Why not just bring back Kirk before Star Trek XI?

[Therin of Andor]

martin said:
The way I would have brought him back, would have been to include a scene between old Spock and old Kirk, set just before Kirk set off to the Enterprise B's launch. Perhaps they could of had an argument which led to Spock's non attendance

Which Hollywood plastic surgeon do you recommend to get Shatner looking even a little bit like he did in "Generations"?

 

[mswood]

martin said:
On Speculation...

The way I would have brought him back, would have been to include a scene between old Spock and old Kirk, set just before Kirk set off to the Enterprise B's launch. Perhaps they could of had an argument which led to Spock's non attendance, relating to Spock's intention to pursue re-unification between the Vulcans and Romulans.

This could have also linked into the Romulan plot of the movie...

And you explain the vast increase in their age how?

You understand that the people complained about the physical difference in appearance in Jonathan Frakes and Marina Siritis on Enterprise on a television screen. Its been 14 years since Shatner was shooting Generations. Thats a big age difference (more so then the end of the series to the Motionless Picture).

Fans laughed and ragged on the 12 years of difference in their age on Enterprise. Why would fans (not to mention the far larger number of casual viewer) not do so even more with Shatner?

They can use Nimoy because they can set the beginning in a place of time that logically fits his advancing years.

When you write or produce any work the absolute last thing you want (if you are any good) is not to do anything that pulls your audience out of the story.

In science fiction and Fantasy films you have to be even more cautious since often times your own fictional setting is often enough to make people not treat it seriously.

One of the reasons Star Trek II was so awesome, is that it took itself very seriously. It showed the actors being older, the humor wasn't forced.

Using Shatner in any real way as Kirk would 1. eat up addition screen time and budget. 2. Would make the plot even more fare out pushing the level of acceptance.

Using Shatner as another character would still cost far more than another random actor for that role, and would take people out of the experience.

Understand that there is a vast audience that finds "older Trek" out and out laughable.

I can easily remember seeing previews for Trek V, VI and Generations where the audience out and out laughed at the characters and their age.

Paramount has always estimate the number of Trek fans (not casual viewers) to be about a million people. The producers need far, far, far more people to watch this film.

 

[Tai]

I think what's being ignored here is the fact that JJ Abrams has decided that out of ALL the Star Trek stories in this vast and rich universe to tell, he will tell a story that involves JAMES T. KIRK.

Inevitably, the question arises as to how William Shatner could be involved, and why he is not.

I was 14 years old when I watched Generations. I had seen no TOS episodes. I never cared about Kirk. I only caught up on TOS through Sci-Fi channel viewings. I had totally made my peace with Kirk being totally and completely 100% dead.

But this movie has young Spock and old Spock, young Kirk and... ...that's it. It makes me raise my eyebrows. And ALL the press I'm hearing, and all the headlines I'm reading about this movie from JJ are not "Oh Chris Pine is amazing, oh Simon Pegg is so funny." it's "This is why William Shatner is not in the movie. This is the only reason he's not included."

And I'm like, Jeez, it doesn't take a fanboy to bring him back. Of ALL the things in Star Trek canon that hardcore fans would let slide with an even semi-sensible explanation... bringing back Captain Kirk is IT.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

They are bringing back Captain Kirk. But Shatner isn't playing him. Shatner/Old Kirk could be worked in somehow, I imagine, but I'd rather they not shoe-horn him in just because they can, or just to please a section of fandom.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Woulfe said:
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 *

Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

- STC -
* Bites his own tongue so he doesn't ruin PKTrekGirl's night by saying what he really thinks *

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Starship Polaris said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:

archeryguy1701 said:
Trek has rolled along just fine in 4 series and 3-soon-to-be-4 movies without him.

Agreed. Rolled right into a pit of oblivion.

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.

Overreact much?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Overreact much?

Never. "Pit of oblivion" is such a...measured term, after all. No overstatement there.

I wouldn't want to get in the way of anyone defending the good Captain's sacred honor in every thread, though. Carry on.

 

[darkshadow0001]

From what I understand the reasoning why Abrams is not bringing back Kirk, (because he died onscreen) I think is rediculous. He could very well bring him back, if Spock could be brought back, so could Kirk...

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Starship Polaris said:
I wouldn't want to get in the way of anyone defending the good Captain's sacred honor in every thread, though. Carry on.

