'Tool in a sloppy sex scene, for example), and if we can all agree that the next movie has to be a big action-adventure, then I have to say that Shat's not the one to carry the bulk of that kind of movie. And good for him that he doesn't have to. He's got Hollywood writing for what he is today.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

• RE: The Rub | Report this post to moderator
  By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:52:32 on Aug 16, 2006

  Nobody thinks he should carry the franchise forward. But, it would be cool to see him saved from the nexus and give Kirk the ending he deserves. Not being thrown off a cliff.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: The Rub | Report this post to moderator
    By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:55:19 on Aug 16, 2006

    I share your opinion that the end Kirk met in Generations was stupid and insulting. It was shameful, in fact.
    
    But this is Waterloo and I don't think Shatner in a lead role in a story that basically is an excuse to give him a better death scene is the way to reverse Trek's decline. Hard choices have to be made—choices that, frankly, were put off WAY too long. The next movie must be a new beginning for a wider audience, not an exercise in tidying up canon that only nags a few people. I bet most people don't even remember that Kirk died, much less how. The death that needs to be reversed is Star Trek's, not Kirk's.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:55:11 on Aug 15, 2006

Star Trek needs it's greatest icon. As well as it's hottest and most popular star.

Reply

Quote

• RE: Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
  By: hawke5150 (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:40:48 on Aug 15, 2006

  There is so much I want to say about the whole notion of Shatner being in the next Trek film that I couldn't begin to start spitting it out.
  
  When Spock died, Harve said: "There's nothing there that can't be undone in 10 minutes at a typewriter."
  
  As much as I'd love to see Shatner as the lead in the next film- (AND BY GOD HE IS SUCH A GOOD ACTOR THAT WITH THE RIGHT SCRIPT HE COULD DRIVE A DAMNED FEATURE, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S TREK OR NOT- Why aren't people calling this man?!), all I would need is a cameo that has some ship somewhere pulling Kirk out of the Nexus (to retain canon) and a deadpan: "What took you so long?" and set up the whole 'flashback' origin story with Damon or whoever if that's where it needs to go...
  
  It doesn't have to be this hard.---
  
  JJ- We love ya, and we want ya (be a nice man and call Harve- share the love $$$). We also know you love Bill Shatner as much as we do. We know we're not gonna get Nimoy for a walk on, so Ciao, Lenny, but we have a great chance to bring back Kirk. Are any of us really worried about TNG canon with regards to the death of Kirk in Generations?
  
  I'm not. I love TNG, but I love Kirk and Star Trek more-
  
  BBK, Baby- With extra cheese!
  :)

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
    By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:53:31 on Aug 16, 2006

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
      By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:00:57 on Aug 17, 2006

      As usual, those of you in the Kirk fanboy brigade are going about this the entirely wrong way, shooting yourself in the foot and making sure nobody takes you seriously.
      
      The easiest and best way to bring back Kirk (if you HAVE to have him) is to de-canonize Generations. But no, the Kirk brigade instead demands that valuable storytelling time in the next movie be wasted on going back to the Nexus and restoring Kirk in some convoluted scheme to reverse but maintain continuity in a way that would bore the hell out of everybody except for fanboys like you, thus dooming the new movie from the very start.
      
      Most people probably don't even remember Generations well enough to recall all that crap about the Nexus and how Kirk's "echo" is still in there to understand any kind of setup you'd want for this new movie, much less care. The movie did come out 12 years ago, for crying out loud. Don't give me any crap about how people have got it on video or DVD, it's not like Generations was a huge favorite that everyone pulls out once a year and rewatches. That's just the hardcore fanbase (and not even all of them) and this new movie has to draw in the general viewer if it's going to succeed.
      
      But I'm probably wasting my breath. Unfortunately, the worst case fanboys don't even understand how widely their tastes differ from the general audience, or they think they are the general audience, so no doubt you'll claim EVERYBODY would love to see a return to the Nexus to bring back Kirk. In truth, it'd just be silly, stupid, pseudo-scientific schlock that would make everybody groan and say, "This is why I stopped watching Trek in the first place."

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
        By: Sxottlan (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:07:58 on Aug 17, 2006

        Quote:
        As usual, those of you in the Kirk fanboy brigade are going about this the entirely wrong way, shooting yourself in the foot and making sure nobody takes you seriously.
        
