Shatner "I don't know how they can do (ST 50th) without me"

[Arpy]

...I do hope they get Shatner for the 50th. It would be fun, and the man is a blast to watch.

I'd like to see Captain Kirk again. Kirk; not Shatner. If Shatner showed the commitment to lose the weight, performed the part instead of gracing an audience, and kept the hair in check, then right-on. But the last thing I want is to be taken out of the story, please.

Kirk has given plenty to Shatner; nothing is owed at this point. If fans just want to see a favored actor, Trek can do a side-project like Who did with The Five-ish Doctors. It was touching, smart, and fun.

 

[Amaris]

...I do hope they get Shatner for the 50th. It would be fun, and the man is a blast to watch.

I'd like to see Captain Kirk again. Kirk; not Shatner. If Shatner showed the commitment to lose the weight, performed the part instead of gracing an audience, and kept the hair in check, then right-on. But the last thing I want is to be taken out of the story, please.

Kirk has given plenty to Shatner; nothing is owed at this point. If fans just want to see a favored actor, Trek can do a side-project like Who did with The Five-ish Doctors. It was touching, smart, and fun.

Oh, I'm talking about Shatner in a 50th anniversary special, not the movie or anything. I'd love to see the Shat hamming it up. He's a lot of fun when he really gets going, especially with his stories. Of course, with Leonard gone it will only be half as fun. *sigh*

 

[HIjol]

I usually read all of a Thread before responding, if I am new to it. I intentionally did not read this one, so if I repeat what a previous Poster said, I apologize.

Whether you Love, Like, Tolerate or Hate Shatner, it is Inconceivable that a "50th Anniversary of Star Trek" be held without him. He Made the role, he Was Captain James T. Kirk, and anything else is just personal feelings. I am not saying he needs to have a starring role, but even considering not including him in some form is...no.

He is free to chose to participate or not, but he MUST be included.

Do not mistake this post for a Shat Love-Fest...it is not. Just the Shat Fact.

It would be like having a "Presidents of the United States" recognition without mention the likes of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Sarek, T'Pal, Sargon, Surak, Kahless...well, you get the picture!!!

 

[137th Gebirg]

I do hope they do some kind of dramatisation like Doctor Who's Adventures in Time and Space. Showing us the early life of Gene, how he came up with Star Trek. The filming of the original series, break up of his marriage, womanising etc. There's a big human interest story to be told there.

I would watch that. Especially if they made an effort to acknowledge the efforts of folks like Gene Coon, Robert Justman, and Herb Solow as well.

They kind of did something like that a couple of years back in the Ridley Scott series "Prophets of Science Fiction" on Science Channel. Roddenberry was one of the episode topics.

 

[Ronald Held]

I think it would be better to see Kirk one last time, else Shatner.

 

[Jedman67]

I usually read all of a Thread before responding, if I am new to it. I intentionally did not read this one, so if I repeat what a previous Poster said, I apologize.

Whether you Love, Like, Tolerate or Hate Shatner, it is Inconceivable that a "50th Anniversary of Star Trek" be held without him. He Made the role, he Was Captain James T. Kirk, and anything else is just personal feelings. I am not saying he needs to have a starring role, but even considering not including him in some form is...no.

He is free to chose to participate or not, but he MUST be included.

Do not mistake this post for a Shat Love-Fest...it is not. Just the Shat Fact.

It would be like having a "Presidents of the United States" recognition without mention the likes of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Sarek, T'Pal, Sargon, Surak, Kahless...well, you get the picture!!!

Nah. He had his moment in the sun, he hasn't been relevant in decades. If they were doing a TOS reunion for the surviving actors I would say differently.

 

[Shalashaska]

The only thing most people know of Star Trek is Kirk, Spock and the V hand sign.

We obviously can't have Nimoy, but Shatner? Leaving James T. Kirk out of the fucking 50th Anniversary Special would be completely disrespectful and inappropriate.

Even worse, saying Shatner isn't Kirk? You can just fuck right off with that.

Shatner should and deservedly so, will be on whatever 50th Anniversary Special they do. Deal with it.

 

[Melakon]

There will undoubtedly be mention of Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and Shatner's best qualified to speak of him on a professional level, and as a personal friend for nearly fifty years. It would be near impossible to ignore Shatner for the golden anniversary.

 

[Amaris]

There will undoubtedly be mention of Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and Shatner's best qualified to speak of him on a professional level, and as a personal friend for nearly fifty years. It would be near impossible to ignore Shatner for the golden anniversary.

Agreed. Shatner's alive, still relevant, and in good health. He was a foundational cornerstone for a franchise that is now celebrating its 50th year. Having him speak or present some kind of memory just makes sense.

