Does Anyone Else NOT Want Shatner in the Film?

[Aragorn]

Actually, Nimoy showed up in TNG to set up TUC. Perhaps you meant Doohan?

 

[Franklin]

RookieBatman said:

Franklin said:
-- On the other hand, if the story honestly doesn't need him, then why try to force him in now? In some ways, wouldn't that be an admission that the writers and producers made a strategic error by not concocting a story that used both Nimoy and Shatner from the beginning? Isn't is backpeddling? Hey, we better get Shat in there too, just to cover all bases.

What would be wrong with such an admission? Like I've said before on this thread, movie scripts go through rewrites all the time, because the creators are constantly trying to improve and refine their product. We shouldn't demand that they make their first script perfect and stick to it, because that removes their opportunity to make it even better. Early scripts of both "Batman" and "Batman Returns" introduced Robin (or at least Dick Grayson), but that element of the movie was later taken out of both. While I'm sure there are some Robin fans who would've liked him to stay in, I think most people really liked the eventual finished products in both cases, which came as a result of continually refining the product, even to the extent of changing major elements of it.
It seems like some people here have the opinion that if Shatner is written into the movie, it'll somehow be saying that the writers don't know what they're doing. I just don't see that. It's merely an admission that they aren't infallible, which, as we all know, nobody is.

I'm not saying the writers don't really know what they're doing. But adding Shatner at the last minute could create the perception that he's simply being crammed into the story so he'll be on screen, that the story must need a major boost, or they're beginning to think they'll need Shatner in the film to fill the theaters.
Those are a few ways adding him late could be seen as negative to the film.

What I'd like is if he can still be written in in a substantive way at this juncture, then go for it.
My guess though, is old Kirk really isn't necessary to the story unless there is some major reworking of it. That may be the rub. The story is strong enough without him. Adding him now may upset the balance of the action or theme or point of view.

 

[xortex]

Pandering to those in power is what killed Trek, but maybe life begins at forty. Ah but if you try to please everybody, you wind up pleasing nobody.