shatner will be in XI

[cwalrus2]

I think the studio might put pressure on Abrams to put Shatner in the movie simply because they know more fans will see it. As it stands, only real hardcore trek fans want to see this movie (myself included), but by including Shatner, you have a little more crossover potential by getting audience members who know him from Boston Legal or are aware of him as a pop culture icon but who might have little interest in Star Trek as a franchise.

Abrams has been adament that he won't put Shatner in the film because there's no room for him in the story and that he doesn't want to just do a "fanboy" movie and just have shatner for the sake of having shatner. I hope he stand by his convictions. I guess only time will tell.

I have a feeling that Paramount pushed the release date back in hopes that Abrams might compromise.

 

[Therin of Andor]

RobertScorpio said:
Shatner by far, and no one is even close, is the most popular person to come from Trek. He is far more popular than Nimoy-Roddenberry-Stewart-Spiner..anyone. Some of you will try to deny this but it just is not debateable.

You are wrong. One of Shatner's sticking points with TOS was that Nimoy, the co-star - who was paid much less than Shatner - received more fanmail and more publicity. Look at the titles of early ST tie-in novels: "Spock Must Die!", "Spock: Messiah!" and "Vulcan!"

Nimoy refused to participate in "ST: Phase II" and ST:TMP, until Robert Wise insisted they couldn't proceed without him, and Nimoy was able to negotiate his infamous "favoured nations" equal pay deal to match Shatner's salary.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I could see a reason to keep Shat under wraps until the release. It would be a good way to get word of mouth publicity from Shatner fans who are there openning weekend and see him in the film would talk about it. Possibly some gossip shows would run with the "how did you manage to keep that secret" -- because in the age of the internet, it's hard to keep people from finding out every little detail about the film. So getting a story about a major unrevealed character and a fairly big star being in the movie and no one knowing might actually be good PR.

I don't know if he's in or out. I have a suspicion that people would want to try this for surprise and tie ins and so on. I could see why you might want to leave him out as well.

Wait and see.

 

[cwalrus2]

The problem is that Kirk died in Generations, and they dont want to spend half the movie explaining why he's back when they have a new and entirely different story to tell. I'm with Abrams on this even if it means less people will see it.

 

[James Bond]

FleetLord said:
For something funny: http://www.bringbackshatner.com

That was perhaps the greatest thing in the history of everything. This thread has been won.

 

[DeafPoet]

cwalrus2 said:
I'm with Abrams on this even if it means less people will see it.

I'm with Abrams on this too. But I don't think fewer people will see it as a result of Shatner's exclusion. Trekkies argue about this shit endlessly obviously but for the average dude the rationalization's going to go something like this: "Shatner's not in this thing because it wasn't in the fucking script. Good enough for me." And life goes on.

 

[Tralah]

Even with the extra 5 months, I doubt they'd be doing a serious rewriting of the script to work Shatner into a story in a meaningful way. I'm sure it'd be possible for them to insert a cameo though, but Shatner has said he doesn't do them. I suppose there's a CHANCE he might change his mind though, but I kind of doubt it personally. It'd be a nice surprise but I don't think movie's success or failure is going to hinge on finding some way to put Shatner in. Nimoy as Spock is probably just as recognizable to the general public as Shatner's Kirk.

 

[Superman]

Belar said:
No, he won't.

PROVE IT.

If you can't, kindly stop talking with such an air of "I know what I'm talking about."

And no, I can't disprove it, either.

But I'm not going around telling people "Shatner will DEFINITELY appear in this movie."

\S/

 

[Cary L. Brown]

M´Sharak said:

archeryguy1701 said:
So, anyone else like to beat this dead horse? I think it's still got a little life in it.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g223/mudshark58/comment/deadhorse.jpg

Is it still Bring Your Own Stick?

Urk....

And I was starting to think about DINNER, too...

(is there a smiley for "hurling???")

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Ovation said:
This is largely fueled by the end of the writer's strike (they COULD alter the script to include him) AND the delay in release (they COULD have time to re-shoot with him). There is no sound reason for this to happen, but as long as the possibility exists, there will be those who clamour for it.

There are several sound reasons for it to happen. That doesn't mean that it will happen or should happen, but to say "there is no sound reason" is just silly.

Okay... I'm sorry, I just can't resist...


QFT!!!

(ducking and running like hell...)

Seriously, your point is exactly what I was going to say... you beat me to it.

 

[Ovation]

Cary L. Brown said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Ovation said:
This is largely fueled by the end of the writer's strike (they COULD alter the script to include him) AND the delay in release (they COULD have time to re-shoot with him). There is no sound reason for this to happen, but as long as the possibility exists, there will be those who clamour for it.

There are several sound reasons for it to happen. That doesn't mean that it will happen or should happen, but to say "there is no sound reason" is just silly.

Okay... I'm sorry, I just can't resist...


QFT!!!

(ducking and running like hell...)

Seriously, your point is exactly what I was going to say... you beat me to it.

I see that my failure to proofread has led to some confusion. There is no sound FINANCIAL reason to do so (I don't buy the notion that it will make less money if Shatner is not in it). I don't see a compelling reason for it either, but I can imagine several ways it COULD be done (and I'm not opposed to it being done, just don't think it's necessary). Is that better?

