I don't want Star Trek XI without the Shat

They are groundhogs.

The reference dates back to the heyday of the Enterprise forum...

(Correct me if I get the details wrong, Dennis.)

Someone had posted a thread in the Enterprise forum that had already been posted a billion times. I made a reference to how the repetitiveness of it all made me feel like I was stuck in the movie "Groundhog Day."

Dennis followed up immediately with Groundhog graphics which became, for a time, the symbol for "Dude, you're the trillionth guy to start a thread on this."

Or something like that...

 

Okay, time to spoil it for you. Shatner's in the movie, but as Federation President Denny Crane XIV.

 

William Roache has been on Coronation Street for 47 years, that's probably the longest running single role in TV history as far as I can tell.

 

I don't really mind.

The old guys have had their time.Move on.
It's nice Nimoy is in it, but I wouldn't care if he wasn't.

 

"No, I think you clearly missed something called Star Trek. It ran from 1966 to 1969. Check it out sometime and you'll understand what she is talking about. It amazes me the number of fans from the Berman era that truly are clueless as to the structure and storytelling focus of TOS."

"I predate the Berman era and shatner isn't what Trek is all about. There's a lot more to it then that."

Here here. Holy Tomato Star Trek Fan Class of '72

TOS movies fans called me a moron. TNG fans called me a moron. Voyager fans called me a moron. Enterprise fans called me a moron. Now TOS fans call me a moron.

...



I'm still seeing the movie. :thumbsup:

 

Say the Shat was in this film, are you saying that if/when they do a sequal they have to find a place for him then?

As a Kirk fan Id rather leave Shatner in the past, yes he was my childhood hero growing up in the 80s (you would have thought it would have been TNG but I loved TOS...I like TNG but Kirk and the crew was where I felt it was) but I think it would be a mistake to drag him back unless there was really a good part in the script for him, not a "he was Kirk he has to be in it" and just shove him in

 

Well, I have to admit I'm a Berman-era fan, but until 1991 (I think, I was about eight), I'd only seen TOS.... and though I love Shatner as Kirk, I think that it's over for him. Let someone new come, it'll be all right. I don't need anyone from the old cast in the next movie.

And no, Kirk is not the best character in Trek!

Relax, people, the movie's going to be great, and it doesn't need Shatner in it to do well.

 

Ah...yeah...now I remember. He actually explained it to me a while back, but since I have the memory span of flea, I couldn't remember the whole thing late last night, I'm embarrassed to say.

Thanks.

And I had no idea you were a Cary Grant fan. Learn something new and surprising every day. We could use more classic film fans around here. There are so few of us.....

 

The biggest.

I participated in a favorite films from the 40's thread here at the BBS a while back. I listed probably 10 movies. Someone -- I could have sworn it was you -- called me on the fact that they were all Cary Grant films.

 

^ As I said, the memory span of a flea.

Yeah, that was me. Although you never know in a 'list' thread like that just how big of a classic film fan people are. There are probably more than a few people in threads like that who can list their ten favorite classic films....out of the twelve they have actually seen. So I tend apply the 'grain of salt' filter to anything I read in threads like that.

Not to derail this thread (too much)...but have you seen most of Cary Grant's films? I'm a classic film collector, and IMO, some of his funniest films are among the earlier ones that are kinda hard to find unless you are really paying attention or know where to look.

And are you just into Cary Grant, or are there other stars from the golden age that you like?

I think Cary Grant is hilarious and so many of his films are top-notch...he's probably in my top 5 - 7 actors from back then. But my favorite is Gary Cooper. I just love him.

 

FUCK NO! I just want to see Shatner's Kirk pass the torch. I also think it's a little unfair to include Leonard Nimoy in a movie simply titled "Star Trek" and not Shatner. He shouldn't even be in this film if it's really a reboot. And if it isn't a reboot, you can't title the movie "Star Trek" without a subtitle.

 

I can do without all this torch passing.

Last time Shat tried to pass a torch, it was to TNG and we got Generations.Not the worst of movies but lets do much better this time.

 

I think you may be confusing Shatner with Kirk here. Shatner's performance was sure as hell flawed, as intensely enjoyable as it was to watch.

There's almost nothing about Kirk that's flawed. The guy's the quintessential boy scout. Which is fine because the whole device is that this guy is too perfect. Which is what we lowly 20/21st centurians should be aspiring to.

Actually it just occurred to me that between that holier than thou character type and Shatner's performance, it's amazing anybody ever related to the guy at all.

The Shat's performance was special, if a little hammy. But the character and his portrayal of it aren't so complex and unique that nobody else could ever pull it off well.

 

Boycott Star Trek XI!!!!

 

I wasn't aware of the fact that 'quintessential boy scouts' were notorious and incorrigible womanizers.

Clearly, I was in the WRONG Brownie troop.

 

Tom Lehrer was my troop leader.

 

^ Well that certainly explains alot.

 

Well i would argue that since it was completely glorified the whole time he was doing it, it's dubious to call it a character flaw.

 

Shatner's not Trek. If anything, there has been and will be a lot of Trek that doesn't involve him. But even TOS wasn't Shatner. He did fit like a glove to the character(or vice versa) but as was said his acting left things to be desired.

Also, the triplet Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley was the machine that run the show, they just worked very well together. WASN'T Shatner all by himself. And they did receive help from the other characters as well, I can't honestly think Shatner can complain with his Trek use, he was used the most to the detriment of most other characters and -- since Bond was mentioned often to the point of Kirk becoming a caricature, like Bond became with Moore as the actor incarnating.

After a point, I guess they were fed up with the hassle it needed to bring Kirk back and killed him off. Not likable by some, but good decision since they didn't want to use him anymore. And there is always some complain from him when they don't use him, well, in all truth they don't need too.
He's a very successful actor and author, he doesn't need Trek if he invested his money wisely.

Spock/Nimoy is obviously much easier since Vulcans have huge lifespans and they don't need to invent outrageous theories out of thin air to revive him.(That said his book on the issue was a great way, would be nice to see it performed by the new cast at some point).

Trek shouldn't need any character of the old cast as well, not even Nimoy, but he is the obvious choice, plus he has developed his acting through the years and still remains the best Vulcan portrayal ever, even if only a halfbreed.
Not to mention he's been in Star Trek before Shatner.(Yes, Cage)

 

Why bother with this film if Shatner will not be playing Kirk?