Page 1 of 1
#1 Shatner booted from Star Trek
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:23 am
by The Minx
Link
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The original Capt. Kirk is disheartened he won't get to boldly go anywhere with his old pal Spock in the new "Star Trek" movie.
While Leonard Nimoy is reprising his role as the pointy-eared Vulcan in next year's science-fiction flick, William Shatner is not on board as Kirk.
"I couldn't believe it. I'm not in the movie at all. Leonard, God bless his heart, is in, but not me," Shatner, 76, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I thought, what a decision to make, since it obviously is a decision not to make use of the popularity I have to ensure the movie has good box office. It didn't seem to be a wise business decision."
Director J.J. Abrams announced last summer that Nimoy would reprise the role he originated opposite Shatner in the 1960s television show and played again in six big-screen adventures.
Abrams said Shatner probably would have a part in the film, which is due in theaters in December 2008. But while Shatner said he had a couple of meetings with Abrams, nothing came of it.
Abrams' "Trek" film, whose plot is being kept under wraps by distributor Paramount, recounts an early adventure for the crew of the starship Enterprise, with Chris Pines as the young Kirk and Zachary Quinto as the young Spock.
The cast includes Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, Simon Pegg as engineer Scott, John Cho as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana as communications officer Uhura and Anton Yelchin as navigator Chekov, roles respectively originated by DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig.
Past "Trek" films presented an obstacle to the revival of Shatner's Kirk, who died at the end of 1994's "Star Trek: Generations."
But in science fiction, you can never truly say die. Spock was killed off in 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" then resurrected in 1984's "Star Trek: The Search for Spock," with Nimoy's Vulcan living on to co-star in three more films, two episodes of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and now Abrams' new movie.
"I've got a lot to do," said Shatner, whose current work includes the TV show "Boston Legal," narration for the Christmas spoof "Stalking Santa" due on DVD on November 6, and the prequel "Star Trek: Academy -- Collision Course," a novel chronicling Kirk and Spock's first meeting.
Shatner says of "Star Trek": "Having been in on the creation of it, I was hoping to be in on the re-creation."
James Doohan must be laughing merrily in the Great Hereafter.
#2
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:36 am
by The Minx
Aw, shoot. This should have gone into Science Fiction.
Thread move please.
POOF! Thy wish is granted.
#3
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:51 am
by frigidmagi
Kinda sucks they booted the old man.
#4
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:11 am
by Dark Silver
would have been intereting to see Shatner in STXI (if I even go see it...)
But I think he'll survive not being in the next movie.....
#5
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:18 am
by B4UTRUST
Actually, considering who they have lined up to replace the other cast members, and the rule of numbers for trek films...he's probably better off not being in it.
#6
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:49 pm
by The Minx
B4UTRUST wrote:Actually, considering who they have lined up to replace the other cast members, and the rule of numbers for trek films...he's probably better off not being in it.
What is the rule of numbers?
#7
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:00 pm
by B4UTRUST
The Star Trek movie curse is a curse on odd-numbered Star Trek films that dooms them to poor reception in terms of drawing power and/or critical opinion. In contrast, even-numbered Trek films seemingly "can do no wrong" in either department.
#8
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:40 pm
by The Minx
B4UTRUST wrote:The Star Trek movie curse is a curse on odd-numbered Star Trek films that dooms them to poor reception in terms of drawing power and/or critical opinion. In contrast, even-numbered Trek films seemingly "can do no wrong" in either department.
Ah, yes. I knew about that, though I didn't know the name. I always thought it rather funny, though, since I never liked Star Trek IV very much, while I found Star Trek III passable.
#9
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:54 pm
by Batman
One would expect Nemesis to have put a serious damper on that myth, what with it being an even-numbered movie yet sucking beyond comprehension.
Besides, I liked TSFS and TFF myself, if the latter mostly for the fun quotes.
#10
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:27 pm
by Stofsk
B4UTRUST wrote:The Star Trek movie curse is a curse on odd-numbered Star Trek films that dooms them to poor reception in terms of drawing power and/or critical opinion. In contrast, even-numbered Trek films seemingly "can do no wrong" in either department.
Actually, that rule or curse is not set in stone.
ST: TMP - actually wasn't a bad film. Had pacing problems, but overall it does feel like Star Trek.
ST: TWOK - awesome, 'nuff said.
ST: TSFS - underrated, IMO. I actually think it's a good film.
ST: TVH - overrated, IMO. It's ok, but like all comedy films (and it was more a comedy than anything else) the jokes get old and stop being hilarious after you've rewatched them a zillion times.
ST: TFF - awful. The start of the curse?
ST: TUC - perfect. Reinforces the 'even-numbered = good' element of the curse.
ST: Generations - awful. Reinforces the 'odd-numbered = terrible' curse.
