I think it's hard to enjoin someone from telling people that you haven't hired them. Who knows, though - this is America. 
Shat out / Nimoy in?
- Thread starter Jon1701
- Start date
True... saying "I don't have the job" is pretty straightforward.UWC Defiance said:I think it's hard to enjoin someone from telling people that you haven't hired them. Who knows, though - this is America.
On the other hand... revealing "proprietary information" is another issue entirely (and that, I think, is where the confusion in this conversation is coming from!) So, do potential employers enjoin potential employees from revealing information gained while they were still under consideration as "potentials?" Actually, that happens pretty often.
Most times that I've gone off for job interviews, I was required to sign a "non-disclosure agreement" for the company I was visiting, stating that if I saw any "proprietary internal information" while there, I wouldn't run off, join their biggest competitor, and hand off what I'd seen to them. Pretty much every job I've looked into for the past decade has had me (and the other interviewees) do that.
They'd be LESS concerned about the interviewees running off and spilling all their secrets if that person WAS getting the job... since then, that person would have a vested interest in the SUCCESS, rather than the FAILURE, of the venture... and usually, it's the folks who DON'T get the job who have the greatest desire to "strike back" after all...
This is exactly my sentiment.Having Shat in the movie as Kirk wouldn't acheive anything more than satifying some small niche group and turning the movie into a farce.As much as i'm thrilled that Shat is more popular than ever now and even won an Emmy in recent years it doesn't mean he is in the shape or at the age to play a pre Genesis Kirk, or any decent version of Kirk for that matter.Nimoy as Spock on the other hand can convincingly still be done in some limited respect.It's reality folks, not the evil wishes of some anti-Shatner club.
Stepping out of the nonsensical nightmare of "canon", Shatner could play a 65 year old Kirk..and certainly a 75 year old Kirk with ease and be quite good in the role. I'm not saying that it is right for whatever story is being told in the new movie, but the man is more than capable of pulling it off. After witnessing his work on Boston Legal, the idea that Shatner couldn't play an elderly Kirk is patently absurd.
Canon Schmanon. If he's in the movie and it serves to tell the story in the movie, the fact that it contradicts some other film is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The whole series is riddled with contradictions and the universe hasn't imploded yet. If Shatner is in the movie as Kirk, and is used to good effect...not just a cameo, then I'm cool with it.
For some reason I doubt Paramount will violate canon to the extent of rendering the events of Genesis non consequential.Not only would that be messing with Kirk's official demise but it would also be messing with canon/official events in Next Gen's era as well.While a few people may be willing to throw all that out to have a 76 year old Shat portray a 60ish Kirk for the sake of doing so, most Trek fans wouldn't.Not only would doing so look foolish but Paramount would essentially be saying that they made a mistake making Genesis which is never going to happen no matter who wants what in Trek 11.
"That green-blooded son of a bitch. It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost." - Dr. Leonard Mccoy (De Forrest Kelley)
I think it depends on how badly the movie's writers and producer want to adhere to canon, not the Paramount studio execs.
If Abrams went to the execs with a bang-up script that smelled to them like a $100 million opening weekend, then said, "Oh, by the way, old Kirk needs to be alive for this to work. Can't do it, otherwise." I think the execs would wink and say, "Kirk died?"
It is a "re-whatever", after all (reawakening, refurbishing, reestablishing, reintroducing). So, what better time would there be to drop off some unpopular baggage?
Anthony
Lieutenant Commander
Oh, he'll be in it, allright, one way or the other.
As far as "canon" goes--who cares? You think the average moviegoer cares about 40 years of background you care so much about? Uh-uh. They ain't targeting YOU in that demo, but the folks who stampede each other to see stuff like Harry Potter and Spiderman, as it should be. There's no money or future in targeting things to an ever shrinking niche within a niche within an isolated niche market, and it is about time. Long overdue.
Abrams needs to toss all of that excess "canonical" garbage out and start all over, just like he needs to.
As far as "canon" goes--who cares? You think the average moviegoer cares about 40 years of background you care so much about? Uh-uh. They ain't targeting YOU in that demo, but the folks who stampede each other to see stuff like Harry Potter and Spiderman, as it should be. There's no money or future in targeting things to an ever shrinking niche within a niche within an isolated niche market, and it is about time. Long overdue.
Abrams needs to toss all of that excess "canonical" garbage out and start all over, just like he needs to.
Nobody wnats a 76 yeat old Shatner play a 60 year old Kirk. Many would like him to play a 75 year old Kirk who just did not die in Generations. Why care so much about canon. If its bad canon, to hell with it !
Well, I'm sure the movie could be great and really get the audience going.
Then Shatner appears as old Kirk.
My goodness! Kirk is fated to turn into William Shatner! Aaaagh! I think it would really turn the movie into a joke for the general audience, even if some Trekkies get a kick out of it.
Then Shatner appears as old Kirk.
My goodness! Kirk is fated to turn into William Shatner! Aaaagh!
I think it would really turn the movie into a joke for the general audience, even if some Trekkies get a kick out of it.
Not that I'm privy to any inside stuff, but didn't those involved state clearly that they would stay true to what's established? Bringing in Shatner to play Kirk would be quite the contrary. Nimoy as Spock, OTOH, is quite logical (sorry) as we know he survives well into the 24th and maybe 25th centuries. I figure they'll have him talking to some young unificationists, telling them of an adventure he and Kirk had in their younger days. Perhaps the two learned some valuable lesson that would benefit the young, impressionable Romulans to know. Who knows? I just can't imagine at all a reasonable way for Shatner to appear on screen as Kirk. As a voice over, maybe, but then why? I don't see him adding anything of value to the story. In fact, having Shatner in the film will only detract from it. Don't misunderstand; I like Shatner and his work. But putting him in this film will appear forced and/or silly, neither of which would beneit the franchise. Kirk died in GEN and cannot/should not come back unless depicted in a flashback or prequel. It's time to move on.
I agree T'Cal. It was weird to see the Shat Attack in Generations to begin with **coughskillbragacoughs** but the fact is that the dude died.
I can't see Shatner in the new film because I don't see how it could serve the story, which is the ultimate goal if your a writer, to write the best story that you can. Kudos to you.
I can't see Shatner in the new film because I don't see how it could serve the story, which is the ultimate goal if your a writer, to write the best story that you can. Kudos to you.
What if a major plot-line in the story actually ends up being about Spock attempting to save Kirk from dying in "GENERATIONS", or perhaps having Spock finding a way to bring his former Captain back to life that involves something that the two of them discovered back during the time period before TOS?
(Does that make sense to anybody besides me?)
Wouldn't it be prudent in that case to have Shatner playing Kirk in some way, shape or form?
What if all the rumors WE've heard so far are just a way for 'T(NEW)PTB' to 'blow-smoke-up-OUR-collective-asses' and keep US guessing about all the wrong things?
Keeping US distracted from actual facts that Have been leaked?
(Does that make sense to anybody besides me?)
Wouldn't it be prudent in that case to have Shatner playing Kirk in some way, shape or form?
What if all the rumors WE've heard so far are just a way for 'T(NEW)PTB' to 'blow-smoke-up-OUR-collective-asses' and keep US guessing about all the wrong things?
Keeping US distracted from actual facts that Have been leaked?
Similar threads
