A word to Bill Shatner....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
All you want is rehashes of TOS so how do you expect to move forward?
The only reason TOS is alive today is thanks to all the other Trek series you dismess as "trying to reinvent the wheel"
Of course you want the film to fail because if it doesnt that means Trek can (as it has) survive without the holier than thou TOS.
The only reason TOS is alive today is thanks to all the other Trek series you dismess as "trying to reinvent the wheel"
Of course you want the film to fail because if it doesnt that means Trek can (as it has) survive without the holier than thou TOS.
Huh? Please show me when/where JJ Abrhams EVER produced anything 'Star Trek' before.
That's like holding Alexander Salkind responsible for the 1950ies Superman series in 1978, when he tried his first take on the Superman mythos.
Or, you could say that William Shatner was the second actor to portray Gene Roddenberry's character of "Captain of the Enterprise". Recasting Shatner as Kirk, instead of using Jeffrey Hunter again, gave the character new nuances that made Kirk work more effectively for the studio execs than Pike (or April, as even the shooting script calls him).
So if Shatner brought new elements to the Captain character, but kept others, a new young actor may bring other qualities.
As posts to this board have shown, fandom doesn't agree on who was the best Saavik, either: Kirstie Alley, Robin Curtis, or (as renamed during ST VI script reworkings) Kim Cattrall playing Valeris.
We've also seen three TOS chief medical officers (Boyce, Piper and McCoy), on paper almost exactly the same character, and two of them even nicknamed "Bones". Any differences in the final characterizations were personal touches added by the three actors.
You "never thought" you'd hear yourself say it? We always thought you held to that belief.
No surprise here.Yeah, lets make all the future generations of the Earth do without any new interpretations of Roddenberry's Star Trek. Roddenberry himself is on record as being proud that ST had become modern mythology, and would be reinterpreted by future generations.
If ancient mythology, legends, fairy tales, folk tales, Shakespearean plays, Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poiroit, and dozens of well-known comic book heroes, can be interpreted and reinterpreted for new generations, and then compared back to the originals, then why not Star Trek?
I say, "Bring it on, JJ!"
I don't give a shit. Abrahms is beholding to those signing his paycheque--they have the final word. Besides which I don't have any confidence in him either. He can say all he wants and it's just more goddamned hype in a world spilling over with super hype over all manner of mediocrity.
There are those who are predesposed to like this forthcoming project and good for them and thats their right. Or maybe they just haven't seen enough shit in life or come accross enough broken promises. But TPTB and anyone associated with them have burnt all bridges of credibility with me. Fuck 'em. They'll have to produce a freaking miracle to lure me back and I don't think they can do it.
Furthermore as far as I'm concerned Star Trek is DONE. It will never come back they way I'd like it to. In my heart I would love to see more NEW adventures of Kirk, Spock et al and the Enterprise, but I live in the real world and know that will never happen again except in my imagination. Simply because Shatner is Kirk, Nimoy is Spock, Deforest Kelly is McCoy and all the rest, but they are now gone and/or no longer what they once were. And the wonderful creative team that was TOS' crew production is also past.
And I'm okay with that because nothing lasts forever. I don't need or even want new faces on characters that are already well established and cemented in my mind. That would be like some interloper trying to step into my father's place or my best friend's and trying to convince me that they're really those I know and love--ain't gonna happen so they might as well not waste the effort trying. I wouldn't mind some new Star Trek, but let it be something genuinely new and moving forward rather than trying to ressurect ghosts.
You guys wanna think I'm irrational, then fine. Think whatever you like, but I've got a pretty good sense of bullshit when I see or hear it and we'll see what comes done the pipe.
And while I suspect Shatner regrets letting himself be talked into letting Kirk be killed off I still think he should give this a pass and stay as far away as possible from this thing. He's made his mark and should just let it go. Candidly Nimoy should do the same. I'd actually respect them more if they did veto any participation in this project.
So what the hell was TNG? And DS9? And VOY? And Enterfake? Weren't those new interpretations as crappy as most of it was?
TNG was actually a valid idea that regrettably was mostly messed up. But if it had been done well it would have been something to admire. And thats my point: learn from the original, both good and ill, and apply that to something NEW and go forward.
