Shatner talks Trek XI on CNN.com

[Borgminister]

PKTrekGirl said:

I'm by no means saying that Nimoy has shunned the spotlight...but there is no denying that he has been WAY more discriminating about it than has Shatner.

Oh... artsy fartsy...

Point is, both men are doing what they love to do, as dictated by their personalities and interests.

One's more introverted, the other ... not so much. But I believe both to be the genuine article, not fakes.

Not to mention the fact that at last count...Spock was alive...while Kirk was dead.

True, but to quote Spock, "I've been dead before"...

 

[johnconner]

PKTrekGirl,

Methinks you underplay Nimoy's vanity. But nevertheless, Shatner thrives on attention, but I think he does show tongue in cheek a lot of times that people don't give him credit for. I guess it's too much fun playing the "Shatner's a ham" card.

Meanwhile, if he wasn't the caliber of actor he is - among others - we wouldn't even be talking about a TV series (or for that matter, a worldwide pop culture touchstone) from forty years ago.

Not to mention the fact that at last count...Spock was alive...while Kirk was dead.

Flash back to the early eighties. Now so willing to leave Spock dead?

The whole "Generations" dog just won't hunt, because Shatner's absolutely right on that one. It's sci fi - there are always possibilities.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Borgminister said:

PKTrekGirl said:

I'm by no means saying that Nimoy has shunned the spotlight...but there is no denying that he has been WAY more discriminating about it than has Shatner.

Oh... artsy fartsy...

Point is, both men are doing what they love to do, as dictated by their personalities and interests.

One's more introverted, the other ... not so much. But I believe both to be the genuine article, not fakes.

Agreed.

 

[Noname Given]

Ares said:
Actually he didn't kill Kirk, I think it was B&B, but unless Abrams had/has a good way of bringing him back to life that wouldn't make the Trek community scream I say leave him off.

Well, either way, William Shatner agreed to what they did by participating in that film. As you recall, Leonard Nimoy looked at the 'Generations' script and declined to participate. I'm sure William Shatner could have lobbied for them to leave his character an 'out' (like what was done for 'Mr. Spock' in 'Star Trek II:TWoK'; and even 'Data' in 'Nemesis'.

William Shatner agreed with the decision to kill James T. Kirk by participating in that film. So he's just as guilty as Brannon Braga and Ron Moore (funny how people seem to forget he too wrote 'Generations').

Again, I applaud J.J. Abrams for doing the movie the way he wants, without bowing to outside forces. The problem with the later Star Trek franchise films was the various 'laundry lists' of what it 'must have' REGARDLESS of what effect it would have on the overall story that the writers/producers would really like to tell.

If the older Spock fits the story that J.J. Abrams wants to present, great. That 'Kirk' doesn't fit is fine, and honestly, I'm happy that the character isn't being shoehorned in to 'make William Shatner and his fans happy'.

I'd like to see a good story in a Star Trek film again; and I do hope J.J. Abrams' script is a good story. But time will tell.

 

[Superman]

PKTrekGirl,

Shatner isn't a "media whore." The man enjoys working. He isn't so well off that he can just retire, at least I don't think he is.

Even if that is the case, the man loves his work. What you label as "hamminess" is in fact the passion and spirit that Shatner naturally possesses.

He infused James T. Kirk with this spirit, and it was sorely lacking in every one of the Trek spin-offs, with the exception of some aspects of DS9.

Any new Trek endeavor needs that spirit of energy, passion, and optimism, as well as the sense of fun Shatner brings to his roles.

I think it's a shame that even long-time Trek fans can't see that A) William Shatner is an extremely talented actor and B) he's got a personality and energy that has truly made Star Trek.

And that's not ego, it's truth. Nimoy and Kelley are/were great, but Shatner was the heart of the series and films, indeed, the heart of Trek.

If you don't have him, you don't have heart. Or perhaps more accurately, if you don't seek to have that spirit, you don't have Trek.

