I don't want Star Trek XI without the Shat

In fact, do you understand at all why us Brits did the James Bond films? It was an abortive attempt to enter the Cold War, driven by some chap's mad ramblings, which didn't mean anything. James Bond's antics were sexist, racist and ultimately non-productive. His vision didnt align with TOS at all. It was just the Brits trying to get in on the action.

 

James Bond was based in part on Cary Grant.

 

Guys....here's the thing. While it may be absolutely effortlessly easy for you to let go of William Shatner as James T. Kirk, it's just plain difficult for some of us. I wish there was a switch that I could turn off. I really do. But unlike James Bond or Batman/Superman, this character was played by a single actor for over 40 years. Some of us (not me) literally grew up with the character. Seriously! Shatner's Kirk aged. And if you didn't grow up with him, you saw him grow up. When the name Kirk pops up in our head, Bill Shatner's image does as well.

So please, with sugar on top, pardon fucking us! At least the ones like me that are trying.

 

I always thought he was based specifically on Cary Grant in North by Northwest, which feels very much like a prototypical Bond film. Is that just an inkling of mine or does it have basis in fact?

 

Okay, this is starting to look less like a Trek 11 thread on Hambone oops I mean Shatner and more about why you hate James Bond.I will leave it with this: When Trek reaches 21 movies with the same level of success as James Bond, give me a call.

I brought James Bond up because it's a great example of how a franchise can live long and prosper without the guy who originated a title role.Far as which is better, I like both. I don't watch movies or T.V to learn some philosophy to live my life by because to me it's all fiction.Nothing more.

 

Bond was an assassin who blew up or killed anyone in his way, then screwed their girlfriends. He's a psychopath!

Not very Star Trek. Mostly.

 

You know, when you factor in total hours of TV and movies, the king of Star Trek is... Michael Dorn.

 

So duly noted.

I can see where your coming from.And I can't say I'm above thinking this.Don't even attempt to ask me what I think of the Psycho remake unless you like seeing words like abortion,hack,or hitchcock wannabe. That's why I'm hoping the director makes this his own and doesn't simply copy 60s era Trek.

 

This needs a few of Dennis's badgers...or beavers...or whatever the hell they are.

 

For more Shat humour I direct you to Jeff Ross....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rftr4hF16X0

Got to give Shatner credit for having a sense of humour thru that.

 

It's tough.

Star Trek XI is going ahead without Shatner, and his fans are going to have to accept that.

If it REALLY bothers them, they don't have to see the movie.

 

Well, it doesn't say that here or here . But the second article does mention a link to Devlin in Notorious. Could that have been what you were thinking of?

 

No, I was definitely thinking of North by Northwest. It's the one with the climax at Mount Rushmore, the crop dusting plane trying to gun down Cary Grant, and Eve Marie Saint in a turn as an icy Hitchcockian blonde.

Guess it's just me then...

 

^ Well, that's definitely North By Northwest.

Frankly, I can see what you are saying. I've not read that in my classic film travels...but I'll keep an eye out.

 

No Shatner = no fun

or at least a lot less fun.

 

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.

Anyway, Shatner would be great in the film and only make it better, but I don't require his presence to make it good. As long as all the other ingredients of the stew are cooked properly, I'm good.

 

It is unfortunate he's absent, but ultimately I think we'd be disappointed if he was carelessly shoehorned into the movie.

 

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

 

You are correct. I have proof, but it's in one of the several biographies that I have for Grant. I'll have to look for it tomorrow.

Grant would have turned 104 today, by the way.