Movie News and Reviews
- - - - - - - -


Shatner Can’t Believe He’s Not in Star Trek 11

Written by Nix | October 26th, 2007 | 0 Comments |

William Shatner is a blowhard. I think we can all agree to that. But he’s also Star Trek. You can’t say “Trek” without saying “Shatner”. But apparently J.J. Abrams, writer/director on the upcoming Trek 11 movie, can, because although he’s met with Shatner, Abrams has decided that his Trek movie has no room for Captain James T. Kirk. Or at least, not the guy who originally played him. No one is more surprised by this than Shatner, who tells the AP: “I couldn’t believe it. I’m not in the movie at all. Leonard, God bless his heart, is in, but not me.” Really, Shatner sounds dumbfounded, mystified, and more than a little sad that he’s been left out of Trek 11.

More:

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.

Technically Abrams has a good reason not to cast Shatner, since Kirk has technically died (in “Generations”), but this is sci-fi, “death” doesn’t mean anything. Couldn’t they, like, put him in a flashback or something?

Shatner Can’t Believe He’s Not in Star Trek 11

Related Articles

Be the First to Leave a Comment » Add Your Comments

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Trackback responses to this post