Roddenberry and his successors bled any spirit and wonder out of Trek from TNG on. Picard, Janeway, and Archer and their crews were bland, lifeless, and ultimately shallow characters, despite their length of exposure.

This project needs to get Bill Shatner, even if he's just an executive producer. They need his insight and his personality.

I still think there's something up with all of this, and Bill's going to be in the film, somehow...

Z\S/

 

[Kegek]

Zombie Superman said:
Roddenberry and his successors bled any spirit and wonder out of Trek from TNG on. Picard, Janeway, and Archer and their crews were bland, lifeless, and ultimately shallow characters, despite their length of exposure.

I still like Picard better. We're a dying breed, our voice cries out in the wilderness, but we shall not be silent! He's got a depth and integrity I've always admired.

But not to resurrect that classic debate, I'd like to say it'd be nice to see Shatner in the film, but it's not a dealbreaker. I'm more interested in whether or not the film is good - William Shatner or no.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

johnconner said:
PKTrekGirl,

Methinks you underplay Nimoy's vanity. But nevertheless, Shatner thrives on attention, but I think he does show tongue in cheek a lot of times that people don't give him credit for. I guess it's too much fun playing the "Shatner's a ham" card.

Well, actually, I base this opinion partially on the way I have seen each of them conduct themselves over the years; partially on the sort, quality, and quality of projects both have been involved with over the years; and finally, partially on the sort of individuals each appeared to be when I heard them speak at Trek cons.

And since I've addressed the first two topics in earlier posts, I'll address the final one here - my impressions of them from Trek Cons.

When I saw Nimoy speak, I found him to be articulate, prepared, and responsive to the fans (except for one very clear wack-job who seemed to blame Nimoy, for reasons that escaped pretty much everyone but him, because he had lost a job working at some local mall kiosk. ). In short, I found him to be someone who was interested in giving the fans value for their money and the time taken to come and hear him talk.

Shatner, on the other hand, was a complete moron. He was completely unprepared, ill-kept (looked like he just crawled out of bed), had nothing to say and so rambled on about nothing in particular. The whole AIR around him spoke the attitude "I don't have to be prepared or even interesting, nor do I have to be concerned with giving ticket-holders value for their money. Because after all, I'm 'The Shat'. Being in the same ROOM with me is value enough."



At this particular convention, there were about 30 - 35 speaking guests (plus several others in the display rooms - this was Vegas con about 3 years ago), including all the Trek captains except for Archer/Bakula.

And out of all the guests, Shatner was the least interesting and the least well-prepared. And certainly when compared with the other three captains, he was a MASSIVE disappointment. Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, and Kate Mulgrew were all FABULOUS. They were funny, interesting, engaging, and prepared. They clearly appreciated the fans and understood that they had a responsibility toward the convention ticket holders.

I saw no evidence of that with Shatner, who stood on stage looking extremely unkept, mumbling on and on about little but nonsense, nearly oblivious to the fans.

At the time, I was standing on Patrick Stewart's autograph line (which was wrapped around the sides of the same huge room where Shatner was speaking)...and I quickly become more interested in watching Patrick Stewart sign autographs than in Shatner's pointless ramblings.

It was pitiful.

And for me, further evidence of the difference between Nimoy's and Shatner's overall attitudes - toward Trek and toward Trek fans.

 

[Kirk the Jerk]

are you guys real? - what sequel/prequel has been good without its main character/actor, NONE! this movie has flop written all over it, the producers should ATLEAST include him init, Pine should play the Kirk before as he is doin but Shatner MUST be in it at some point. It would be like Terminator without Arnie. Look at films like Homealone, after 2 they all flopped, why? Because the main guy wasn't there. Yeh i think Shatner is past it but gosh, an appearance at the very least!! ohh and by the way im back :P

 

[johnconner]

PKTrekGirl said:

And since I've addressed the first two topics in earlier posts, I'll address the final one here - my impressions of them from Trek Cons.

I've heard similar stories, to be honest, but I've seen Shatner twice myself and saw no boorish behavior.

