Confirmed: William Shatner NOT in Trek XI

[StarMan]

Straight from the Vulcan's mouth.

Not a huge surprise, but it's good to have final confirmation from Nimoy.

And no, this is not another stage of Abram's grandiose marketing scheme in which Shatner's involvement will miraculously be revealed on premiere night.

This cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Flavius]

Fine.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, but he may be later.

When Bob Orci says it's settled, I'll believe it's settled.

 

[StarMan]

Well I say it's settled, and that should be good enough for anyone.

 

[CaptainJon]

I have a hard time understanding why people still think Shatner's going to be in this movie if he's not already. Here's the way I see it. With the WGA strike taking place, changes can't be made to the script. So if Shatner is going to be in this movie, he either already is because the role is already there, or he will be playing a different role.

As long as the strike is going on, I can't see them working Shatner in without re-writing a portion of the script.

 

[StarMan]

Conceivably they could do a rewrite after the strike and slot him in. How it would effect the structure of the story and how much hassle it would be contorting things to get him in is another matter.

My always reliable (!) gut feeling tells me Shatner's involvement isn't an issue to Abrams and co, and that his involvement was possibly never desired to begin with.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What we can pretty much take for certain, based on Shatner's remarks and Nimoy's knowledge and the things that have been said publicly by Abrams and Orci and Kurzman is this:

1) Shatner is not currently in the film;
2) Any part that may have been written for him or may be written for him is not important to the film, but something that can be scheduled independent of the production shoot.

There's no significant inconsistency in that with anything that's been said or anything that we know.

Even Samuel T. Cogley's "Boston Legal Ending" is pretty much grounded in this line of thought, isn't it?

 

[StarMan]

Frankly, Cogley's "Boston Legal Ending" is the only scenario involving Shatner that appeals to me. No need for exposition or reference to previous movies. Just a nice, simple "valentine" to the fans.

 

[Flavius]

Since he's dead, there's always the possibility of using 'historical' footage.

 

[Arlo]

Jesus people, let it go. The Shat is not in this movie. Move on.

 

[aridas sofia]

"Boston Legal Ending"?

 

[Tamek]

StarMan said:
Well I say it's settled, and that should be good enough for anyone.

Well hell.

Let me rend my clothes and go dump a sack full of ashes all over myself.

I'll be back after my ritual mourning period.

/kidding

 

[PowderedToastMan]

i would just like to point out that 'not in the movie' is not the same as 'will not be in the movie'

it is true that as of now he is not in, but that is not a guarantee he will not be in. That is not to say that I know he will be...just saying that the film makers still feel they have the option

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

aridas sofia said:
"Boston Legal Ending"?

Sam Cogley's Boston Legal Style Ending

 

[aridas sofia]

I don't know how I missed that.

Your point, that

"I just wanted to capture the idea of these two friends, still together after all they've all been through."

captures my feelings regarding why I see him in the movie. And why I think all this "Shatner isn't in it but he might end up in it" talk is so much smoke. The script is written. He's in the end in some sentimental scene that has the effect you are evoking.

And the rest is a smokescreen.

And that's that.

At least I think that's that.

 

[johnconner]

PowderedToastMan said:
i would just like to point out that 'not in the movie' is not the same as 'will not be in the movie'

it is true that as of now he is not in, but that is not a guarantee he will not be in. That is not to say that I know he will be...just saying that the film makers still feel they have the option

So true. PowderedToastMan is right. His post oughta be pinned for the next year. How some Star Trek fans can't see this - or even the possibility of it - astounds me.

What's the real truth behind this blind denial? Are these fans:

a) Spockies who want a Spock-centric story, always having felt that Kirk overshadowed "the real star" of Star Trek, willfully ignoring Shatner, Kelley and that pesky chemistry thing that really made the show tick?

b) Haters of Shatner because he pissed in their Trekkie-Os cereal at some convention sometime, or because they think he's an arrogant ass who *somehow* doesn't deserve to play Kirk anymore?

c) Lazy slobs who haven't given it more than a millisecond's thought?

