William Shatner Reportedly Angry Over 'Star Trek XI' Snub

Not to be too geeky about it - but didn't he die in the last Trek he was in? I love Shatner too (and would love to fight him) but his appearance and Spock would distract from the new younger cast - I kinda hate flash-back movies. Would we seen Kirk and Spock sitting on a porch talking up the old days? Time to move on.

Reply

To be denied a cameo is nothing short of criminal. Shame on them, and on Leonard Nimoy! The originals will NEVER be replaced by the new "Young" crowd. I for one will boycott the film if they refuse to let him in. He IS Star Trek!!

Reply

William Shatner is Star Trek, if they snub him they alienate the folks who go out and see every Star Trek movie whether it's good or bad. Just what you'd expect by arrogant movie makers who think the world begins and ends with them. And without the Trek fans they better hope to heck they make some kind of great movie that will appeal to nonfans. Well, if he's snubbed there's yet another remake I'll never go see.

Reply

Thumbs down for snubbing Shatner.

One of the cool things about the Spider Man and X-Men franchises is they always have a cameo for Stan Lee. Abrams should learn from that.

Reply

What is wrong with the first four commenters. No offense, but have you heard any news at all about Star Trek XI?
To 'The Wrong Guide': The film is supposed to take place when Kirk and Spock were going through the academy. So while he may have died in Star Trek: Generations, it has no bearing on this prequel storyline.
To 'isis': Considering that June 3 will be 39 years since the series ended, 15.5 years since the last TOS movie and there have been 5 additional Star Trek series since the end of TOS; I'm going to assume you are sarcastic when you suggest Star Trek has to have Shatner.
To 'Gilbert Davis': See the comment for 'isis'.
To 'Ras Thavas': From what I understand, Stan Lee is the creator of the comic characters whose movie he cameos in and puts provisions in to the contracts he signs with studios that require them to let him cameo movies featuring his creations. Thus, the equivalent of this in the Star Trek universe would be to allow Gene Roddenberry to cameo in the movie featuring his creations. Suggesting that Shatner be allowed a cameo appearance for his history with the character could be seen as a near equivalent to suggesting that Nicholas Hammond be allowed a cameo appearance in the Spider-man movie because of his work in the 1976 live-action TV series.

I will say that I think the movie should either have BOTH Shatner and Nemoy doing cameos, or none at all, but I would prefer if they chose none at all. They claim this a total restart. If that's the case, I don't want to be reminded of what they want me to forget about while I am watching it. As soon as I see Nemoy OR Shatner, it'll cause me to compare the two during the movie, and I don't think they want to take their audience to that kind of mindset and I know I don't want it to be so.

-Calviin

Reply

"...so its seems right that he be allowed to participate in the new film if he really wants to."

what? if the film doesn't call for it/him why should he get to choose? the story is what's important, not cameo's by previous actors. it doesn't matter who "started it", this is an entirely new storyline previous to our original introduction of these characters. having them pop up for the sake of nostalgia would be lame.

Reply

Pretty strong words, isis. I don't think anyone could deny that Shatner/Kirk played a huge part in the success of the series and the resulting franchise, but enough is enough. Besides, as vain as Shatner is, do you really think he would be satisfied with just a 'cameo'? Letting him in would be opening a can of worms! As much as Shatner is loved on screen (at least on Star Trek) he doesn't exactly have a reputation of being easy to work with.

Reply

This sounds like a gag to me... much like the end of his run with Priceline.

Reply

I grew up on TNG and that never had Shatner in and it still inspired me to go on and watch all the other series, however i don't think that there is any harm in giving him a small cameo roll, he is after all a part of the star trek legacy.

Reply

First, just responding to the comments, this is said to be a 'prequel', so Kirk has not been killed yet. Secondly, I don't blam Shatner for been bothered by the snub. He is 'Captain Kirk' and at the core , if not THE core, of the franchise. Thirdly, I would just like to say that I do not believe 'prequels' are appropriate for Star Trek. It should be a show about the future, not the past (moments of temporal flux not withstanding). I think this was the failure of 'Enterprise'. The Star Trek universe just does not seem to fair as well when looked at from the other side of the telescope

Reply

i am 48 yrs old now,and have followed startrek right from it's beginning.i love every trek that has ever been produced.
however gene roddenberrys vision,was to the future,not the past.startrek X1 should be a total break,LOOK to the future and follow GENE'S dream.
MAY STARTREK (LIVE LONG AND PROSPER)

Reply

The Shat is god....this movie will bomb anyway, with or without him.

Reply

I think we've lost something if the originals aren't offered to in some capacity, take part in this project. Why? Because I think a sense of decency demands it. These people took a project and molded something wonderful out of it and now it's going to be taken down to the bare bones and re-built. I think that their contribution to the Star Trek franchise is what has made a new Star Trek feasible to begin with. Without it, there would have bene no interest. For that reason, and without handling this correctly, I think Abrams' project will be come his albatross after stepping on enough toes to make the whole Sci-Fi community hate him.

Reply

Bring back the Shat. Although I don't how they will manage it seeing as he was killed off years ago.Still anything is possible in Sci-Fi.

Reply

this apparent lack of respect did not start with j j abrams. mismanagement of this franchise [star trek] has been going on, in my opinion, since at least 1966. it definitely transcends studio management teams and nbc-tv during the 1960's.


after 40+ years, management is clueless. one suggestion, the people in charge should not worry, in relative terms, about online discussions of boycotts, or people [even me] saying what a group of clueless people they are.

the thing to be concerned about are the number of people who will sit on their hands and keep their wallets and purses closed. they will most likely not say much, if anything. you will not know they are missing from the theaters until it is too late to do anything about it. most of these consumers may be like me-on a very slow burn since 1987.

i know what i prefer and have no patience for less than the best.

Reply