Besides, I always "grain of salt" these kinds of opinions because:

1. Those of us who considered Kirk a role model growing up - rightly or wrongly, depending on how you view being influenced by fictional characters - are often disappointed when our larger-than-life idols turn out to be *gasp* human.

2. The idea that anyone appearing at a Trek convention "preparing" to be anything but themselves is disingenuous at best. What kind of preparing would I - johnconner - have to do if I was going to appear as myself? Seems like that would be up to me. After all, the ad is promoting "William Shatner," not "William Shatner as James T. Kirk." He talked a lot about his horses the last time I saw him, and I couldn't give two shits about that, but you know what? He's William Shatner, and that's what's going on in his life right now.

3. Like it or not, most Trekkers can't help but go in with preconceived notions of how their heroes are supposed to act. I know I'm guilty of it. But because Shatner looked away when he was signing a program, or maybe was cranky because he was up all night with explosive diarrhea, shouldn't make a difference. You paid to be there, he got paid to be there. Personal connecting is a happy byproduct if it happens, but is not guaranteed.

4. The man has been known and revered as James T. Kirk for forty years. What more does he have to do? Maybe that affects him, maybe it doesn't, but I simply can't relate. After all, I don't know what it's like to be Captain Kirk, so judging him on whatever irked, annoyed or overjoyed me that day may not be the best barometer of the truth.

5. Different people have different hot buttons, especially when it comes to courtesy. You may not like his disheveled look, but maybe he's a 70 year old trying to recapture youth a bit with bedhead and stubble. Hell, I don't know. But I know it's a mistake to look for Patrick Stewart-like refined manners or Leonard Nimoy-like grace in regards to Shatner. I simply don't buy the "that's not how Brent Spiner or Connor Trinneer were acting" way of thinking.

Anyway, I got a little long-winded and possibly off-topic, so I apologize for that. And you're welcome to your own point of view, of course. And I could be wrong for all I know and Shatner's a jerk 24/7.

I don't know. And I really don't think any of us do. I just wanted to give a devil's advocate of why "con behavior" might have different sides to it.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

johnconner said:
I don't know. And I really don't think any of us do. I just wanted to give a devil's advocate of why "con behavior" might have different sides to it.

Most Star Trek actors at conventions give the fans what they want. If the fans think Tuvok's navel is something to get excited about, the actors will "be a good sport" and act like it's a big deal to them, too.

It's very obvious to me that most of the actors at conventions are still acting.

In that sense, I think Shatner is "keeping it real" in that he is just being himself on stage, and many people find that jarring.

While other actors are "preaching to the freaks," Shatner is talking to us like we were having a beer with him at the local tavern. Like we were regular guys. And I appreciate this, because I'm a regular guy.

And I think it is actually a compliment that he speaks to us that way, because he is treating us like he would treat his peers. He assumes that we "get it." (He is also massively wrong about that. Most of us don't get it.)

Shatner is a very sensitive guy with a lot of insecurities, and as such, he talks in a way that overcompensates by sounding arrogant and obnoxious. It has become apparent in his later years that most of his comments are self-effacing or tongue-in-cheek. He is assuming that we "get the joke."

This humor is lost on most of us for several reasons.

Just a few: a) When these comments are seen in print, they lose the tone and flow of normal conversation and sound much more literal; b) Many Trekkies are extremely sensitive and/or have very poorly developed senses of humor (which is very noticeable on this board); c) Many posters have a lot of Shatner Baggage (they hate him for various reasons, Scotty told them to, or maybe they think Takei got screwed out of a two-minute scene because Shatner's scene was deemed more important); or d) Maybe Shatner is just a dick.

I think Shatner is a warm, decent, funny, insecure guy whose attempts at humor are often misunderstood. His attempts to be charming and self-effacing often backfire. I think he doesn't realize that, and when he finds out later it puzzles him. He genuinely doesn't understand why people don't like him. He's coming from the right place, but his behaviors are sending off incredibly mixed signals.

