Shatner talks Trek XI on CNN.com
- Thread starter CaptainDonovin
- Start date
K
ktanner3
Guest
Shatner good box office? What drugs is he on? . The last movie you starred in that broke a hundred million was Star Trek 4 over 20 years ago.Miss Congeiniality doesn't count either.
Before Boston Legal, no one outside of Trekland knew who he was other than that annoying priceline.com guy with no talent.
The movie will sink and swim on whether or not the story is good and the New actors do a bang up job with their roles. Shatner won't make a differnce.
^ Well, it's sort of a ridiculous comment anyway, because he is mainly talking about old-time Trek fans there - not Boston Legal fans, who likely would prefer he just stay Denny Crane.
But that same sub-set of old-time Trek fans are already being brought in by Nimoy.
So that dog don't hunt.
But that same sub-set of old-time Trek fans are already being brought in by Nimoy.
So that dog don't hunt.
K
ktanner3
Guest
I fail to see why they would be sad. They should have shed all their tears 13 years ago when Kirk died in Generations.To rewrite another ridiculous device that brings back Shatner as Kirk just for the new movie would undermine it. Your dead Jim. Rest in piece.
He had a chance to come back to Trek on Enterprise season 4. His co-writers on his novels were working on the show and they could have written a story for him to appear, but he blew it.
I have no sympathy for him if, in fact,it turns out that this is not a publicity stunt.
I have no sympathy for him if, in fact,it turns out that this is not a publicity stunt.
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.
2. Shatner is no longer just a "Trek" star, so yes, his box office would matter. He, along with Nimoy, have ascended to "pop culture icons." Ask any non-Trekkie who played Captain Kirk, and I'll bet more often than not they can tell you. And no, judging his B.O. potential by "Miss Congeniality" and the like is NOT a good measuring stick; this is a Star Trek film with Captain Kirk. More than just "Trekkies" know who that is.
3. IMO, I don't think any one of the big three - Kirk, Spock or McCoy - work that well without the others, dramatically speaking. McCoy is obviously out, but Nimoy by himself "embodying" the old Trek? Would lack something, IMO.
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.
2. Shatner is no longer just a "Trek" star, so yes, his box office would matter. He, along with Nimoy, have ascended to "pop culture icons." Ask any non-Trekkie who played Captain Kirk, and I'll bet more often than not they can tell you. And no, judging his B.O. potential by "Miss Congeniality" and the like is NOT a good measuring stick; this is a Star Trek film with Captain Kirk. More than just "Trekkies" know who that is.
3. IMO, I don't think any one of the big three - Kirk, Spock or McCoy - work that well without the others, dramatically speaking. McCoy is obviously out, but Nimoy by himself "embodying" the old Trek? Would lack something, IMO.
I'm fine either way.
I just think it would be cool to see him as Kirk "one more time," but only in a way that used him well. Cetainly not at any cost. I've suggested at least one method.
I won't lose any sleep if he's not in it.
I've heard the story idea Berman had. It was beyond stupid.
Shatner's own idea was much better, but nowhere near essential.
Shatner would have to have been retarded to go with Berman's idea, no matter how much they offered to pay him.
K
ktanner3
Guest
Actually yes I do. But for the time it was done in a clever way that we hadn't seen before. To do it again with a human would make death of popular characters meaningless in Star Trek and every time a popular character dies from here on out, no one will take it seriously.
Just because a few non-trekkies might know of shatner, that doesn't mean they'll flock to the big screen to see him. We already have Captain Kirk in this film. Just not the old and past his prime shatner. Seriously, didn't he seem a little long in the tooth by the time of Generations to be playing the role? It was almost laughable watching him taking on Malcolm McDowell, who was in far better shape physically that Shatner was.It was like watching one of those past their prime musicians from the 60s who can barely crawl themselves on stage to perform trying to make us believe that they still got it.
I agree that the big three work best together, but since Kelley has sadly passed on , why not just do Spock? If he's reminicing for a few minutes and then we flashback to the beginning, it would work. Only if they were planning on giving him big amounts of screen time would I say that Spock needs Kelley and Shatner.