        The easiest and best way to bring back Kirk (if you HAVE to have him) is to de-canonize Generations. But no, the Kirk brigade instead demands that valuable storytelling time in the next movie be wasted on going back to the Nexus and restoring Kirk in some convoluted scheme to reverse but maintain continuity in a way that would bore the hell out of everybody except for fanboys like you, thus dooming the new movie from the very start.
        
        Most people probably don't even remember Generations well enough to recall all that crap about the Nexus and how Kirk's "echo" is still in there to understand any kind of setup you'd want for this new movie, much less care. The movie did come out 12 years ago, for crying out loud. Don't give me any crap about how people have got it on video or DVD, it's not like Generations was a huge favorite that everyone pulls out once a year and rewatches. That's just the hardcore fanbase (and not even all of them) and this new movie has to draw in the general viewer if it's going to succeed.
        
        But I'm probably wasting my breath. Unfortunately, the worst case fanboys don't even understand how widely their tastes differ from the general audience, or they think they are the general audience, so no doubt you'll claim EVERYBODY would love to see a return to the Nexus to bring back Kirk. In truth, it'd just be silly, stupid, pseudo-scientific schlock that would make everybody groan and say, "This is why I stopped watching Trek in the first place."
        
        Quoted for truth. You're right on. I was afraid the news of this movie would bring out the Kirk fanatics in droves and it has. I don't see what this movie has to do at all with Generations.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: Get Shatner back as Kirk no matter what | Report this post to moderator
          By: The Magrathean (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:47:22 on Aug 17, 2006

          Thanks. I find it interesting that so far, none of the Kirk brigade have responded to what I wrote...

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

*rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 19:13:11 on Aug 15, 2006

I love this man...but Shat making another Star Trek movie would be no different than Adam West having stared in 'Batman Begins'.

--------


The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

Reply

Quote

• RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:44:49 on Aug 16, 2006

  Not exactly. Batman is young. Kirk has aged just like Shatner has.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
    By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 09:18:57 on Aug 16, 2006 | (1)

    Surely you knew that was not my point.
    
    --------
    
    
    The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
    my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
    breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
    only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
      By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 10:13:31 on Aug 16, 2006

      Sorry, Ro, but it's not recasting a part in the same sense as Batman or Superman... because any actor playing the part of Bruce Wayne is not ESTABLISHING the character. He's imitating a character who has been established on paper long before any of these actors came along.
      
      Had Star Trek existed in written form, and been widely read in that form, long before Shatner and Nimoy were ever cast, this argument would be more legitimate. But the character have NEVER existed (unless you count the brief cheesey "Genesis Planet" scenes or the birth flashback from "The Final Frontier") as anyone but the original actors.
      
      In other words, the ties between these characters and these actors are FAR stronger than for James Bond, Clark Kent, or Bruce Wayne. Thus, they will be far harder to break in the minds of the audience.
      
      Gustavo
      
      --------
      
      TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
      
      gl2000@uol.com.br

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
        By: Sxottlan (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:27:49 on Aug 16, 2006

        Quote:
        In other words, the ties between these characters and these actors are FAR stronger than for James Bond, Clark Kent, or Bruce Wayne. Thus, they will be far harder to break in the minds of the audience.
        
        Therefore they shouldn't even try?

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

      • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
        By: Chronic Harlot (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 10:59:50 on Aug 16, 2006 | (2)

        "...it's not recasting a part in the same sense as Batman or Superman... because any actor playing the part of Bruce Wayne is not ESTABLISHING the character."
        
        Respectfully, so what? This thing about visual-medium literature being 'different' from print medium literature, just by virtue of it being 'visual', is a specious statement; it's not even an argument. Not once has anyone been able to demonstrate why it's different, why only the original actor can ever play a character if the character began first in a visual-medium (especially in the case of Star Trek).
        
        Besides, this 'establishing' thing all depends on your frame of reference anyway.
        
        My best friends, nearly all of my family members--virtually everyone I know--have never once read a single Superman or Batman comic; not a single Bond book etc. In their eyes (depending on the age usually) George Reeves or Christopher Reeves established Superman; Adam West or Michael Keaton established Batman; Sean Connery or Rodger Moore established Bond etc. Yet that didn't stop any of them from accepting and appreciating Branndon Routh, the kid from Smallville, Val Kilmer, George Cloony, Christian Bale, Timothy Dalton or Peirce Brosnan (and if they didn't like the work of one or more of these particular actors, it had nothing to do with anything other than the quality of the performance, and not the mere act of the character being recast).
        
