Roberto Orci want both Shatner and Nimoy in Star Trek 3

[Dukhat]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Anybody who says they boycotted STID over that most likely wasn't going to see it anyway, and we can see how massive a dent they put in ticket sales.

This is nothing against you CC; I also just find it funny when a trufan uses the word "boycott" when he actually means that he and he alone will not see the film. That's hardly what "boycott" means.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Hey, I didn't like the reveal in STID and I still saw it twice, so I'm sure the less fervent complainers went and saw it too.

Remember this article by Faraci?

http://badassdigest.com/2010/10/25/scoop-no-khan-in-star-trek-2-so-who-will-kirk-co-face

Yeah, not really believing anything he says anymore.

Thank you for finding that. MakeShitUpDigest is more like it. When Latino Review posts a story, then I'll believe it.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Given the backlash Abrams had to endure over Khan and the coverup in ID, I think that Orci playing it safe is a smart move.

What backlash was that, exactly?

Backlash

I love how the minorty opinion suddenly becomes fact.

Well, it isn't my opinion, so not sure what that's all about

However, at the time ID came out, and I was on another Trek board (not this one, so no offense intended or implied) there was a strong negative opinion against Abrams to the point that it was depressing me.

I don't think it was a boycott, so much as people who were not happy with Abrams to begin with, seeing their worse fears fulfilled and not going to see it. However, they still bashed it, ad nauseum, creating a negative atmosphere. In addition, there was criticism of Alice Eve's underwear scene, as well as Abrams admission that keeping Khan a secret was a mistake.

So, it all added up to people going, "We can't trust Abrams and he sucks and on and on and on..."

That was the backlash I was referring too.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Anybody who says they boycotted STID over that most likely wasn't going to see it anyway, and we can see how massive a dent they put in ticket sales.

This is nothing against you CC; I also just find it funny when a trufan uses the word "boycott" when he actually means that he and he alone will not see the film. That's hardly what "boycott" means.

Hee hee. Yeah, I was just trying to make the point of how out of proportion it is to characterize the grumblings over the Khan reveal as backlash.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm not a big fan of the new films but the dumbest thing they ever did was kill Kirk in that TNG movie. After years on TV you wouldn't think they'd feel the need to pass the torch in such an extreme and reductive manner. That said, it would be nice to see the nuTrek movies try to stand on their own.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

What backlash was that, exactly?

Backlash

I love how the minorty opinion suddenly becomes fact.

Its hard to describe a backlash but I could say maybe there was.

If it's hard to describe, it almost certainly is not backlash.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Backlash

I love how the minorty opinion suddenly becomes fact.

Its hard to describe a backlash but I could say maybe there was.

If it's hard to describe, it almost certainly is not backlash.

Well, I could describe it, but it may come across as mean-spirited towards those who expressed that opinion.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Its hard to describe a backlash but I could say maybe there was.

If it's hard to describe, it almost certainly is not backlash.

Well, I could describe it, but it may come across as mean-spirited towards those who expressed that opinion.

How about a more neutral (yet still descriptive) description instead? We try to stay away from mean-spirited here, where fans or fan groups are concerned.

 

[Malaika]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Devin Faraci is generally pretty reliable, that said someone had to give him the information. I believe in this case where there is smoke there is fire + that Shatner will return as Kirk.

Generally pretty reliable?

 

[Commishsleer]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Devin Faraci is generally pretty reliable, that said someone had to give him the information. I believe in this case where there is smoke there is fire + that Shatner will return as Kirk.

Generally pretty reliable?

Was he the guy who said Star Trek fans consider STID the worst Star Trek movie?

 

[Set Harth]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Devin Faraci is generally pretty reliable, that said someone had to give him the information. I believe in this case where there is smoke there is fire + that Shatner will return as Kirk.

Generally pretty reliable?

Seriously, that's what people are saying about him these days in reference to Star Wars rumors. If you bring up the Trek stuff you get "That's totally different! It wasn't his fault!" etc.

 

[OpenMaw]

I'm not a big fan of the new films but the dumbest thing they ever did was kill Kirk in that TNG movie. After years on TV you wouldn't think they'd feel the need to pass the torch in such an extreme and reductive manner. That said, it would be nice to see the nuTrek movies try to stand on their own.

Especially since Kirk passed the torch to the next generation at the end of VI. Studio execs just being skittish about the TNG folks, and what a shame that is.

Unfortunately we're two movies into the series, and the first one leaned on old Spock/Nero/the OG timeline as the basis for it's existence. The second film is laden with references and easter eggs and reflections of TWOK.

Assuming there aren't anymore after the third one, assuming it starts over again, or CBS has something up their sleeve... I think this particular series of Trek just isn't going to "stand on it's own."