This is probably the worst argument I have seen so far as to why Shatner should not be in the film.
K
ktanner3
Guest
He's not coming back. His character is dead at the end of Generations and the makers of the new movie aren't about to waste screen time just to bring him back. Learn to accept it.
The new movie should be about the Temporal Police coming to Spock, and telling them that Picard violated the temporal timeline. In 'Generations', Picard lost his initial fight with Soran, the Enterprise and her crew, were destroyed, and Picard ended up in the Nexus. By coming back, with Kirk, Picard changed the timeline. (Of course, if he hadn't, there would have been no one to go back and battle the Borg in 'First Contact'). Also, has anyone ever considered that Picard is, himself, still in the Nexus, believing he came back, and living his life they way he would believe was best for him? There always are possibilities... 
As of this moment, none of us knows if he is coming back or not. And as I have suggested elsewhere (geniusly, of course), it can be done with zero explanation and zero time "wasted."
And if they don't bring him back, I'm fine with that too.
Learn to open your mind.
K
ktanner3
Guest
Re: Shatner talks Trek XI on CNN.com *DELETED*
Post deleted by ktanner3
Post deleted by ktanner3
K
ktanner3
Guest
Um....Okay. He just made a big stink about not being in it. He's not going to be in it. I fail to see how him saying "I won't be in it" translates to "I will be in it" to anyone but the delusional.
I now have a new number one reason for wanting Shatner to be in the film.
Be sure to come back here after he does.
In the words of Shatner as Kirk: "Sounds like fun." :thumbsup:
K
ktanner3
Guest
It will be great fun because shatner won't be in it. :thumbsup:
Who's to say that Abrams' solution wouldn't be "cleverer?"
If bringing back ST characters from the dead make their death meaningless, then I submit that Spock's fits that bill as well. And we took him seriously after that, didn't we? Of course we did.
Just because a few non-trekkies might know of shatner, that doesn't mean they'll flock to the big screen to see him. We already have Captain Kirk in this film. Just not the old and past his prime shatner. Seriously, didn't he seem a little long in the tooth by the time of Generations to be playing the role? It was almost laughable watching him taking on Malcolm McDowell, who was in far better shape physically that Shatner was.It was like watching one of those past their prime musicians from the 60s who can barely crawl themselves on stage to perform trying to make us believe that they still got it.
[/QUOTE] Actually, the LAST thing they should do is put Old Shatner in a "mano-y-mano" fight. But that doesn't mean that there isn't dramatic room for someone "long in the tooth." In fact, given the younger cast, it could bring things into sharper focus, emotionally and logistically.
I agree that the big three work best together, but since Kelley has sadly passed on , why not just do Spock? If he's reminicing for a few minutes and then we flashback to the beginning, it would work. Only if they were planning on giving him big amounts of screen time would I say that Spock needs Kelley and Shatner.
[/QUOTE]
I've got a feeling the part is more substantial than that. I don't mean by any stretch that the film is on his shoulders, but I doubt this is a cameo. It could work - done the right way, and none of us knows what that might be at this point - but it could also be too much Spock, not enough counter-ballast. Just thinking out loud here.
I admit the Shatner-hate baffles me a bit. A few months ago wasn't there a sizeable faction insisting that Shatner had to be in the film?
And even assuming this trend has dissipated and died a slow death, so what if Shatner's whining about not being in the movie? Because if he's right, he's not in the movie and it affects nothing. And if he's wrong, he's in the movie and it still affects nothing. (His performance and how his appearance is handled would be key).
Can't we direct our hatred at the people who, even now, are making decisions about the film? Much more productive bashing, I assure you. Look at Star Wars fans: They direct all their hate squarely at Lucas.
And even assuming this trend has dissipated and died a slow death, so what if Shatner's whining about not being in the movie? Because if he's right, he's not in the movie and it affects nothing. And if he's wrong, he's in the movie and it still affects nothing. (His performance and how his appearance is handled would be key).
Can't we direct our hatred at the people who, even now, are making decisions about the film? Much more productive bashing, I assure you.
Look at Star Wars fans: They direct all their hate squarely at Lucas.Similar threads