Is that what I've been doing? I thought I was just giving Shatner a little credit, something that has obviously (and oddly) become controversial (at a Star Trek website, no less). I'll have to go double check every single thread, just to make sure you aren't exaggerating.

In any event, anytime you post more than two or three sentences, I know I've touched a nerve.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

darkshadow0001 said:
From what I understand the reasoning why Abrams is not bringing back Kirk, (because he died onscreen) I think is rediculous. He could very well bring him back, if Spock could be brought back, so could Kirk...

Yeah, he could. But that's not what the film is about & Abrams and Co. felt that there was no way to bring him back that worked well within the confines of the story they want to tell. Personally, I'd rather have a good quality Star Trek without Shatner than a sub-par Trek movie with the Shat shoe-horned in for the hell of it. The movie has James T. Kirk and the Enterprise. I'm happy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Is that what I've been doing? I thought I was just not flipping the bird to Shatner. I'll have to go double check every single thread, just to make sure you aren't exaggerating.

In any event, anytime you post more than two or three sentences, I know I've touched a nerve.

Is that what you're doing? Provoking people for the fun of it?

I really may have to sue for infringement.

In any event, your intuition plays you false in this case. There's no one in this forum these days who gives the appearance of taking L'affaire Shatner as seriously as you do (well, no one not currently banned). It's really uncharacteristic, and surprising...you're generally much more adroit at deconstructing idolatry than defending it.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Starship Polaris said:

Samuel T. Cogley said:
In any event, anytime you post more than two or three sentences, I know I've touched a nerve.

Is that what you're doing? Provoking people for the fun of it?

Usually, yes. But not this time.

I really may have to sue for infringement.

Don't forget to show damages. Everyone always forgets to show damages.

In any event, your intuition plays you false in this case. There's no one in this forum these days who gives the appearance of taking L'affaire Shatner as seriously as you do. It's really uncharacteristic, and surprising...you're generally much more adroit at deconstructing other folks' shiboleths than defending one.

I guess I'm just not as jaded as I thought I was -- as I'm supposed to be, as a Star Trek fan.

I'm so obsessed with defending Shatner (or was it Kirk?) that I'm even considering quoting Mr. Shatner in the signature of every one of my posts, in hopes of getting a rise out of the people who don't like him.

In any event, you have inspired me to write another long-winded Cogley thread. (Coming soon.) You have only yourself to blame.

(First I have to go consume large amounts of alcohol and flirt with women far younger than I am by telling them how impressive I am. Maybe I do have something in common with Mr. Shatner, after all.)

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

We're going to have to stop editing our posts for long enough to allow each other to respond. It's so hard, though, when we both so love the sound of our own voices.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Maybe I do have something in common with Mr. Shatner, after all.

When I was growing up I wanted to be just like Captain Kirk. And now I'm 34 years old with a receding hairline. Looks like I got my wish...

 

[Superman]

Woulfe said:
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 *

For the record, no one here thinks he's a "god."

However, we clearly have more respect for him than you do, given your comments about him, and we also realize that the humanity, sense of wonder, and charm he brought to the role of Captain James T. Kirk is something that has been woefully lacking from Star Trek since Kirk was killed off.

\S/

*Adopting Woulfe's annoying habit of writing a new "signature" after every post*

 

[James Bond]

Jesus. What are you people going to do when Shatner finally does kick the bucket??

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

James Bond said:
Jesus. What are you people going to do when Shatner finally does kick the bucket??

Pretty much what I'm doing now. Not shit on him. You?

 

[Superman]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

James Bond said:
Jesus. What are you people going to do when Shatner finally does kick the bucket??

Pretty much what I'm doing now. Not shit on him. You?

Cogs, have I ever told you how much I love you?

We're on the same page, my friend.

Keep being you.

\S/

 

[James Bond]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

James Bond said:
Jesus. What are you people going to do when Shatner finally does kick the bucket??

Pretty much what I'm doing now. Not shit on him. You?

Accepting the fact that Shat's Kirk is dead; dead and buried, not obsessing about this "Shat must be in nuTrek08DeltaXI" stuff, and looking forward to what looks to be an awesome movie.

Edit: Oh and my original post wasn't directed at you or Dennis, Cogs. It was towards the OP and other like minded individuals.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Superman said:
Cogs, have I ever told you how much I love you?

Please, Superman. Not in front of the Klingons.