As much as I like Shatner, I'd rather not see him in the next film even if it is the 50th. Hell, even having Nimoy in the last movie was a cameo too far and yanked me right out of the film.
Last edited:
William Shatner claims he will not be included in ST 3
- Thread starter VOODOOXI
- Start date
Meh, that wasn't even the first time for Scotty. He was killed in 2267 by Nomad, who then brought him back to life a few minutes later. (This, after having nearly been killed by Apollo just one episode earlier.)
If done right having Shatner + Nimoy involved for the 50th anniversary could be epic in the same way Harrison Ford + Mark Hamill's return to the Star Wars will be. It could be used to bring the series full circle. Their involvement would make this film a cultural landmark and not just another Star Trek film. Why not use their legendary status to bring positive attention to the film?
Let's not forget that the Abrams universe exists because of the actions of Spock Prime. It's not as if they would be dropping them into a universe where they have no purpose. Spock Prime in essence created this universe. Surely the writers could come up with a legitimate way to involve Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk + Spock in a universe Spock Prime created.
When news of Shatner's involvement in Orci's version of the film was made public the reaction was nearly universally positive from the mainstream media + general public...I was actually surprised at what a big story it became. I think their involvement would be a public relations home run for a film that is already considered a troubled production.
As long as their return isn't strictly fan service + the actors are given important roles (even if they are small roles) I think it's a no lose scenario for the film and the 50th anniversary.
Let's not forget that the Abrams universe exists because of the actions of Spock Prime. It's not as if they would be dropping them into a universe where they have no purpose. Spock Prime in essence created this universe. Surely the writers could come up with a legitimate way to involve Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk + Spock in a universe Spock Prime created.
When news of Shatner's involvement in Orci's version of the film was made public the reaction was nearly universally positive from the mainstream media + general public...I was actually surprised at what a big story it became. I think their involvement would be a public relations home run for a film that is already considered a troubled production.
As long as their return isn't strictly fan service + the actors are given important roles (even if they are small roles) I think it's a no lose scenario for the film and the 50th anniversary.
The fear is that it that it will not. Like Harrison Ford said to Mark Hamill during production of the original Star Wars, "It's not that kind of movie, kid" when Hamill was concerned that his clothes were clean and his hair was dry after climbing out of the wet and dirty trash compactor.
STID, certainly not. Regrettable, but true. And coming from the same team, it makes Star Trek 11 also suspect (relatedly, see article below about "the Last Sci-Fi Show Hopeful About the Future").
But Star Trek is famously known to the masses and engineers, such as at NASA, and for myself and my chosen profession, as the show that is optimistic about humanity's future. Whenever I make that claim about Star Trek here, I often get retorts that, to paraphrase, say, "Huh?" As if Star Trek was never known for it's optimism or inspiring members of NASA or professionals in other fields of science. I am mystified as to why people on these very forums challenge it, perhaps saying with disturbing cynicism that the claims of optimism come from romanticized memories of the past that aren't really true. So with a little preemptive research, I have some sample quotes from random articles I just found instantly on a search:
"But what dates [The Next Generation] most is its optimism: It was the last pop-culture show that believed, beyond any doubt, that human beings were good and that, liberated by infinite technological progress, we would encounter an infinitely wonderful universe."
...and...
"The zenith of such optimistic science fiction was perhaps the original Star Trek, which presented a vision of humanity that had transcended societal ills like racism and bigotry, resorting to violence only when the situation called for it."
...and...
"[NASA] Astrophysicist Candy Torres credits Star Trek not only for her interest in science, but also for showing her a type of utopia where all races and genders, not to mention species, lived harmoniously on the Enterprise and everybody was valued for their efforts and skills."
Source links:
Star Trek: The Next Generation Was the Last Sci-Fi Show Hopeful About the Future
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31206/star-trek-the-next-generation-future/
Why Did Science Fiction Ditch Optimism for Hopelessness...
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/03/29/where-are-our-bright-science-fiction-futures/
Star Trek inspires tech, careers, and hope for humanity
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/star-trek-inspires-tech-careers-and-hope-for-humanity/
Despite the naysayers, woman goes from Trekkie to NASA engineer
http://www.cnn.com/2011/IREPORT/07/06/torres.shuttle.irpt/index.html
Been hearing the "fear" since oh....let's say 1979. Star Trek is a broad canvas, it can tell all types of stories. It's not as narrowly defined as Star Wars. Star Trek is optimistic, but it doesn't have to wear that optimism on it's sleeve. If fact when it does, it tends to get a little ham-fisted. It's also an action adventure show, Fights, explosions and rayguns going pew pew are also part of Star Trek. It can tackle current issues through the prism of Science Fiction, but it doesn't have to do one or all of those things every time.
So tell me why the last two film don't show an optimistic future? The bad guys ( terrorists and military madmen) lose. Our heroes win. They may not be perfect but they are heroes. Yes lives are lost, but that's not unusal for Star Trek, which has killed ships, cities and planets fulll of people.