 

[F. King Daniel]

Holy fuck it's true! From The Shat himself: http://comicbook.com/2014/09/27/william-shatner-confirms-he-was-contacted-about-star-trek-3-and-/

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Dig it.

Sounds more like a preliminary "if we do this, is he in?" sort of query, more than a "here's your part, do you want it" kind of thing.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Re: Roberto Orci want both Shatner and Limoy in Star Trek 3

Shatner has already said on many occasions that he wants to play Kirk again in Star Trek. That's all.

If he was serious about it, he's had plenty of time to get into better shape. Maybe they'll CGI 50 lbs or so off of him.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

If it's hard to describe, it almost certainly is not backlash.

Well, I could describe it, but it may come across as mean-spirited towards those who expressed that opinion.

How about a more neutral (yet still descriptive) description instead? We try to stay away from mean-spirited here, where fans or fan groups are concerned.

Which, I completely understand and respect. That is why I did not post it.

The backlash, if you want to call it that (fan reaction, I don't know?) was one of negativity towards Abrams and Co, in terms of how they presented the information leading up to ID. On the board I was not (no longer functioning) there were calls for a boycott (yes, a word that was used here too) and calling to write to Abrams and Paramount over other material deemed offensive or dishonest, such as Khan being white, Alice Eve in underwear, and things like that.

That's it in a nutshell, I think. I'm sure I missed some things, but there was a fan reaction to the deception, as well as to many other aspects of ID.

I don't share any of them, so I cannot speak for anyone else who might feel that way. Hope that was neutral enough

 

[TheSubCommander]

Re: Roberto Orci want both Shatner and Limoy in Star Trek 3

2009 was a decent film, but after Into Darkness my expectations for the third one couldn't possibly be any lower. So yeah, include Shatner. Even if it's just poorly thought out fan service that does nothing to make a good story (did I mention that I didn't particularly care for Into Darkness?), it could still make for a nice moment in a film that's probably not going to have many of them regardless of who they bring in for a cameo.

+1000000000


I could care less personally if Shatner is in it or not, but at this point,why not? that would probably be the only reason I would bother with a Nu Trek III. The semi reboot of 2009 intended to bring "new, exciting ideas" has basically just turned into a wink,wink nod, nod Easter egg fest with STID that has recycled so much from the other movies, including plots, tropes, and yes, even actors from previous incarnations, and I don't mean Nimoy.

STID was so horrid that Shatner appearing in Nu Trek III couldn't possibly do any more damage than "Spock, I'm Scared!" At least when Shatner's Kirk died, he died with a shred o' dignity.

 

[Devon]

Re: Roberto Orci want both Shatner and Limoy in Star Trek 3

2009 was a decent film, but after Into Darkness my expectations for the third one couldn't possibly be any lower. So yeah, include Shatner. Even if it's just poorly thought out fan service that does nothing to make a good story (did I mention that I didn't particularly care for Into Darkness?), it could still make for a nice moment in a film that's probably not going to have many of them regardless of who they bring in for a cameo.

+1000000000


I could care less personally if Shatner is in it or not, but at this point,why not? that would probably be the only reason I would bother with a Nu Trek III. The semi reboot of 2009 intended to bring "new, exciting ideas" has basically just turned into a wink,wink nod, nod Easter egg fest with STID that has recycled so much from the other movies, including plots, tropes, and yes, even actors from previous incarnations, and I don't mean Nimoy.

STID was so horrid that Shatner appearing in Nu Trek III couldn't possibly do any more damage than "Spock, I'm Scared!" At least when Shatner's Kirk died, he died with a shred o' dignity.

Confused, are we talking about about Shatner & Nimoy appearing in ST3 or Anti-Into Darkness comments??

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Re: How did Shatner's possible involvement leak this early?

Devin Faraci is generally pretty reliable, that said someone had to give him the information. I believe in this case where there is smoke there is fire + that Shatner will return as Kirk.

Generally pretty reliable?

In light of recent developments, it looks like you were wrong about Faraci - at least this time.

 

[Malaika]

Yeah, at this point I think someone on Orci&co's behalf told him on purpose to create hype and manipulate the fans to gain our response to it

I'm just puzzled by people over trekmovie who always criticize the reboot for copying TOS because they can't do their own thing or because the plots are sloppy and lame and there is no character development...yet, they are now asking them to bring back Shatner and waste screentime for a mindless and forced cameo of a character that should be dead. Just another proof that people hate the reboot only because it isn't their trek and now want to essentially use the success of these movies for the sake of having a birthday cake for the old thing uncaring about the intergrity of this story and characters and what makes the most sense.
A lot of critics had already said that stid had too much fanservice... If the third movie flops you can kiss goodbye to more movies or a series.

Eta: and people who still blame Uhura for being the reason why they don't get more character development for McCoy are a joke. Can't have the cake and eat it too....