Ten years ago, his insecurities had him bundled so tight that he really came off sounding like a dick, and he was understandably trying to distance himself from Star Trek, which made it all the worse for the Trekkies. But that's normal human behavior. Nobody wants to be typecast.

But in his later years, he has mellowed. He has "embraced his cheese factor," much like Hasselhoff has. And it has made him much more approachable.

I have friends who are exactly like Shatner. They're great guys, but whenever they try to be cute, we all cringe. We know what he meant, but why did he have to say it like that?

 

[seigezunt]

re con behavior:

The last time I saw him live, was the only time, at one of the college shows he did in the mid-70s. Granted, I was 11, but I thought he did a great job, and didn't seem TOO smug. But then, he was starving, and knew to work the crowd at that point. Still didn't get an autograph, though...

 

[johnconner]

Zuni Fetish Doll said:
I have friends who are exactly like Shatner. They're great guys, but whenever they try to be cute, we all cringe. We know what he meant, but why did he have to say it like that?

Great point. In fact, your whole post was excellent.

It seems Shatner truly is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Zombie Superman said:
Any new Trek endeavor needs that spirit of energy, passion, and optimism, as well as the sense of fun Shatner brings to his roles.

I think it's a shame that even long-time Trek fans can't see that A) William Shatner is an extremely talented actor and B) he's got a personality and energy that has truly made Star Trek.

And that's not ego, it's truth. Nimoy and Kelley are/were great, but Shatner was the heart of the series and films, indeed, the heart of Trek.

If you don't have him, you don't have heart. Or perhaps more accurately, if you don't seek to have that spirit, you don't have Trek.

I think you are under the mistaken impression that I dislike Shatner.

I don't.

In fact, I quite like him. I liked him as Kirk in TOS and in most of the feature films (until I felt he was getting too old to REALLY be pulling off some of the fighting he did)...and I LOVE him as Denny Crane on Boston Legal. In fact, can't get ENOUGH Denny Crane. :thumbsup:

However, I also call 'em as I see 'em. And as much as I LIKE Shatner as an actor and DO think he is talented, I do NOT think he is perfect - not as an actor, and ESPECIALLY not as an individual. Nor do I think I should be required to think as much, simply to please YOU or anyone else who views any fan who doesn't look at everything Shatner does thru rose colored glasses as 'not having the spirit of Trek'.

I don't think Shatner-worship is a necessary component to 'possessing the spirit of Trek'.

And sorry...but if you took a poll of Trek fans, I think you would find that my characterizing him as a media whore is a majority opinion. In fact, I'm hard pressed to actually CALL it an 'opinion'...because it's so utterly blatant. Up to and INCLUDING this latest media feeding frenzy.

Not saying he should stop, because frankly, I don't give a rats ass if he's in this movie or not. In fact, very little about this film actually matters to me, EXCEPT that they keep their mitts off of DS9.

But regardless..I honestly don't think you can paint Shatner's conduct over the years with the same brush that you paint Nimoy's. To me, they are as different as night and day.

Which was the whole point of my previous few posts.

 

[Noname Given]

Kirk the Jerk said:
are you guys real? - what sequel/prequel has been good without its main character/actor, NONE! this movie has flop written all over it, the producers should ATLEAST include him init, Pine should play the Kirk before as he is doin but Shatner MUST be in it at some point. It would be like Terminator without Arnie. Look at films like Homealone, after 2 they all flopped, why? Because the main guy wasn't there. Yeh i think Shatner is past it but gosh, an appearance at the very least!! ohh and by the way im back :P

Umm, Captain Kirk (one of the main characters) IS in the movie; he's just not being played by William Shatner.

And, by your logic, the SUCCESSFUL 'James Bond' film franchise should have gone down in flames back in 1967 (or 1971 if you consider the one Bond film Sean Connery came back for after skipping one). Funny how its lasted 36-40 years beyond those dates; and is STILL going strong with 4 actors taking over the 'Bond' role after Sean Connery hung his Walther PPK.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Noname Given said:
Umm, Captain Kirk (one of the main characters) IS in the movie; he's just not being played by William Shatner.

