Did Shatner turn down a cameo in ST XI?

[Samuel T. Cogley]

My thoughts are that, early on, Abrams and Co. hadn't decided what they were going to do yet, or who would be willing to participate. It only makes sense that they would meet with both Shatner and Nimoy, both to "keep them in the loop" (i.e., hopefully keep them from bad-mouthing the production) and to see who's willing to participate, should they be needed.

Abrams may have had the attitude of, "We only need one, but let's feel them both out. And if we can get both, even better." Then, as the story evolved, and money and availability were kicked around a little, they likely decided that they only needed one, and that one was Nimoy.

Nimoy likely asked for less money, he makes more sense continuity wise, and he looks far closer to the part of his old character than Shatner does. At that point, they probably thanked Shatner for playing and cut him loose, possibly generating some of the hurt feelings on Shatner's part.

I don't know why it needs to be any more complicated than that. Business, pure and simple.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The people making this film have never been happy about the way the Shatner story unfolded publicly. All publicity is not "good publicity."

 

[Kryton]

I can see Lenny his first day of shooting: <mutter, mutter> I swore I'd never wear these goddamn things again...I even passed on Generations. But this gets Bill back for the bicycle thing at DesiLu. Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[Franklin]

My thoughts are that, early on, Abrams and Co. hadn't decided what they were going to do yet, or who would be willing to participate. It only makes sense that they would meet with both Shatner and Nimoy, both to "keep them in the loop" (i.e., hopefully keep them from bad-mouthing the production) and to see who's willing to participate, should they be needed.

Abrams may have had the attitude of, "We only need one, but let's feel them both out. And if we can get both, even better." Then, as the story evolved, and money and availability were kicked around a little, they likely decided that they only needed one, and that one was Nimoy.

Nimoy likely asked for less money, he makes more sense continuity wise, and he looks far closer to the part of his old character than Shatner does. At that point, they probably thanked Shatner for playing and cut him loose, possibly generating some of the hurt feelings on Shatner's part.

I don't know why it needs to be any more complicated than that. Business, pure and simple.

I was always under the impression that the original story simply didn't need Shatner's Kirk but it depended on Nimoy's Spock. So much so, they pretty much risked the whole thing on Nimoy agreeing to come out of retirement and reprise his role one more time.
As an afterthought, they may have thought it would be nice to work Shatner in, but the task was too complicated for what it was worth (to the story and maybe even money, too). They were obviously very happy with the story they had to tell without Shatner's involvement in any way.

While Polaris says they weren't too happy with what Shatner was saying, in Shatner's defense, Abrams and Orci more or less playing Hamlet for some time in public over the issue had to hurt a little bit, and it probably served to goad him on. Especially if he knew in the back of his mind that all it was was lipservice.

 

[Wowbagger]

you mean to say that all the people screaming and angry at the Abrams team about putting shat into the movie might have been aiming at the wrong target this whole time?

say it isn't so

The fact that PowderedToastMan, who probably knows more about the movie production than any other everyday fan alive, just indirectly agreed with what VOODOOXI is saying makes me very suspicious that VOODOO might have just stumbled onto something here.

On the other hand, PTM may just be delivering a richly-earned snipe to the Shatner partisans who dominated this board for a while there (glad to hear you've come around, Fabius), and there's nothing to read between his lines. In which case, more power to him.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What Sam said makes a lot of sense too.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The fact that PowderedToastMan, who probably knows more about the movie production than any other everyday fan alive, just indirectly agreed with what VOODOOXI is saying makes me very suspicious that VOODOO might have just stumbled onto something here.

It sounded to me like PowderedToastMan was just voicing his own personal opinion on the matter.

He is essentially a journalist when it comes to reporting the news about Trek XI on his site. I don't think we should -- nor would he likely want us to -- extend factual or "insider" status to every post he ever makes. (Nor would that be realistic, even if he wanted us to.)

If he has news, he'll post it as such, with the relevant sources where appropriate.

 

[Sharr Khan]

If Shatner did turn down a part, Good For Him

Nimoy should have too.


let this new Star Trek stand on it's own without the Nimoy as Spock bait.

Its not bait if its a part of how the story unfolds, more so if its so much part of said story to not have it there your movie falls apart - which is exactly what has been said regarding Nimoy's inclusion in this production. No Nimoy there wasn't a fallback plan for another way to tell the story. Since I find it better for to assume the writers do speak the truth barring contract issues I'll take their word that LM's presense isn't a simple "Stunt" or crutch as a way to appease all the 24th Century boosters. Were that the case we'd have been sure to have Riker in this film as well. So far no hint of that...

It just gets in my craw when I hear posters mention stuff like this as if its some kind of crutch.