 

[Arpy]

...saying Shatner isn't Kirk? You can just fuck right off with that.

I don't think so. William Shatner is an actor. And let's be real: he's a pompous, arrogant, overweight, hammy one at that. In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick. That his fans worship at the actor's feet is their issue.

James T. Kirk is a character Shatner was able to play decades ago. If you find that a bitter pill to swallow; take it up with God for aging people, or Shatner for not caring enough to do the work involved.

They shouldn't do a 50-year retrospective without him, but they sure as Hell should not do a movie with him.

 

[Melakon]

In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick.

Denny Crane. Six consecutive Emmy nominations, two wins. Two Golden Globe nominations, one win.

 

[Amaris]

In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick.

Denny Crane. Six consecutive Emmy nominations, two wins. Two Golden Globe nominations, one win.

Bingo. Yes, Denny Crane was often used for levity, but Shatner delivered some damned solid dramatic punches with the character.

 

[eyeresist]

They shouldn't do a 50-year retrospective without him, but they sure as Hell should not do a movie with him.

No-one has suggested a movie.

 

[HIjol]

In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick.

Denny Crane. Six consecutive Emmy nominations, two wins. Two Golden Globe nominations, one win.

Bingo. Yes, Denny Crane was often used for levity, but Shatner delivered some damned solid dramatic punches with the character.

"Game. Set. Match."

"Thanks for coming, everyone!"

"Drive safely on the way home!"

Though, I do hope TPTB found a reasonable place for Shatner to be in "Beyond".

 

[Arpy]

In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick.

Denny Crane. Six consecutive Emmy nominations, two wins. Two Golden Globe nominations, one win.

Denny Crane: precisely. Bloated, arrogant, hilarious, spectacular, Mad Cow Denny Crane. Do you think that's what an actual law firm is like? He, and Boston Legal, were half comedy. Shatner doesn't do straight-up drama. His showmanship (read ego) won't allow for reality.

It's even more annoying when you remember that Crane has his friend Alan Shore argue his cases for him, his not wanting to admit he was no longer up to the job putting his client in jeopardy...what am I saying, his main concern was his never-lost-a-case record. How nice.

Unlike Crane, Shatner doesn't need to find a cure for Alzheimer's. He just needs to actually fit the role he wants.

 

[Arpy]

They shouldn't do a 50-year retrospective without him, but they sure as Hell should not do a movie with him.

No-one has suggested a movie.

He's been angling for a cameo in an Abrams movie for a while, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind taking the De Kelley role in the next series pilot.

There are a lot of die-hard fans who just want to see him in the uniform, regardless what he looks like. It's not about Kirk; it's about the memory of.

It's annoying to a lot of other fans and sad to new ones.

 

[eyeresist]

Someone really hates Shatner. Objectivity is lacking.

 

[Arpy]

Someone really hates Shatner. Objectivity is lacking.

Cute, but look at my signature. I love Kirk. And I loved Shatner as Kirk. But it's Kirk I'd like to see again, not Shatner. And Shatner agrees; look at how he sees Kirk.

 

[bbailey861]

I am wondering if they should even do a 50th anniversary special - Shatner or no Shatner. Is there anything they can possibly do that will give us something that hasn't already been regurgitated a hundred times already? Don't get me wrong, I want to see something, I just can't help feeling we'll be disappointed.

 

[Jedman67]

There will undoubtedly be mention of Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and Shatner's best qualified to speak of him on a professional level, and as a personal friend for nearly fifty years. It would be near impossible to ignore Shatner for the golden anniversary.

Agreed. Shatner's alive, still relevant, and in good health. He was a foundational cornerstone for a franchise that is now celebrating its 50th year. Having him speak or present some kind of memory just makes sense.

...Not really. Neither Shatner nor any of the other TOS cast are relevant to the modern incarnation of Trek. I enjoyed Nimoy's cameo in ST09, although it was more fanservice than any real need for him to show up.

...saying Shatner isn't Kirk? You can just fuck right off with that.

I don't think so. William Shatner is an actor. And let's be real: he's a pompous, arrogant, overweight, hammy one at that. In recent decades, he hasn't played a straight-up dramatic role, and is primarily gold in his meta comedic shtick. That his fans worship at the actor's feet is their issue.

James T. Kirk is a character Shatner was able to play decades ago. If you find that a bitter pill to swallow; take it up with God for aging people, or Shatner for not caring enough to do the work involved.

They shouldn't do a 50-year retrospective without him, but they sure as Hell should not do a movie with him.

Movie, TV special or wine and cheese party; I don't believe his presence is necessary unless it includes Koenig, Takei and Nichols as well. He successfully played a character on a franchise that became wildly successful.