Kirk not happy not being in XI?

[BraddyB]

I thought it would have been neat to have both Kirk and Spock in the movie but when he was not to be included, for whatever reason, he was making comments to that he wanted to be included and should be included.

It seems odd to me that he even cares that much. I thought he has complained about Star Trek fans and wanted to get away from that Kirk image for quite some time now, even though I'm sure it brings in decent coin for him when he does, why would it be such a big deal to not be included in a movie where he wouldn't be the star? Just wondering.

Also, as for the whole he died in Generations so he couldn't come back, at the end of Star Trek 6 when they took off at the end, second star to the right and straight on till morning, something could have happened then to take them both back. It didn't have to be after the Enterprise B incident. That's the funny thing with time travel.

Anyone else wonder about that to?

 

[Devon]

why would it be such a big deal to not be included in a movie where he wouldn't be the star? Just wondering.

Money and ego. And if he didn't have a big part, then he'd probably demand one!

 

[Roshi]

Teh Old Kirk is rotten shish kebab somewhere on Veridian III. No way he could return (oh look at my intertextual pun!) without being the ultimate fanwankery.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

How are they going to do it? make a clone from DNA taken from his body on Veridian III?

 

[BraddyB]

How are they going to do it? make a clone from DNA taken from his body on Veridian III?

Yeah, but they never said what year Spock came back from, did they?

If they didn't say what year Spock came back from, who says it is, or had to be, after the Enterprise B event where Kirk was lost? It could have been anytime after the end of Star Trek 6 and the beginning of Generations.

btw, I'm not saying they should have had Kirk in the movie, just thinking they could have done something reasonable if they wanted to, even if it did annoy fans who thought it would have been stupid.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

How are they going to do it? make a clone from DNA taken from his body on Veridian III?

Yeah, but they never said what year Spock came back from, did they?

If they didn't say what year Spock came back from, who says it is, or had to be, after the Enterprise B event where Kirk was lost? It could have been anytime after the end of Star Trek 6 and the beginning of Generations.

btw, I'm not saying they should have had Kirk in the movie, just thinking they could have done something reasonable if they wanted to, even if it did annoy fans who thought it would have been stupid.

Except that Old Spock looks way older than he did arount Star Trek 6.

 

[Roshi]

^Even older than he did around the time of Unification, which takes place a hundred years after TUC!!!

 

[All Seeing Eye]

How are they going to do it? make a clone from DNA taken from his body on Veridian III?

Yeah, but they never said what year Spock came back from, did they?

He's trying to reunify Vulcan and Romulus, he didn't start doing any of that until the TNG era. Also they seem to have access to sophisticated yet experimental time travel ships which would seem to indicate a post Nemesis era.

 

[BraddyB]

Ok, the memory alpha wiki mentions Spock goes back post Nemesis so that makes more sense, thanks guys.

That was more of a side point to the original thread anyway, which was wondering why Shatner wanted to be in the film if all it would do is put him in the Kirk spotlight again which he seems to want to get away from.

 

[M'Sharak]

Also, as for the whole he died in Generations so he couldn't come back, at the end of Star Trek 6 when they took off at the end, second star to the right and straight on till morning, something could have happened then to take them both back. It didn't have to be after the Enterprise B incident. That's the funny thing with time travel.

I don't think they really went to Never-Never-Land at the end of TUC. That was just another way of saying that this crew was riding off into the sunset.

As for Shatner's feelings about not being in the movie, I think we've heard it all again and again, and in several different versions. Bottom line: there just wasn't a part for him in this story.

 

[Bill Morris]

Um, a little movie magic--Forrest Gump, Trials and Tribble-ations . . .
The movie gets 35-year-old Shatner, and present-day Shatner gets paid, all the while saying he's not in the movie right up to opening day, creating an explosion of free publicity on May 8.

 

[JNG]

It seems odd to me that he even cares that much. I thought he has complained about Star Trek fans and wanted to get away from that Kirk image for quite some time now

Is this really true? He still talks about it a lot, works on Trek books, all that jazz.

 

[sidious618]

Shatner will say anything to get his name in the press.

 

[Supernova]

Shatner will say anything to get his name in the press.

More like, in my opinion, anything The Shat says will get his name in the press. I have never understood the hatred towards Bill Shatner. He's bigger than life, talented, and the man has managed to move beyond the role of Kirk a few times over. At the same time, he IS Kirk. I for one would've liked him to be in the new Trek. It's sad, but it won't keep me from enjoying the flick. -Dan

 

[Therin of Andor]

Money and ego. And if he didn't have a big part, then he'd probably demand one!

