I don't want Star Trek XI without the Shat

I've been thinking about Star Trek XI lately.

(FYI I am a TOS fan)

I'm increasingly unhappy at the thought of XI without Shat, but with Leonard Nimoy. I don't know well the TNG/VOY/DS9/ENT storylines, but this film is going to be based on TOS. Shatner was such a brilliant Kirk, I'm bemused as to how anyone else could fill his shoes. Personally, I don't believe that Star Trek could have survived 40+ years without his wonderful acting of a flawed, but essentially good, human being. The whole pivot of Star Trek rests on him.

Do I talk sense, or am I just a rabid Shat fan? I don't believe the latter, as I know his flaws. But Star Trek doesn't feel right without the Shat to me. (And he is still alive and still a functioning actor, for heaven's sake).

 

Tough noogies. Suck it up, 'cause here comes Shatner-less Star Trek.

 

It has already been explained by Abrams himself. Kirk died in Generations, and there is obviously a story element that takes place in a post-Generations timeline (thus the casting of Nimoy as "Old Spock") so there was no way to work "Old Kirk" into the story. You can thank Berman for that one.

And IMO, Trek never rested solely on Kirk. The Original Series was always about the dynamic between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and the underlying theme being the story about the "human adventure" that just happens to take place in outer space.

 

Tough noogies... is that a US term?

I know what you're saying, but I think there's something wrong. My maxim at work is "what would Kirk do" but I can't imagine a Kirk, without a Shat. Some rookie actor has a hard task to fill Shat's shoes. He's been the icon for 40 years, after all (Spock a little different, maybe because his personality was bland).

 

Well, being that the story is about a 20-something Kirk, I don't think CGI or Hollywood makeup has progressed to the point where Shatner can look like he did in the 60's again... :-p

Maybe this movie should have been a fully CGI film by Dreamworks or Pixar. We could have seen younger versions of the classic characters with complete accuracy.

 

If we are very lucky, Chris Pine will give us a Kirk we can get on board with... one that has the familiar Kirk swagger and humor and intensity. I actually hope he lifts a few of Shatner's "bits" for use in his portrayal... although I have a hard time imagining anyone doing Shat's... staggered... vocal... delivery, without it sounding like parody.

I'm almost 43 years old. I too loved William Shatner as Kirk. He was my hero from the earliest time I can remember. But I also love Trek and want to see it survive and indeed flourish again... and as I said regarding Shatner in another thread on this topic:

"Too old, too fat, too late, no Shat."

Shatner in this film would be all about the nostaliga, and that's not what Trek needs right now.

Yes, tough noogies is, I guess, an Americanism. It means the same thing as "tough shit," which is: that's how it is so you'd better get used to it. It's a gently-mocking statement of false sympathy/empathy.

 

"Rabid Shatner fan". Concentrate on seeing a "Trek" film rather than a "Kirk" film and you may enjoy it despite yourself.

 

Yes, or they could use Alvin and the Chipmunks.

I'm a persuaded Shat-lover, I used to think he was over blown and hammy. But the more I watch, the more I think Shat WAS Trek. More so than my idol Leonard Nimoy. Anyone can be Spock, but only Shat can be Kirk IMO.

 

Then you missed the entire point of what Star Trek was about.


IMO.

 

I would rather none of the old cast be in it, Nimoy included.

 

I've been a Trek fan for many years. It's only lately, that I realised how integral Shat was to the whole initiative. Of course I will see XI and bring my family and friends kicking and screaming. But it won't be... real... without the Shat...(dramatic pauses intentional)

"Tough shit" - us Brits know that phrase!

 

I agree, I'd rather none of the original cast, than just Nimoy wheeled out. To take my thoughts further, Kirk and Spock was fuelled by the Shat/Nimoy dynamic: just having Nimoy won't work. (I haven't seen any post-TOS/TAS/films Star Trek though, being an original series fan)

 

As a TOS fan (saw it first run in the 1960ies); I could CARE LESS whether or not William Shatner is in the film. I LOVED his performance on TOS and throughout the Movie-era; but I'd RATHER see a good story and an engaging film before anything else (and the last few Star Trek films HAVE been rather lacking in that sense). If they can give Shatner a part (doubtful given the continuing WGA writer's strike and the fact the script was finalized and locked in a month before the WGA went out on strike) that FITS well within the story - great. If not, keep him out of it.

The film WIIL have the characters of 'Captain Kirk', 'Mr. Spock', 'Dr. McCoy'; the NCC 1701; etc. <--- These things are what make up 'Star Trek', and they will be a part of the film. I honestly don't care if William Shatner has a role as 'Old Kirk' or not.

YMMV.

 

I may be dissing the new actors before I've seen them, I admit. But am I alone in thinking Shat IS Kirk? I mean, he just is it. How can someone who's not dealt with 60s budget limitations and bad special effects and the politics of that time, translate it to 200+ society? Star Trek is about society which is why a new Kirk worries me. Shat would, at least, understand these issues (and Nimoy too: but Spock and the others are easier parts to play).

ETA: 60s, not 50s. Sorry. We're not talking about Asimov here.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We need to see more of those.

Shatner as Kirk is why I watched TOS. He could be facing death and still looked like he was having fun. But I was also a teenager then. I'm 47 now. And, in the words of the late George Harrison, all things must pass.

I also watched TNG and DS9 with equal enthusiasism to TOS. And they were Shatnerless ("Trials and Tribblelations" notwithstanding).

I'm gonna cut myself a bunch of slack (not saying I'll need it, but just in case) and enjoy the hell out of Pine's Kirk.

I haven't been this excited about Trek -- with or without Shatner -- since the production of TMP was announced.

 

Yes all things must pass! Including Star Trek? Why not just enjoy the wonder that was TOS and the resultant films?

It wouldn't be shown 40 YEARS ON without the acting powers of the Shat IMO. What other programme (show) is?

 

I don't want Star Trek XI without the Sh&t

...oh the ShAt...

The Cage, DS9, SCE, IKS Gorkon, Stargazer, and the Lost Era have been without Kirk.

TOS/TAS has Spock, Bones, Scotty, Nyota, Hikaru, and Pavel.

Star Trek XI has Kirk.

What's the problem?

oh wait...

You don't mean the Kirk character you mean Star Trek XI doesn't have William Shatner in it.

:turning tin foil mode on:

J.J. Abrams is the Anti Christ tm!!!!

 

As I said before, originally I was NOT a Shat fan.

But the more I watch TOS/TAS/films 1-6 the more I see Shat held them together. Other Star Trek is great - and make a film with Archer as the centre - but replacing Shat as Kirk, I think is wrong.

 

Abrams is taking a chance. But as has been posted here in dozens of threads over the last months, there's a lot still to be said about young Kirk. It's nice to see the character revisited. No pressure, by the way Mr. Pine. No pressure.