ST: First Contact - liked it when it came out, but now I look back and think it wasn't that good. Overrated, IMO. But it's a fan favourite.
ST: Insurrection - so awful you will beg to develop cancer in the eyes just so that you'll never have to see it ever again.
ST: Nemesis - see the above, times a million.
ST: XI promises to do something that should have been done ages ago. Reboot the system, go off in another direction while returning to the roots, and disregard the last couple of decades of established continuity because frankly none of it is worth keeping. Because I don't believe in the Curse I remain frankly optimistic that this film will be good.
Incidentally, nice to see you again.
EDIT: Wow, what a thread resurrection.
#11
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:05 pm
by Batman
Stofsk wrote:B4UTRUST wrote:The Star Trek movie curse is a curse on odd-numbered Star Trek films that dooms them to poor reception in terms of drawing power and/or critical opinion. In contrast, even-numbered Trek films seemingly "can do no wrong" in either department.
Actually, that rule or curse is not set in stone.
ST: TMP - actually wasn't a bad film. Had pacing problems, but overall it does feel like Star Trek.
If you say so. I never saw the Director's Cut but the only worthwhile part of the theatrical release was the refit E-nils' introduction sequence.
ST: TWOK - awesome, 'nuff said.
Indeed.
ST: TSFS - underrated, IMO. I actually think it's a good film.
That's because it is. I personally didn't like them killing the Big E, and I suspect there's people miffed by the fact that Spock DIDN'T die, afterall (let's face it, EVERY one of us hates the reset button, and that's essentially what that was, much as we were happy to still have Spock around) but it was by no means a bad movie.
ST: TVH - overrated, IMO. It's ok, but like all comedy films (and it was more a comedy than anything else) the jokes get old and stop being hilarious after you've rewatched them a zillion times.
It was a fun movie AND resurrected the big E. No, it wasn't particularly serious and never pretended to be. No TWOK/TUC, but definitely watchworthy.
ST: TFF - awful. The start of the curse?
At least unlike TMP, it had inoffensive uniforms (and what are considered by some the best Type II phasers in all of TOS/TOS movies). ALSO unlike TMP it at least managed to be funny on occasion.
ST: TUC - perfect. Reinforces the 'even-numbered = good' element of the curse.
Best. ST movie. Ever.
ST: Generations - awful. Reinforces the 'odd-numbered = terrible' curse.
Now that's unfair. It was a perfectly good movie until they started the TNG part of it (well, other than the E-B being hideously ugly).
ST: First Contact - liked it when it came out, but now I look back and think it wasn't that good. Overrated, IMO. But it's a fan favourite.
In all fairness it WAS a way better movie than Generations (not that that takes much doing). I just happen to think it didn't work particularly well as a
Star Trek movie. It was a generic SciFi action flic that happened to take place in the Trekverse.
ST: Insurrection - so awful you will beg to develop cancer in the eyes just so that you'll never have to see it ever again.
While Insurrection, when you THINK about it, WAS stupid on so many levels it defies comprehension, it FELT a lot more Star Trek (or more properly, it felt a lot more TNG) than FC. I could absolutely have seen that movie as a TNG two-or-three-parter.
And the feeling is mutual, by the way.
#12
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:20 am
by Jason_Firewalker
After watching the previews for the new movie... I am highly disappointed in their lack of adherence to the Trek time line and will probably never watch the movie and never consider it part of the Trek lexicon.
For those of you interested in watching the previews they can be found at
http://www.startrekmovie.com/
#13
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:55 am
by Dark Silver
or, you know....Youtube...or Apple movie site...
The reason for it not adhering to the "old Trek" is because the movie is a Reboot, occuring in a alternate time line from the TV shows. Romulan badguy goes back in time to kill Kirk, Original Spock goes back to stop Romulan, timelines diverge from there.
I'm not happy with some of the asthetics choices in the previews, especially the new design for the Big E.....
but I'll give it a chance. Just like I did with Transformers.
#14
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:26 am
by Jason_Firewalker
Ah, I had not been informed of that, I will more then give it a try then.
#15
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:53 pm
by Derek Thunder
Jason_Firewalker wrote:After watching the previews for the new movie... I am highly disappointed in their lack of adherence to the Trek time line and will probably never watch the movie and never consider it part of the Trek lexicon.
As stated previously, it is a reboot/alternate timeline/etc, but as a more general question, when did legitimate avenues for film criticism become at best a secondary concern? As a work of art, shouldn't a film be judged on its acting, writing, and cinematography? Are movies no longer deconstructed for deeper messages or statements?
(I'm not venting at you specifically, please don't take this personally, this is a general criticism I have to get off my chest).
As for Trek XI, I am intrigued, but I'm worried about another sci-fi film overreliant on CGI (see the space-suit re-entry thing). If it does claim to be the successor of the spirit of the original series, it most of all needs to capture the relationship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, as that trio formed the core of the original series.