Noname Given said:
Not true - William Shatner stated he would NEVER appear on ST:TNG during its first run syndicated run; yet Leonard Nimoy DID do the Unification episode in TNG season 5.
And you must be psychic if you 'know' the story 'is bobbins' without reading a single word of it.
Edited to add:
-------------
And as you also know, William Shatner did appear in the TNG feature film Generations; while leonard Nimoy turned it down (and he was asked).
So, there's plenty of precedent tht shows they are each individuals; and will accept/refuse a project based on who they individually feel about it.
I'm fully aware of the precedent. In fact, I mentioned in my post that Shatner has done it before. Still dont think Nimoy will do it without Shatner. He's retired for one thing. The TNG episode was different. In Unification the story was Spock-centric. This movie is (allegedly) about the early years of Kirk and Spock. No matter how popular Spock is, Kirk was always the star of the show. He's the Captain. I can see Shatner without Nimoy. Cant see it the other way around.
Oh, and theres no need for the rolly eyes. When I said "story" I was referring to the "Nimoy in Shatner out" story (the subject of this thread), not the script for Trek XI. I'm not one of those internet lunatics that plans to boycott this film if it isnt precisely what they envisioned in their heads. Step into any thread in FoT and you'll see I'm postive in regards to this new adventure.
Of course I actually know nothing. I'm merely speculating, but unfounded speculation is one of the building blocks upon which the internet was built.
Why should we stop now?
So the next person to retell "Hansel and Gretel" should concentrate on their descendants? The next Shakespearean play should be "Son of Macbeth" or "Romeo and Juliet: The Next Generations: The Antidote"?
Why does it have to be an overacting caricature? The new actor doesn't need to play it for laughs by pretending to be William Shatner. He could just sneak in a few subtle mannerisms of Shatner sprinkled in certain scenes of the film, if he wanted to. Daniel Craig occasionally spruced his lips like Sean Connery in Casino Royale.
To add a bit more kindling to the fire, it was predicted that one day the original would be recast as far back as 1979-1980.
From Susan Sackett's book, The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture :
Like others, I too prefer the Shatner-Nimoy-Kelly trio. Like others, I have a favorite Bond and Superman/Clark Kent. But I am prefectly willing to allow others come in and bring something new to the table.
All this is just fear that the image of perfection that one holds in one's head will be shattered. It is like getting a new toy and realizing that it isn't as bright and shiny as your imagnation made it seem when you first saw the commercial for it.
And if the new guys don't do it for anyone, then the original still endures. It's there. It will always be there. Just as George Reeves' Superman is still there. Just as Chris Reeve's Superman is still there. Routh's Superman didn't just eradicate those when he did Returns, and I still enjoyed it.
From Susan Sackett's book, The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture :
Like others, I too prefer the Shatner-Nimoy-Kelly trio. Like others, I have a favorite Bond and Superman/Clark Kent. But I am prefectly willing to allow others come in and bring something new to the table.
All this is just fear that the image of perfection that one holds in one's head will be shattered. It is like getting a new toy and realizing that it isn't as bright and shiny as your imagnation made it seem when you first saw the commercial for it.
And if the new guys don't do it for anyone, then the original still endures. It's there. It will always be there. Just as George Reeves' Superman is still there. Just as Chris Reeve's Superman is still there. Routh's Superman didn't just eradicate those when he did Returns, and I still enjoyed it.
30 million people per week didnt consider TNG to be crappy so while your entitled to your opinion it holds very little weight.
Just take a look at your quote, its clear that no matter hgow good any Trek is youll never accept it, and why? because its not TOS.
As I said TOS wouldnt be the "icon" it is today if it werent for all the other Treks that added to its legacy.
And TrekBBS would have a significantly smaller membership if TOS were the only Trek made.
In all honesty I find TOS to be comical and not at all interesting. But do I need to bash it just to make myself feel better about Enterprise being cancelled after 4 seasons or Nemesis not being a good movie? no.
You TOS Fundamentalists have a twisted 1 road vision of everything Trek related.
But since Fundamentalists are a small minority Trek can survive despite your protest and progress quite nicely with its legions of no so fundamentalist fans.
Why should a much younger Kirk act exactly as he did in TOS?
This guy has the general "fundamentalist" concept right (re:Trek) but generally-speaking he's all over the board!