        What are we saying here? That the character of Kirk should die with Shatner? Kirk is bigger than the actor who played him, isn't he? Would you still be able to buy action-figures and xmas ornamants depicting the captain at 30, if he wasn't? Kirk has transcended Shatner the man (he himself knows that), and only the hardest of the hardcore fans even try to argue with that.
        
        --------
        
        
        The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
        my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
        breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
        only hollow rhythms resounded from within.

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
          By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 18:27:25 on Aug 16, 2006

          The "Bond" or "Batman" analogy just doesn't apply...the body of work in which Shatner WAS Jim Kirk far outweighs anything you've mentioned. It will be hard. IT will be VERY hard for any one to come in after 40 years of Shatner's Kirk and make the role their own.
          
          As TrekWeb editor and a fellow fan, I will see the new movie and I hope it is great. I love that era and hope they keep the action/adventure formula that made original audiences click with TOS...but with the inevitable comparrisons to Shatner and Nimoy, whoever is cast as Kirk and Spock will have a very steep hill to climb.
          
          Gustavo
          
          --------
          
          TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
          
          gl2000@uol.com.br

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

        • RE: *rolls eyes* | Report this post to moderator
          By: dashock (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:06:21 on Aug 16, 2006

          I agree, well said.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

Sure, why not? | Report this post to moderator
By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:36:04 on Aug 15, 2006

Make his age part of the plot, or create a frame to put him and Nimoy in. At least for this movie he'll get a hearing, rather than "don't call us, Mr. centerpiece of pop culture phenom, we killed you off, remember." Excuse the barb, I haven't eaten yet.

Reply

Quote

Sure, why not? | Report this post to moderator
By: Postdoc (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:35:31 on Aug 15, 2006

Make his age part of the lot, or create a frame to put him and Nimoy in. At least for this movie he'll get a hearing, rather than "don't call us, Mr. centerpiece of pop culture phenom, we killed you off, remember." Excuse the barb, I haven't eaten yet.

Reply

Quote

Use the Contour system to de-age Shatner | Report this post to moderator
By: OldSchool (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:49:59 on Aug 15, 2006

I recently read an article about a new product called Contour invented by Steve Perlman being used to reverse age Brad Pitt. It said that it can be used to turn back the clock on an actors age by decades. The only problem they have with it has been when an actor uses Botox. You could have Mr. Shatner as TOS Kirk again!

Reply

Quote

• System used for X-Men 3?? | Report this post to moderator
  By: DIGINON (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:15:32 on Aug 17, 2006

  Is that the same system they used for X-Men 3 to de-age Patrick Stewart und Ian McKellan?
  From what I remember there were quite a number of people on this board complaining how bad it looked. And they only took away 20 years.
  To turn Shatner into his TOS age would mean taking away almost 40 years.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• I meant "Youth-thin-ized" | Report this post to moderator
  By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:40:01 on Aug 16, 2006

  Not as funny now...

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• "You-thin-ized" Shat | Report this post to moderator
  By: c.p. (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:47:31 on Aug 16, 2006

  Oh sure. But why would you need Shatner at all? Give a team of 100 cgi artists working round the clock 2 years and a billion dollars and we won't need actors at all will we? We can just recreate them in the computer as they were 40 years ago. We could even bring back dead actors and let the director decide how they would have acted out their scenes. I can already feel the Oscars rolling in.
  
  The best movies embrace humanity. Once we start going down the road of touching up actors' faces and bodies to fit the way they were long ago, we've left humanity in the dust. A Shat cameo is acceptable as far as I'm concerned, but much as I love him, a movie based around him as Kirk—natural or "you-thin-ized"—is just a mistake.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

SHATNER IS KIRK/KIRK IS STAR TREK!!!! | Report this post to moderator
By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:03:05 on Aug 15, 2006

Star Trek 11 with Shatner as Kirk is what the people want to see.

Shatner's return as Kirk would be the one event in the ST universe that would excite the fans and the general public alike.

In the process you could right the wrong of Generations that brought the franchise to it's knees.

