The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > How to get Shatner into the movie
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 02-09-2008, 05:10 PM
seahawkcruit seahawkcruit is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Default

I was wondering, why can't Shatner be cast as George Kirk, Jims father. Sons usually look like their dads, and since the actor cast to play Kirk was needed to resemble Shatner's Kirk.....why not have him play the old man? Hokey or corny maybe, but I think it would have been cool.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-09-2008, 06:16 PM
Nonessential Personnel's Avatar
Nonessential Personnel Nonessential Personnel is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Default

You gotta have Shatner.

I'd bet a lot of money he'll be there when all is said and done.

And frankly, Generations was such an abomination of an end for Kirk I wouldn't give one crap if it were de-cannonized.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-09-2008, 06:18 PM
scotty971's Avatar
scotty971 scotty971 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriggerMan View Post
Because the older Kirk is dead. Not sure why that is so hard to understand???



Doesn't matter if it is time travel. Kirk is dead. He's not doing any time traveling after having been rotting on a planet for 14 years or more.



They met well before the script had even been started on. There may have been a time that they were working on Shatner being in the movie. J.J. was probably meeting up with him to talk about the Kirk character and for William's input into the script or what not.

He also met with George Lucas over the summer, are we expecting to see George Lucas in the movie?
TriggerMan, How do you know this new movie doesn't take place before Generations in a flashback sequence? Kirk and Spock could reflect on their first mission together. It could be done. My point is that they could have used Shatner if they wanted to.

Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled this movie is being made and that Nimoy is a part of it. I am disappointed that Shatner isn't in it.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-09-2008, 07:11 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by denvertrek View Post
Does any one know the reason why the powers to be are not including Shatner in this new movie?
Bones: He's did Jim!.. Oh wait... I mean, You're dead Jim!
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-09-2008, 08:21 PM
kicktrick's Avatar
kicktrick kicktrick is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: mass
Posts: 223
Default

jim kirk will never die
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-09-2008, 08:28 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty971 View Post
TriggerMan, How do you know this new movie doesn't take place before Generations in a flashback sequence? Kirk and Spock could reflect on their first mission together. It could be done. My point is that they could have used Shatner if they wanted to.
One problem: filming Shatner TODAY to appear in the pre-Generations flashback sequence, he will look and be OLDER than he was when he dies in Generations. They can resurrect the character all they want, but they can't jump Shatner back in time to film the scenes for it.

It's still puzzling to me how so many fans want Abram et al to stick to canon, yet some of the same fans desperately want Kirk un-dead, which violates the very canon they want preserved. I understand the feeling... but you can't violate the logic because of it.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-09-2008, 08:37 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

But with SFX and such, they can make an old fat guy look thinner and younger.

That being said, IF... this movie is going to have multiple time travel pieces, who is to say that Spock does not go back to Generations, and put a Kirk out of the nexus.

...OR, go back to the Enterprise B and keep Kirk from even going in to the Nexus.

I know its a stretch, but anything is possible. But yeah, He's dead! lol
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-09-2008, 09:16 PM
TRexx TRexx is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Shatner's not the problem, Kirk is dead in Nimoy-Spock's timeline for this film and they really can't get around that --
Sure they can, easily, if the time-travel card is already in play for the story.

Nimoy's Spock just needs to give a warning about future events to Pine's Kirk or Quinto's Spock. This requires only a few moments of onscreen dialog, which will simultaneously inform the audience. This foreknowledge would allow Kirk to cheat death, and therefore he won't have been killed in the first place. No resurrection subplot is necessary in ST:XI, thanks to the quirks of temporal paradox. This can be revealed at the end of elder Spock's time-travel adventure.

Elder Kirk would've aged, of course, but could be alive in elder Spock's time-frame. In fact, the makeup people would likely need to make elder Kirk appear older than Shatner is now.

If Shatner doesn't feature in ST:XI, the reason may have little to do with the story. Could be about money or showbiz politics, for example.
__________________

Last edited by TRexx : 02-10-2008 at 12:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-09-2008, 11:21 PM
TRexx TRexx is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Exclamation

Quote:
Abrams has said that he would have put Shatner in the movie, had it not been for that small faux pas of his character being killed off a few movies ago.
JJ Abrams' knowledge of that "small faux pas" is part of what makes this quandary seem... bizarre.

Shatner's character was killed in ST:VII (1994), some 13 years ago. Team Abrams got the go-ahead for ST:XI almost 2 years ago, in April 2006. Then about 15 months passed before Abrams made his commitment to Shatner in July 2007, at Comic-Con: "We're desperately trying to figure out a way to put him in this movie". Another 6 months have passed since then.

This Shatner situation really isn't about "fanboy" obsession, it's about Abrams meeting his own objective -- which he had oodles of time to think about, long before getting in front of media cameras to put his creative credibility on the line with fans.

This is sci-fi, not rocket science. I agree with Shat: This should be a no-brainer. Of course, Shatner should reconsider his disinterest in cameos before grumbling about "bad business."

Perhaps the owls aren't what they seem.
__________________

Last edited by TRexx : 02-10-2008 at 12:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-09-2008, 11:37 PM
TriggerMan TriggerMan is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRexx View Post
JJ Abrams' knowledge of that "small faux pas" is what makes this quandary seem... bizarre.

Shatner's character was killed ST:VI (1996), about 11 years ago.
Actually, Kirk was killed off in ST: VII which was made in 1994, over 13 years ago.

Quote:
Abrams got the go-ahead for ST:XI almost 2 years ago, in April 2006.
Actually, the new movie was green-lit in late February of 2007.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.