Will this version of Trek inspire people to enter the sciences and work for a better future? Hard to say, but then again who knew the past versions would do that in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Check again in 10 or 20 years when today kids are adults.
Last edited:
Not only do the good guys win and the bad guys lose (something I always approve of), but we see characters make positive personal changes in their view of the world. I find STID to be extremely positive in that it showcases the depths that humanity will go to protect itself (Marcus and Khan), and the willingness of self-sacrifice on the part of hero (Kirk and Spock).
Given the Roddenberry push of humanity bettering itself, I would say nuKirk demonstrates that idea of reaching for one's potential.
Does it impact everyone the same way? No, probably not, but neither does any other iteration of Star Trek. Personally, Trek 09 inspired me to be a better father. So, why can't these films inspire people?
For one, the heroes are part of the same organization as the bad guys. Some have accused Orci of building this story according to his alleged "truther" sympathies. It's not the most optimistic point of view.
That's a piece of work to invoke Roddenberry when I doubt he would have approved of a story about internal corruption in utopia - see above. I know his writers and fans disagree, asking how can you write a story without conflict? But the point remains that even the film's title diagnoses itself as "Darkness" - not a good word or story direction into war for something optimistic.
On the whole, and also as a father, I like what you're saying here, but how so? Is it how Pike became a father figure to Kirk? Is it what George Kirk did to save his wife, son and the crew? But just this instant I am flashing on how Abrams intentionally emulated Spielberg in "Super 8" right down to the broken home. I'm not sure what family model that is playing at, but while "Super 8" has a missing mother, a missing father (a la E.T.) isn't much of a role model. So I'm wondering where the inspiration comes from.
Cumberbatch said he wasn't Khan. While ST3 in no way needs Shatner, I won't be surprised if he appears.
About Trek's "optimistic future", I cannot find the exact quote, but Jonathan Frakes once described Gene's pitch for it as a world where there is no war, there are no homeless, and everyone knows how to read. That is the vision of a better Earth I can get behind - not the gated community it so often appeared to be in TNG-era Trek.
About Trek's "optimistic future", I cannot find the exact quote, but Jonathan Frakes once described Gene's pitch for it as a world where there is no war, there are no homeless, and everyone knows how to read. That is the vision of a better Earth I can get behind - not the gated community it so often appeared to be in TNG-era Trek.
Eh? What part of the discussion does this refer to? In any case, only Simon Pegg directly lied about Khan. All the others were coy and simply avoided the truth.
Cumby claimed he wasn't Khan, Shatner claims he's not in ST3. I don't trust anything these people say!
http://www.slashfilm.com/benedict-cumberbatch-on-j-j-abrams-khan-comment-what-a-dckhead/
http://www.slashfilm.com/benedict-cumberbatch-on-j-j-abrams-khan-comment-what-a-dckhead/
I'll be there, opening night.
I'll be there, opening night.
Glad you agree, and I buy the first Romulan Ale! I think a lot could be done with the idea, but it is wayyyyy outside the box!
It worked for Doctor Who's 50th anniversary story when they brought Tom Baker back as a different character (or was he? the fans now have a new mystery to ponder as they wonder if the Curator is a future incarnation of the Doctor). Tom Baker fans the world over have stated that they watched that part of the show either with a smile or tears, or both since they were so happy to see Baker again.
While neither Shatner nor Nimoy would likely induce fans to cry with happiness to see them in another Star Trek movie, it would be a nice thing to include them somehow, even just a line or two referring to Original Kirk and Spock (no, using Spock as nuSpock's phone-a-friend doesn't count).
Come on, let's have one more class reunion. Like a stinger scene, with the whole gang reminiscing and eating shawarma. 
*cough* Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country *cough*
*cough* "Ensign Ro" *cough*
*cough* "The Pegasus" *cough*
*cough* "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" *cough*
What yanked me out was Spock statement that Khan (of all people) was the most dangerous person they ever met. Really, Khan?
Prior to my joining this forum I had been on other forums and had discussed the show for years with other fans I encountered. It was only here that I've heard that the optimistic future was a core aspect of the show. I was aware that in TOS Roddenberry's optimistic future was basically that we would survive our (1960's) present, that we would not destroy ourselves.
That the future for Humanity possesses more material comforts than today is obvious, but I really have never seen this utopia that a few speak of. War, conflict, strife, disease and death are still with Humanity, some of these things have been move some distance away, but they're all still there.
And while it wasn't spelled out in the show itself, I personally find some fans interpretation of future Earth as some kind of slackers paradise to be frankly unattractive, disappointing, and very much not "optimistic."
"Omega Glory"
Bad apples in Starfleet/the Federation/the home team is not unusual. It's a go to plot point in Star Trek and in fiction in general.
The "truther" argument? That's what you want to lead with?? Really?
Fiction doesn't "give me hope" any more than made-up people are my heroes, and the notion that it ought to be otherwise is pretty sad. Childhood is one thing, but it's appropriate for adults draw inspiration from life.
Similar threads