Well, that's exactly what happened. Contractually (from TMP), JJ had to meet with Shatner and Nimoy for advice on the casting of their younger selves. Shatner said "I don't do cameos" and wanted any participation playing Kirk as being a crucial role throughout the film. That didn't fit - in any way - with the compelling Spock story they wanted to tell, not to mention having to find a way to resurrect Kirk (a death only some people in the new, wider ST XI audience would even know about) and explain how he got so much older and fatter since "Generations".

Nimoy and Shatner also have a "favoured nations" contractual agreement. Whatever amount Nimoy received for filming, Shatner would have had to receive if he signed aboard. Budget-wise, that gets very cumbersome.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I thought it would have been neat to have both Kirk and Spock in the movie but when he was not to be included, for whatever reason, he was making comments to that he wanted to be included and should be included.

Ah, but both Kirk and Spock are in the movie.

Kirk will be played by Chris Pine.

 

[Franklin]

As for Shatner's feelings about not being in the movie, I think we've heard it all again and again, and in several different versions. Bottom line: there just wasn't a part for him in this story.

Some time back, I read on trekmovie.com that a part in the story had been written for Shatner's Kirk, but it didn't fit in too well and made the story too cumbersome. If I remember correctly, Abrams said that this part would be revealed after the movie was released.

Shatner had every right ask for any involvement he had with this movie to have been meaty. And, they had every right to tell him it honestly couldn't be done.
What Shatner wanted was really no different (and in some ways less) than what Nimoy wanted to be involved in GEN. Except Nimoy said his piece and then shut up about it. Shatner didn't in this case. That's the difference. And that's why Shatner gets so much more grief from fans than Nimoy does. He won't shut up. But there was heavy ego-involvement in both cases.

 

[M'Sharak]

As for Shatner's feelings about not being in the movie, I think we've heard it all again and again, and in several different versions. Bottom line: there just wasn't a part for him in this story.

Some time back, I read on trekmovie.com that a part in the story had been written for Shatner's Kirk, but it didn't fit in too well and made the story too cumbersome. If I remember correctly, Abrams said that this part would be revealed after the movie was released.

I could be misremembering, but I do recall Abrams having said that they couldn't find a way of putting Shatner's Kirk into the story which fit to anyone's satisfaction. If there was a actual part written, it would be interesting to find out what they tried.

Shatner had every right ask for any involvement he had with this movie to have been meaty. And, they had every right to tell him it honestly couldn't be done.
What Shatner wanted was really no different (and in some ways less) than what Nimoy wanted to be involved in GEN. Except Nimoy said his piece and then shut up about it. Shatner didn't in this case. That's the difference. And that's why Shatner gets so much more grief from fans than Nimoy does. He won't shut up. But there was heavy ego-involvement in both cases.

Yeah, that's it, really. Shatner's non-appearance in this movie was the non-story which wouldn't go away, but I suppose the press has to take a share of the blame for continuing to ask him the same questions. He's being asked to talk about his favorite subject, and Bill is nothing if not accommodating.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I thought it would have been neat to have both Kirk and Spock in the movie but when he was not to be included, for whatever reason, he was making comments to that he wanted to be included and should be included.

Ah, but both Kirk and Spock are in the movie.

Kirk will be played by Chris Pine.

Heres a picture:

And here is a picture to compare by whitch I found on this site.

 

[Franklin]

As for Shatner's feelings about not being in the movie, I think we've heard it all again and again, and in several different versions. Bottom line: there just wasn't a part for him in this story.

Some time back, I read on trekmovie.com that a part in the story had been written for Shatner's Kirk, but it didn't fit in too well and made the story too cumbersome. If I remember correctly, Abrams said that this part would be revealed after the movie was released.

I could be misremembering, but I do recall Abrams having said that they couldn't find a way of putting Shatner's Kirk into the story which fit to anyone's satisfaction. If there was a actual part written, it would be interesting to find out what they tried.

Actually, a very quick and search of trekmovie.com, and I found the story. It was October 14, 2008. Here's the pertanent bit from the story as it was reported on the TrekMovie site:

Last month JJ Abrams told AMC that there was a scene written for Shatner and then a few weeks later William Shatner did a videoblog about how no one ever offered him a role. Although this appeared to be a contradiction, TrekMovie noted at the time that they could both be telling the truth. Today in a new interview with MTV Abrams clarifies that he felt the scene written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman was 'good' but was also a 'contrivance' to get Shatner into the movie and that it didn't work, and so they never offered it to Shatner directly.