• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

William Shatner claims he will not be included in ST 3

What yanked me out was Spock statement that Khan (of all people) was the most dangerous person they ever met. Really, Khan?
well...he was killed as a result of Khans actions so...:shrug:

maybe he could've said 'he was the most dangerous adversary we ever faced...after that alien who was pretending to be god of course'
 
The "truther" argument? That's what you want to lead with?? Really?

I simply don't understand that stance. If I didn't like/watch entertainment from people who saw life differently than me, my entertainment options would be pretty damn slim.

I really don't care about someone's personal beliefs. I just want to be entertained.
 
So William Shatner is claiming he isn't in a movie that he shouldn't even be in anyway?

Move along folks, no story to see here. :devil: ;)
 
Wow...I just got it....Shatner is the Bad Guy. Some sort of Temporal or Warp or Transporter Buffer accident brings him back/clones him/splits him, and He Has A Bone To Pick With the Federation!

I am Genius Groot!
Emperor Tiberius Kirk from the Mirror Universe, maybe? :whistle:
 
Wow...I just got it....Shatner is the Bad Guy. Some sort of Temporal or Warp or Transporter Buffer accident brings him back/clones him/splits him, and He Has A Bone To Pick With the Federation!

I am Genius Groot!
Emperor Tiberius Kirk from the Mirror Universe, maybe? :whistle:

Sure! Or the like? Maybe a Baron Harkonnen-like take (Baron Harpoonen?) I think the General idea of him being a bad guy has merit, and it also has the virtue of surprising the hell out of just about everyone. :eek:
 
For one, the heroes are part of the same organization as the bad guys.... It's not the most optimistic point of view.

*cough* Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country *cough*
*cough* "Ensign Ro" *cough*
*cough* "The Pegasus" *cough*
*cough* "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" *cough*
"Omega Glory"

Bad apples in Starfleet/the Federation/the home team is not unusual. It's a go to plot point in Star Trek and in fiction in general.
Yes, I make fun of the tendency toward cliche rogue admirals too.

But it's not the most optimistic point of view - is it? I can cast those aside as easily as STID and still keep my focus on what Star Trek is more famously known for.

The "truther" argument? That's what you want to lead with?? Really?
I would enjoy knowing the "truth" of this gossip that's been bandied about - debunked or true.

Does "Guardians of the Galaxy" bring you optimistic hope for our future, or just hope that there's another "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in our future?

Fiction doesn't "give me hope" any more than made-up people are my heroes, and the notion that it ought to be otherwise is pretty sad. Childhood is one thing, but it's appropriate for adults draw inspiration from life.
This trivializes all the great people who have said outright that Star Trek was their inspiration to do good in bringing things to life, including those at NASA and the space program in general, and that it is why they are in their chosen fields. Fiction is part of life - real people create it and other real people draw inspiration from it. And some of them have given their lives in its pursuit.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for them to do my suggestion from 2001 (for ENT) of bringing in Shatner as a Klingon wanting to destroy the Enterprise.
 
Fiction doesn't "give me hope" any more than made-up people are my heroes, and the notion that it ought to be otherwise is pretty sad. Childhood is one thing, but it's appropriate for adults draw inspiration from life.

To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. - C.S. Lewis
 
...So tell me why the last two film don't show an optimistic future? The bads guys ( terrorists and military madmen) loose. Our heroes win.
For one, the heroes are part of the same organization as the bad guys. Some have accused Orci of building this story according to his alleged "truther" sympathies. It's not the most optimistic point of view.

Given the Roddenberry push of humanity bettering itself, I would say nuKirk demonstrates that idea of reaching for one's potential
That's a piece of work to invoke Roddenberry when I doubt he would have approved of a story about internal corruption in utopia - see above. I know his writers and fans disagree, asking how can you write a story without conflict? But the point remains that even the film's title diagnoses itself as "Darkness" - not a good word or story direction into war for something optimistic.

...Personally, Trek 09 inspired me to be a better father. So, why can't these films inspire people?
On the whole, and also as a father, I like what you're saying here, but how so? Is it how Pike became a father figure to Kirk? Is it what George Kirk did to save his wife, son and the crew? But just this instant I am flashing on how Abrams intentionally emulated Spielberg in "Super 8" right down to the broken home. I'm not sure what family model that is playing at, but while "Super 8" has a missing mother, a missing father (a la E.T.) isn't much of a role model. So I'm wondering where the inspiration comes from.

I'm not sure what Super 8 has to do with Star Trek being inspiring. They are two different films :confused:

Regardless, I find inspiration in George Kirk's sacrifice, in Sarek's counseling his son, in Pike's father figure role and in Spock talking about how George Kirk was Prime Kirk's inspiration to join Starfleet. In all of these reflections, I see my own father, and what all kinds of different possibilities. I see a reflection of modern society, and how important fatherhood should be to society, and how positive an impact it can have.

As for the optimistic future, as T'Girl mentioned, the optimism of Star Trek was that humanity would survive the 60s and the threat of nuclear war that hung over society at that time. That was TOS's inspiration (that and Robert Heinlein ;) ). Beyond that, it was an action adventure with social commentary, inspired by events of the time.