 

[JoeZhang]

DeafPoet said:
the rationalization's going to go something like this: "Shatner's not in this thing because it wasn't in the fucking script. Good enough for me." And life goes on.

Isn't it going to be more basic than that? "hey the lasers and shit look cool in that trailer", I doubt any normal person is going to give two shits that shatner is in it.

 

[S'kai]

RobertScorpio said:
I have said this from day one, and I continue to say it. Shatner will be in this movie.

. . . and Paul is dead.

 

[VOODOOXI]

I think many people here under estimate the general publics understanding of Star Trek. Many people outside these boards only care about Star Trek if Shatner + Nimoy are involved.

It's become trendy here to bash Shatner, but before you do take a look at a recent USA Today poll where 70% of the general public said they wanted Shatner back as Kirk in the new film.

Don't get me wrong I think the film could do very well without Shatner, but on the other hand I do think that you can make an argument that Shatner would bring something to the film.

What is the downside of having Shatner in the film? Before you say it, please spare me the following arguments.

1/ Shatner will be a distraction -(maybe if you are retarded)

2/ Kirk died -(as has every major character in ST history)

3/ Shatner took the money + killed off Kirk (first of all so what? secondly, didn't Nimoy do the same thing and then get an entire movie to correct his mistake? It's ok for Nimoy but not for Shatner?)

4/ It's not in the script - (this is a time travel/alt universe film about a bad guy trying to kill Kirk. Surely they can slip him in somewhere)

5/ He is too old - (Nimoy is the same age + Harrison Ford is playing Indy (much more physical role)at 65 this summer)

6/ It's ridiculous to bring a character back from the dead -(of coarse it's ridiculous, it's Star Trek where characters have their brains removed + then put back + other characters devolve into insects and then are back to normal 15 minutes later)

As Trek fans why wouldn't you want to see Shatner + Nimoy walk off into the sunset as Kirk + Spock one last time? Besides seeing Shatner as Kirk one last time would be fun + would put the icing on the cake for ST XI.

Star Trek XI would be more of an event with both Shatner + Nimoy as opposed to just Nimoy.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I don't believe the delay has anything to do with Shatner. I believe the film was moved to May because of a better earning potential. However, I also believe that the original script called for an appearance from Shatner -- but only for a cameo. I believe Shatner turned it down -- the "I'm not in it" line was the same as Nimoy used for Generations. I believe JJ and Co. were ready (long ago) for this scenario and that the offer for Shatner still sits on the table until the end of this month. I believe it has been posturing on both sides.

I also believe in love and women with big breasts. And I believe that I will have another cup of this delicious wine that I've been sipping on for awhile. Its a merlot called Seven Sinners(?) I do believe. And I believe in Star Trek and the hope and goodnesss that ... aw hell.. but I do believe I'll have some more of this merlot. Who's with me?

 

[VOODOOXI]

FabiusMaximus said:
I don't believe the delay has anything to do with Shatner. I believe the film was moved to May because of a better earning potential. However, I also believe that the original script called for an appearance from Shatner -- but only
for a cameo. I believe Shatner turned it down -- the "I'm not in it" line was the same as Nimoy used for Generations. I believe JJ and Co. were ready (long ago) for this scenario and that the offer for Shatner still sits on the table until the end of this month. I believe it has been posturing on both sides.

I also believe in love and women with big breasts. And I believe that I will have another cup of this delicious wine that I've been sipping on for awhile. Its a merlot called Seven Sinners(?) I do believe. And I believe in Star Trek and the hope and goodnesss that ... aw hell.. but I do believe I'll have some more of this merlot. Who's with me?

Fabius Maximus:
I agree with everything you said. Best post of the week.

 

[Arlo]

VOODOOXI said:
I think many people here under estimate the general publics understanding of Star Trek. Many people outside these boards only care about Star Trek if Shatner + Nimoy are involved.

The general public might "understand" Star Trek, but they don't give a damn about Shatner and Nimoy being in this movie, because, by definition, they AREN'T FANS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

VOODOOXI said:
I think many people here under estimate the general publics understanding of Star Trek. Many people outside these boards only care about Star Trek if Shatner + Nimoy are involved.

That sure makes "Star Trek" a very sad, small thing for so many people to care about.

 

[Joker]

*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*

SHATNER!

 

[Tralah]

VOODOOXI said:
It's become trendy here to bash Shatner, but before you do take a look at a recent USA Today poll where 70% of the general public said they wanted Shatner back as Kirk in the new film.

I find it hysterical that you're still trotting out that poll as evidence the general public wants Shatner back in the new film. That poll was down to 66% the last I checked, and one only needs to look at the "MSNBC’s Anticipated Movies of 2008, Trek is #3 (In Voting)" to see how easily Internet polls can be manipulated. They AREN'T an accurate way to gauge what the general public really wants. They're essentially just for fun.

It will be a combination of good writing, acting, and advertising that will help bring success more than anything. Shatner's presence is hardly necessary for success nor would it guarantee it.