Yeah, that guy is not going to be Captain Kirk until he proves to (at least some of) us that he's Captain Kirk. Until then, he's Chris Pine.

 

[ktanner3]

William Shatner agreed with the decision to kill James T. Kirk by participating in that film. So he's just as guilty as Brannon Braga and Ron Moore (funny how people seem to forget he too wrote 'Generations').

Agreed. Shatner didn't think twice about killing his character, so deal he can deal with it.

Again, I applaud J.J. Abrams for doing the movie the way he wants, without bowing to outside forces. The problem with the later Star Trek franchise films was the various 'laundry lists' of what it 'must have' REGARDLESS of what effect it would have on the overall story that the writers/producers would really like to tell.

Agree again. Nemesis got changed multiple times because of the egos of Brent Spiner and Patrick Stewart. The great thing about casting unkowns is that they have no leverage whatsoever to say "I know more about this character than the writer, change it."

If the older Spock fits the story that J.J. Abrams wants to present, great. That 'Kirk' doesn't fit is fine, and honestly, I'm happy that the character isn't being shoehorned in to 'make William Shatner and his fans happy'.

Shatner has always been a consistent prick about the number of lines he has in a film and if his fellow cast members lose screen time because of it, oh well. And to the poster earlier who wonders why Nimoy is given slack for wanting to be in this film and not Shatner: Nimoy is willing to accept a cameo for the good of the picture,Shatner will not.

I'd like to see a good story in a Star Trek film again; and I do hope J.J. Abrams' script is a good story. But time will tell.

Agreed. Lets see the finished product or at least get a peek at the synopsis before declaring the picture dead. And if a small contigency of shatner groupies want to boycott the film because the powers that be won't get down and worship at the holy grail of their king because he isn't given the chance to hog the limelight, then too bad.

 

[johnconner]

ktanner3 said:Agreed. Shatner didn't think twice about killing his character, so deal he can deal with it.

By that logic, neither did Nimoy with TWOK. He didn't have to "deal with it," at least not for long. For sure not as long as Shatner.

Shatner has always been a consistent prick about the number of lines he has in a film and if his fellow cast members lose screen time because of it, oh well. And to the poster earlier who wonders why Nimoy is given slack for wanting to be in this film and not Shatner: Nimoy is willing to accept a cameo for the good of the picture,Shatner will not.

See, now I'm confused. ---->

Generations - Nimoy refuses to participate, feeling that his part is not substantial enough, and would constitute a glorified "cameo." Under this umbrella, you could also say "not enough lines compared to others."

How's Nimoy different again?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

johnconner said:
How's Nimoy different again?

It's very simple.

He hates Shatner. The end.

In court, his credibility would be completely destroyed by his obvious bias. The same is the case here.

Check his signature if there isn't enough bias dripping off of any of his other posts.

 

[Jonesy]

johnconner said:
Three points:

1. I wonder if those who point to GENERATIONS and say "Deal with it, Shatner!" have the slightest problem with them bringing Spock back from the dead in the 80s. Seems pretty even, you ask me.

Well, that would necessitate basically turning a substantial amount of screentime and story focus on whatever contrived nonsense Shatner would likely contribute to to make that happen.

 

[ktanner3]

See, now I'm confused. ---->

Generations - Nimoy refuses to participate, feeling that his part is not substantial enough, and would constitute a glorified "cameo." Under this umbrella, you could also say "not enough lines compared to others."

How's Nimoy different again?

Nimoy only does the Spock role when he thinks the writing is clever and his character has an important function.That's why he did "Unification" and not "Generations". And I think we can all agree that he made a wise decision.All Nimoy said was that he felt his character was given a proper send off in "The Undiscovered Country" and he didn't feel the spock role as written for "Generations"was neccesary to the movie.That was it. He didn't run to the media and throw a big hissy fit by saying "Well, that was not a very wise business decision on their part by not offering me a bigger role than a cameo." It's a little something called class.