Sharr

 

[Kryton]

The crutchiest crutch I see is the time travel plot.

Used to love me some time travel...it has become significantly less interesting to me since both Trek Movies and all 5 series used it too much. Though I admit, I *did* buy the time travel fan collective.

 

[Sharr Khan]

The crutchiest crutch I see is the time travel plot.

Used to love me some time travel...it has become significantly less interesting to me since both Trek Movies and all 5 series used it too much. Though I admit, I *did* buy the time travel fan collective.

I think time travel is one of those very mmmm appealing scifi concepts, that those who write it always jump at the chance to do so. Here again, no one involved in this production is responsible for the hit and misses in former productions where it comes to time travel - never mind that Paramount has tested sucess that "time travel stories sell tickets".

And I've only a gut feeling here, but I think its not going to be as straightforward time jumping as we might guess. Wouldn't be very shocked if it tighed to "Future Guy", seriously

Sharr

 

[Mr. Fergy]

I been reading this for 2 years now it seams. Shatner wasn't offered a role, Paramount just didn't want him, period.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I been reading this for 2 years now it seams. Shatner wasn't offered a role, Paramount just didn't want him, period.

Not necessarily so.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BTW, Shatner's doing an interview on Glen Beck this Friday - they showed a few clips of it just now and it looks like a must-see if you're into Shatner at all.

 

[chancellorjake]

^That would mean that I would have to watch Glenn Beck, though.
The level of smug would be lethal.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

I saw Shatner on Conan Monday night, it was funny as H*ll.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

The fact that PowderedToastMan, who probably knows more about the movie production than any other everyday fan alive, just indirectly agreed with what VOODOOXI is saying makes me very suspicious that VOODOO might have just stumbled onto something here.

It sounded to me like PowderedToastMan was just voicing his own personal opinion on the matter.

He is essentially a journalist when it comes to reporting the news about Trek XI on his site. I don't think we should -- nor would he likely want us to -- extend factual or "insider" status to every post he ever makes. (Nor would that be realistic, even if he wanted us to.)

If he has news, he'll post it as such, with the relevant sources where appropriate.

one of the reasons I really don't post much here or even at my own site is because I don't want to be dissected. however, I believe I am on the record on my site saying that almost all of the 'shat saga' has been coming from Shatner and so it would be fair to say that mostly you are getting one side of the story. Maybe some day, maybe after the movie, we can do a whole 'behind the scenes' feature on the whole shat thing.

 

[number6]

The fact that PowderedToastMan, who probably knows more about the movie production than any other everyday fan alive, just indirectly agreed with what VOODOOXI is saying makes me very suspicious that VOODOO might have just stumbled onto something here.

It sounded to me like PowderedToastMan was just voicing his own personal opinion on the matter.

He is essentially a journalist when it comes to reporting the news about Trek XI on his site. I don't think we should -- nor would he likely want us to -- extend factual or "insider" status to every post he ever makes. (Nor would that be realistic, even if he wanted us to.)

If he has news, he'll post it as such, with the relevant sources where appropriate.

one of the reasons I really don't post much here or even at my own site is because I don't want to be dissected. however, I believe I am on the record on my site saying that almost all of the 'shat saga' has been coming from Shatner and so it would be fair to say that mostly you are getting one side of the story. Maybe some day, maybe after the movie, we can do a whole 'behind the scenes' feature on the whole shat thing.

So you're saying he's hosting a "Behind the Scenes" feature?? I KNEW it!!!


That's soooo Awesome!!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^That would mean that I would have to watch Glenn Beck, though.
The level of smug would be lethal.

Actually, what Beck showed of it last night had Shatner really going after him. At one point Beck accuses Shatner of "overacting" on Trek, and Shatner basically says "what is it that you do on this show every night?"

All very good natured and funny - but Beck looks overmatched in terms of manic energy and control of the conversation. I certainly will check it out, but probably on the re-run after the new BSG on SCIFI.

 

[Wowbagger]

What Sam said makes a lot of sense too.

Doesn't it always?

Sorry, PTM. I'll refrain from dissecting in the future. After all, it'd suck if your wild success kept you from having the good relaxing fun that the BBS provides.

 

[Gepard]

^That would mean that I would have to watch Glenn Beck, though.
The level of smug would be lethal.

Actually, what Beck showed of it last night had Shatner really going after him. At one point Beck accuses Shatner of "overacting" on Trek, and Shatner basically says "what is it that you do on this show every night?"

All very good natured and funny - but Beck looks overmatched in terms of manic energy and control of the conversation. I certainly will check it out, but probably on the re-run after the new BSG on SCIFI.

Good. Now we just need to get Shatner an interview on Lou Dobbs.