Optimism does not mean no conflict. It means that humanity has come together and worked towards a greater good. A less optimistic version STID would be Kirk siding with Marcus and carrying out a shadow war on the Klingons.

By the way, when I reference GR, I am working from what he used to inspire TOS, and not what came after. To me, Abrams Trek is TOS with a more modern sensibility, and I don't expect it to reflect all of GR's opinions.
 
Does "Guardians of the Galaxy" bring you optimistic hope for our future, or just hope that there's another "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in our future?

Fiction doesn't "give me hope" any more than made-up people are my heroes, and the notion that it ought to be otherwise is pretty sad. Childhood is one thing, but it's appropriate for adults draw inspiration from life.
This trivializes all the great people who have said outright that Star Trek was their inspiration to do good in bringing things to life...

No it doesn't. Don't try to wrap your argument in that flag.

Crediting Star Trek with inspiring you to be good or useful is like Mark Chapman blaming Salinger for his shooting Lennon.
 
Yawn.....

Really at this point who but the most die hard Kirk fans care. The "We gotta get some characters from another series into the latest one" has been done to death IMHO.

We had Spock shoehorned into the first two reboots. We don't need to do it with Kirk in the third.

Plus I'm tired of the "no main character really "dies"....at least until the actor does in real life.

With Spock it TSFS it was novel and clever.....now it's just lame. Tasha Yar dies..but not really since they brought Denise Crosby back several times. Data dies...but not really because his "katra" is apparently alive in B4. Scotty should be dead in TNG, but wait he's alive and well in a transporter. Dax dies, oh but her spirit lives on in the new Dax in the creature in her. The Original Enterprise is destroyed, but kind of not because star fleet just happened to have another Constitution refit lying around to rename Enterprise. NuKirk dies....for all of 15 minutes until superblood brings him back. Original Kirk dies in the beginning of Generations, oh wait he's alive in this ribbon that's named after shampoo. Then he dies again for real.

He's dead. Let it go. Stop this he comes back because of something with the time space continuum or the Borg find and revive his body or some other bullshit. People die, it happens all the time and is for good. Quit this "We'll kill someone, but not really" crap. It's played out.


TOS spock was a huge part of the first trek story. in fact he was the mole
 
Fiction doesn't "give me hope" any more than made-up people are my heroes, and the notion that it ought to be otherwise is pretty sad. Childhood is one thing, but it's appropriate for adults draw inspiration from life.
This trivializes all the great people who have said outright that Star Trek was their inspiration to do good in bringing things to life...

No it doesn't. Don't try to wrap your argument in that flag.

Crediting Star Trek with inspiring you to be good or useful is like Mark Chapman blaming Salinger for his shooting Lennon.
Or John Kennedy crediting the Soviet Union for NASA reaching the moon.

And yes it does trivialize all benevolent inspiration that has come from Star Trek, a work of fiction.

I'm not sure what Super 8 has to do with Star Trek being inspiring. They are two different films :confused:
I was looking at missing parents in both - Kirk's father in STID's case.
 
I have a bad feeling that instead of getting a thank you to the fans for the last 50 years we are going to get a franchise overhaul that has Star Trek trying to be the next "Guardians of the Galaxy" as some reports have indicated.
I hope it's not a film designed to be a thank you to the fans. We got a "valentine to the fans" about 10 years ago and that was the worst box of candy I've ever seen.

Please jog my memory, but what was this?
 
IIRC, the Enterprise finale "These Are The Voyages" was touted this way. The box of candy wound up being a box of rat turds. There may be another choice, but I remember when that steaming pile of shit hit the 'waves. It was followed by the usual "we're all very pleased" suit-speak from Berman.
 
Pretty much all stories have an ideological viewpoint. This has some degree of impact on people, just as being exposed to the someone's viewpoint through an essay does. It's just couched in narrative and it filters through people's perceptions.

What I recall most of all from my high-school english courses is how little it was about english as a language and how it was really about the subjectmatter of the stories we read, which tended to revolve around musing on the wars of the 20th century or race-relations. Books like Night, Black Boy, Animal Farm (which my daughter just read recently), Brave New World. These all have a strong ideological axe to grind. Also consider the uproar of late regarding 50 Shades of Grey, the book vs. the film, and what it says about modern sexuality and gender relations.

To say that the entertainment we consume has no impact on how we view the world is just plain wrong. It doesn't mean we necessarily are subject to being brainwashed into shooting celebrities, but it has an impact. It's being confronted with someone (namely the writer's) view of the world, as presented in narrative-form.
 
^Oh yeah, thanks.

BTW, what does your icon mean?
Last week, there was an article on I think it was CNN (and, of course, I can't find the link any more) on the possibility that Microsoft might finally kill Internet Explorer as a browser (while keeping some of its components as a part of the greater Windows Explorer engine) and make a whole new lightweight browser from scratch, using Chrome and Mozilla as a model. This graphic was in the headline.

Having been a web developer for over 20 years now, that bit of news warmed the cockles of my heart, as I completely despise having to down-code compatibility exceptions for IE's many inconsistent flavors. Hell, I'm still required to keep some of my apps compatible with some old IE6 stragglers!

So, I loved the image so much, I changed my avatar for the first time in, like, 12 years.

Edit - Found it! It's an article in CNN money called "Internet Explorer Must Die".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top