Save Star Trek
BRING BACK WILLIAM SHATNER AS JAMES T KIRK

PS: Nobody wants to see Matt Damon or anyone else as Kirk

Reply

Quote

• RE: SHATNER IS KIRK/KIRK IS STAR TREK!!!! | Report this post to moderator
  By: Danpaine (Odo's file, contact) @ 06:32:49 on Aug 16, 2006

  I'm with you 100 percent, NEXUS.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: SHATNER IS KIRK/KIRK IS STAR TREK!!!! | Report this post to moderator
    By: NEXUS (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:55:07 on Aug 16, 2006

    Thanks, Star Trek needs Shat back as Kirk.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

• Trekkie Lesson #47: | Report this post to moderator
  By: Tupperfan (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:44:21 on Aug 15, 2006

  DON'T TALK FOR THE WHOLE FANDOM. IT'S NOT THE BORG, WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!!!
  
  I almost spat my non-existent coffee when I read I didn't want "to see Matt Damon or anyone else as Kirk"
  
  I, and I'm not the only one, WOULD LOVE to see a younger Kirk portrayed by someone else.
  
  I don't want Damon to portray Kirk, but I'm definitely open to the idea of recasting Kirk.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Nobody
  
  
  
  --------
  
  "Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
  
  tupperfan.blogspot.com

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Captain's Glory | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:25:14 on Aug 15, 2006

Note that Captain's Glory is referred to as William Shatner's final Kirk-centric novel, not the last Star Trek novel that Shatner may write.


--------------
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 Die-Cast REPLICA

Reply

Quote

bring back Kirk. | Report this post to moderator
By: Gary P (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:01:19 on Aug 15, 2006

Star Trek Generations was one of the most pretentious movies I have ever seen. It truly was in love with itself, which was probably why the story was so asinine. The Nexus, the reunion aboard the Eneterprise-B, the emotion chip, Data using a curse word, the 20 minute crash sequence, the western style brawl to save billions of lives, and finally the flippant commentary by Jim Kirk. “I take it the situation is grim…. Sounds like fun.” Or whatever he says. Please! That movie still irks me. It had the potential to be so much more than it was. And finally, Kirk falling off a bridge. Are you serious? Were the writers on crack? If a character as mythical as Jim Kirk was to die, at least make it his decision to do so. Give him some martyrdom for goodness sake.

The only way to repair the ills that have occurred since that movie is to bring the man back. I know, that may be the most pretentious thing you could do, but it’s the right thing to do. You hear that J.J.? Let's right what went wrong.

Reply

Quote

• RE: bring back Kirk. | Report this post to moderator
  By: garak8888 (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:36:09 on Aug 16, 2006

  I'm sorry, you say Generations was bad because it was pretentious, and then you say that bringing Shatner back would be pretentious but right? I'm confused.
  
  I love Captain Kirk, but I don't think his presence will act as a magical elixir to solve all of Trek's problems. The idea of watching him try to squeeze into that uniform once again isn't all that appealing to me, and the potential for a really crappy movie which will further tarnish my already sad memory of Star Trek kind of churns my stomach. Not everything William Shatner touched was gold, including, umm... Star Trek 3, 5 and Generations.
  
  I know the former Executive Producer of Felicity, J.J. Abrams is everyone's hero right now, but I remember when John Logan was going to save the franchise ("Finally a fan writing for the show") and even when, gasp, Rick Berman, Brannon Bragga and Ron Moore were heralded for their work on "First Contact."
  
  I want a good Star Trek movie, one with a good plot, interesting characters, taking place in a fictionaly universe that I happen to love. I couldn't care less who stars in it (I would even watch it if it were filmed using my two least favorite Star Trek crews of Enterprise and Voyager).
  
  Call my cynical, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Shatner as a young Kirk? | Report this post to moderator
By: Tupperfan (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:47:11 on Aug 15, 2006

It's certainly open to speculation...

--------

"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"

tupperfan.blogspot.com

Reply

Quote

• RE: Shatner as a young Kirk? | Report this post to moderator
  By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:09:53 on Aug 15, 2006

  Well, he can play Kirk's father, Commander George Samuel Kirk. Are you listening, J.J. ?
  
  Gustavo
  
  --------
  
  TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
  
  gl2000@uol.com.br

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Shatner as a young Kirk? | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:57:21 on Aug 15, 2006

  A perfect Star Trek XI would have a parallel storyline which gives Kirk a post-Generations life in the 24th century, and introduces a new group of actors taking over the roles in the 23rd century. Perhaps some alien in an early Kirk adventure needs Kirk for something in the 24th century.
  
  You have Shatner passing the torch of the character, and you finally end the stupidity of Kirk's death. It would be incredible.
  
  Shatner has wanted to return since 1994, but the one thing stopping him was that idiot Rick Berman. Berman is now gone. Maybe there's some hope now.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote