Why not just bring back Kirk before Star Trek XI?
- Thread starter Tai
- Start date
- Status
I do like the idea of an anime "Star Trek." The old cartoon was neat, and Animation is far more advanced than it was back then. I don't know about it 'Bringing Kirk back,' but, if the new movie does well, I don't see why they can't make an animated tie-in before the sequel. Set it during the Five-Year-Mission and let Shatner voice Kirk. That way EVERYBODY WINS!!!!!!!
Does anyone else besides myself and Biggles remember the Abrams' quote where he clearly says that anything they do to include Shat would do nothing for the story except be massive fanwank? I have no issue with Shatner. I probably would have no issue if Shatner were in the movie. BUT HE'S NOT. And based on that fact alone, I fail to see why we are all in such a tizzy about this. Trek has rolled along just fine in 4 series and 3-soon-to-be-4 movies without him.
So, in conclusion: Leave old Kirk in the ground. Leave Shatner doing whatever Shatner does nowadays. Leave Trek XI without Shat!
So, in conclusion: Leave old Kirk in the ground. Leave Shatner doing whatever Shatner does nowadays. Leave Trek XI without Shat!
Agreed. Rolled right into a pit of oblivion.
I must disagree and say that I rather enjoyed Enterprise and Nemesis. 
Besides, if you must be hatin', there was still TNG, DS9, FC, and possibly INS to be proud of. Without Shat.
Besides, if you must be hatin', there was still TNG, DS9, FC, and possibly INS to be proud of. Without Shat.
I'm not saying that Star Trek cannot exist without Shatner. But it has done far better with him than without him. He should not be too easily dismissed.
IF the SHAT is so freaking great how come Star Trek V : The Ego Frontier sucks eggs to the point that fans want to decanonize it ?
Remember Shatner PRODUCED, DIRECTED, WROTE, and STARRED in this huge flop of a Star Trek film.
Explane THAT !
- W -
* Seroiously explane it, to everyone how that happened *
Remember Shatner PRODUCED, DIRECTED, WROTE, and STARRED in this huge flop of a Star Trek film.
Explane THAT !
- W -
* Seroiously explane it, to everyone how that happened *
Shatner's no Midas, but he has far more hits than misses. (And all of Star Trek V's many failings aside, it has some of the best character moments of the entire series in it.)
As far as we know the entire Universe is, of course, doing the same thing.
You're quibbling about the length of time that it takes, that's all.
To put archeryguy1701's quantification in a different way:
Trek with Shatner: approximately ninety-four hours.
Trek without Shatner: approximately six hundred and forty hours.
Was Trek-featuring-Shatner on an ever-upward trajectory of success, prior to his leaving the Franchise?
No, no it wasn't - his last three appearences stuttered along (ST 5, 6 and 7) in terms of profitability and popularity. The studio didn't wind down the TOS-based movies because of a spasm of Shatner-loathing on the part of some executive; the future was pretty clearly written in the gross-proceeds-versus-cost of the TOS gang's outings.
Did Trek ever achieve the measurable success (popularity of TV series, box office performance of individual films) without Shatner that it did with him?
Yes, it did.
Is there any evidence whatever that Trek would have generated an additional six hundred-plus popular and profitable hours of content post-ST:TUC if Shatner's participation had actually been required in order for the Franchise to prosper?
No, no there's not.
So...one of these days the Sun is apparently going to run through its hydrogen, go on fusing heavier and heavier elements until it grows huge and red and cool and then shrinks and eventually dies. Our best projections are that the entire Universe will come to an end at some point long thereafter. Notwithstanding that, it's kind of uncharitable and pointless to characterize all of our lives as nothing more than a part of the process of everything "rolling into a pit of oblivion," and declaring the Trek Franchise to have done the same as a result of ceasing to employ a particular actor is similarly looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Nicolle Nichloas? :P
^^^
Sorry, Sam, but I present Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as bald faced PROOF that 'Star Trek' has NOT always done better with him, then without him. The entire franchise would be better off if that film never existed - and they basically DID forget all about Star Trek V from Star Trel VI on.
Why are there some fans that think Shatner is GOD ?
He's not GOD, he doesn't need a starship.
A starship doesn't need him.
- W -
* Who's still waiting for an GOOD explanation as to why Star Trek V failed so miserably with Shatner at the helm of it, if he can't be touched by the average shmuck *
He's not GOD, he doesn't need a starship.
A starship doesn't need him.
- W -
* Who's still waiting for an GOOD explanation as to why Star Trek V failed so miserably with Shatner at the helm of it, if he can't be touched by the average shmuck *
Noname Given said:
^^^
Sorry, Sam, but I present Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as bald faced PROOF that 'Star Trek' has NOT always done better with him, then without him. The entire franchise would be better off if that film never existed - and they basically DID forget all about Star Trek V from Star Trel VI on.
Pay attention.
I just finished saying that not everything Shatner touches turns to gold. I also admitted that Star Trek V had a lot of failings.
If Star Trek V proves anything, it proves that Shatner should stay in front of the camera and not behind it. (Plus, the producers of that film have gone on record that everyone involved got a little too caught up in their success on Star Trek IV and rested a little too much on their laurels.)
Everyone here seems to have a Shatner agenda. They love him. They hate him. And their posts are all colored by that agenda.
I have been very entertained by Shatner over the years, and I have stated many times that I am fine with his not being in Star Trek XI (if that is indeed the case).
But the burning of Shatner in effigy that goes on around here is more than a little embarrassing.
There's a good argument to be made that Star Trek would not exist today if it were not for Shatner's contributions. How about a little respect.
Samuel T. Cogley said:
Noname Given said:
^^^
Sorry, Sam, but I present Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as bald faced PROOF that 'Star Trek' has NOT always done better with him, then without him. The entire franchise would be better off if that film never existed - and they basically DID forget all about Star Trek V from Star Trel VI on.
Pay attention.
I just finished saying that not everything Shatner touches turns to gold. I also admitted that Star Trek V had a lot of failings.
If Star Trek V proves anything, it proves that Shatner should stay in front of the camera and not behind it. (Plus, the producers of that film have gone on record that everyone involved got a little too caught up in their success on Star Trek IV and rested a little too much on their laurels.)
Everyone here seems to have a Shatner agenda. They love him. They hate him. And their posts are all colored by that agenda.
I have been very entertained by Shatner over the years, and I have stated many times that I am fine with his not being in Star Trek XI (if that is indeed the case).
But the burning of Shatner in effigy that goes on around here is more than a little embarrassing.
There's a good argument to be made that Star Trek would not exist today if it were not for Shatner's contributions. How about a little respect.
Hey - TOS is my FAVORITE series, period; so, just because I'm not chomping at the bit to see William Shatner reprise the role of 'James T. Kirk'; it doesn't follow that there is any disrespect intended towards William Shatner himself.
That said, MANY THINGS contributed to the overall success that TOS eventually enjoyed (and I would also say that Nimoy's protrayal of 'Mr. Spock' has JUST AS MUCH to do with that as the participation of Mr. Shatner.)
Thus since Leonard Nimoy IS is the film re-prising his role as 'Mr. Spock'; I'd say JJ Abrams IS being somewhat respectful to the 'old guard' as it were. Also remember that no one was holding a gun to William Shatner's head when he agreed to appear as 'James T. Kirk' in a film that he knew would feature the DEATH of the character of 'James T. Kirk' - he only has himself to blame for the choice he made.
Just becaue JJ Abrams has decided he doesn't want to contradict this existing bit of Star Trek canon; or CHANGE the focus of the film (which ressurecting 'old Captain Kirk' would certainly do); I will never understand the fans (or William Shatner homself) when they complain about William Shatner not appear as 'Old Captain Kirk' in the new film.
It's all just plain ridiculous.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
make shatner a red shirt 
News flash : Shatner is not Star Trek never has been never will be ! ( to people who think otherwise )
Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, D.C. Fontana, Robert Justman, Walter "Matt" Jeffries, Fred Fineburger, Et al, are Star Trek.
Shatner didn't create Star Trek, all he did was play Kirk, the writers had more to with Kirk then Shatner did, they put his words on the page that Shatner read from, are you Shatner lovers trying to dis the writers ?
No wonder Writers are on strike if people actually think that actors CREATE these charaters out of thin air, I have news for you they don't bub.
If you must rag on Shatner haters then they have every right to rag the same on Shatner lovers, it's a two way street.
I like the man as much as the next fellow, but LORD he didn't create JACK for Star Trek, the Writers did all that, how dare anyone suggest otherwise !
It's as if Star Trek didn't come to be untill the great GOD Shatner came down from the heavens and suddenly here's Star Trek, what about Jeffery Hunter, hun ? hun ? hun ?
What about Gene Roddenberry and Gen Coon, hun ?
What about D.C. Fontana, what about the rest, hun ?
Crist, if I had a dime for everytime a Shatner lover placed Shatner on a pedistal so freaking high he'd get a nose bleed, i'd be a rich man indeed.
- W -
* Shatner didn't do JACK, the writers made Kirk, not him *
Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, D.C. Fontana, Robert Justman, Walter "Matt" Jeffries, Fred Fineburger, Et al, are Star Trek.
Shatner didn't create Star Trek, all he did was play Kirk, the writers had more to with Kirk then Shatner did, they put his words on the page that Shatner read from, are you Shatner lovers trying to dis the writers ?
No wonder Writers are on strike if people actually think that actors CREATE these charaters out of thin air, I have news for you they don't bub.
If you must rag on Shatner haters then they have every right to rag the same on Shatner lovers, it's a two way street.
I like the man as much as the next fellow, but LORD he didn't create JACK for Star Trek, the Writers did all that, how dare anyone suggest otherwise !
It's as if Star Trek didn't come to be untill the great GOD Shatner came down from the heavens and suddenly here's Star Trek, what about Jeffery Hunter, hun ? hun ? hun ?
What about Gene Roddenberry and Gen Coon, hun ?
What about D.C. Fontana, what about the rest, hun ?
Crist, if I had a dime for everytime a Shatner lover placed Shatner on a pedistal so freaking high he'd get a nose bleed, i'd be a rich man indeed.
- W -
* Shatner didn't do JACK, the writers made Kirk, not him *
Shatner had an early meeting with JJ, and Shatner then declared to the media that he doesn't do cameos. ie. Shatner was only going to be happy with a vital, meaty role in the movie just like Nimoy's.
And the story, and then the script, didn't require him for that. So he locked himself out of negotiations, in the same way he locked himself out of a guest role in ENT. He drew a line in the sand, and refused to budge. he overestimated his value to the project and budget.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