If not those, then what? Honestly, I'd like to know.

And let's take GENERATIONS off the denial table once and for all, huh? Whaddayasay? Because I haven't heard EVEN ONE scenario in which GENERATIONS couldn't be sidestepped, ignored or dealt with. EASILY. I've even heard theories in this very forum that would work without involving GENERATIONS focus or technobabble AT ALL.

It's amazing how the idea that there might be a scripted something already in place - should the stars align - is met with such incredulous "Buh ... buh ... but teh strike!" As if there was no warning the strike was coming. And it doesn't even have to be THAT processed. "Hey guys, y'know, just in case we get Shatner after the strike for a day or two, be thinking about how we can fit it in seamlessly with what we have in place." You think that's unlikely? In Hollywood?

Shatner denial. It's a funny thing.

 

[Jonesy]

I can't see this movie, which has gone into the shooting stage & has frigging millions of dollars being pumped into it, will somehow later (after the writers strike is concluded, which will happen when???) be substantially rewritten and refilmed, just to get Shatner into it.

I think Abrams and co., when they actually conceived this story, did not consider Shatner' inclusion either important, or perhaps they didn't really even consider it much at all.

I could believe them sticking Shatner in at some point if Kirk, as a character, was not going to be in it. But we already know that he will. Shatner, as an actor, will not be.

 

[johnconner]

Jonesy said:
I can't see this movie, which has gone into the shooting stage & has frigging millions of dollars being pumped into it, will somehow later (after the writers strike is concluded, which will happen when???) be substantially rewritten and refilmed, just to get Shatner into it.

The strike may or may not be a factor, depending on whether it was already written.

And there's no reason that anything should have to be "substantially rewritten and refilmed." You think Shatner's involvement necessarily means the story changes that freakin' much? Why?

I could believe them sticking Shatner in at some point if Kirk, as a character, was not going to be in it. But we already know that he will. Shatner, as an actor, will not be.

That sounds extremely convoluted. And congratulations on the recent crystal ball purchase.

 

[Jonesy]

johnconner said:

Jonesy said:
I can't see this movie, which has gone into the shooting stage & has frigging millions of dollars being pumped into it, will somehow later (after the writers strike is concluded, which will happen when???) be substantially rewritten and refilmed, just to get Shatner into it.

The strike may or may not be a factor, depending on whether it was already written.

And there's no reason that anything should have to be "substantially rewritten and refilmed." You think Shatner's involvement necessarily means the story changes that freakin' much? Why?

Because he died in the last feature film we saw him in. Bringing him back into the picture means a whole lot of screentime will then have to be devoted in explaining and showing just how the heck he gets back. And yes, that will require a substantial amount of change to the film.

Jonesy said:
I could believe them sticking Shatner in at some point if Kirk, as a character, was not going to be in it. But we already know that he will. Shatner, as an actor, will not be.
johnconner said:
That sounds extremely convoluted. And congratulations on the recent crystal ball purchase.

No it doesn't sound convoluted at all. If Kirk, as a character, was not going to be in the movie - I would put a lot more weight into the notion that they might go back and put Shatner into it. But they already have Kirk, as a character, cast. Not to mention that they already have the script, as a whole, written & that Abrahms and Paramount agreed to greenlight that very script.

And no, there's no crystal ball. Shatner not being in the movie is, as of this writing, a fact. And highly, highly likely to stay that way. The only people who really put any sort of weight into the idea that Abrahms and Paramount are going to substantially rewrite and change a major multimillion-dollar project at the frigging' shooting stage are Trek fans with a tenuous hold on reality.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Jonesy said:
Because he died in the last feature film we saw him in. Bringing him back into the picture means a whole lot of screentime will then have to be devoted in explaining and showing just how the heck he gets back. And yes, that will require a substantial amount of change to the film.

I can do it in zero minutes and with zero explanation. :thumbsup: