Title: Shatner Deal Close?
Crichton Kicks - October 3, 2004 12:05 PM (GMT)
Quoted from Trektoday;
| QUOTE |
Sources have reported that Paramount and William Shatner are near to inking a deal that would bring the Captain Kirk actor to Star Trek: Enterprise for a guest appearance this season.
Moviehole has reported that Shatner and Paramount have negotiated successfully and are near to an announcement "pretty soon" that Shatner will reprise the role of James T. Kirk "for an unspecified number of Enterprise episodes for 2005."
Both the actor and the studio have suggested that Shatner's salary demands were the sticking point in earlier discussions. Shatner had joked to TV Guide after his Emmy win that when he named a price, Paramount balked.
It "looks like [he]'s getting what he wants" now, reported Moviehole's insider, who noted that the studio believes the actor will raise the show's ratings "and has had to dig deep to see that that happens."
|
ken1701e - October 3, 2004 12:11 PM (GMT)
Now then the question is - is it going to be Captain Kirk and if so how?
Nexus? he is still in there after all and that would be a way of bringing him back (should never have killed him off in the first place :mad: :mad: :mad: )
Or will it be Archer travelling forward in time to meet Kirk?
Crichton Kicks - October 3, 2004 12:13 PM (GMT)
Judging from recent comments, it's unlikely that Shatner will play Kirk, which for me, is a waste of casting him. Yes it would be contrived to wedge him into the show, but for Christ's sake, if you've managed to cast Bill Shatner, you may as well bring Kirk in.
ken1701e - October 3, 2004 12:15 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Angel @ Oct 3 2004, 02:13 PM) |
| Judging from recent comments, it's unlikely that Shatner will play Kirk, which for me, is a waste of casting him. Yes it would be contrived to wedge him into the show, but for Christ's sake, if you've managed to cast Bill Shatner, you may as well bring Kirk in. |
He cannot play anyone else it would be sacralidge.
Even B&B wouldnt be that stupid surely?
(of course they would and stop calling me surely!!! :lol: )
Crichton Kicks - October 3, 2004 12:20 PM (GMT)
My money's definitely on him NOT playing Kirk ;)
Nick - October 3, 2004 01:59 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Angel @ Oct 3 2004, 01:20 PM) |
| My money's definitely on him NOT playing Kirk ;) |
I'll have some of that money...
Crichton Kicks - October 3, 2004 02:50 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Nick @ Oct 3 2004, 02:59 PM) |
| QUOTE (Angel @ Oct 3 2004, 01:20 PM) | | My money's definitely on him NOT playing Kirk ;) |
I'll have some of that money...
|
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Phillip Culley - October 3, 2004 09:30 PM (GMT)
I thought they had a ridiculously reduced budget this season...
Am I the only person who's have perferred for them to not deal with Shatner at all, and spend the money on, oh I don't know, ensuring the series is an ongoing success, rather than having James T. 'Who ate all the pies' Kirk there to provide a temporary boost in ratings, only for them to crash down as soon as he leaves?
What's alos a shame is to see Manny Coto start the whole B&B esque 'this series will continue and will be mega successful' - it's one thing to be optimistic, it's another thing to be B&B's ringahemmouth piece...
Crichton Kicks - October 3, 2004 09:34 PM (GMT)
TBH I can see why they're doing it. If the numbers don't improve they're finished either way. Shatner's cameo or two or three will boast short term increases, hopefully anyway. Likewise possibly the Brent Spiner arc. They're looking to boost the seasonal average. I really don't see it working myself, not to the extent needed to stave off cancellation.
The disappointing thing is that they're going to be that focused on garnering short terms boosts to the ratings that the quality's likely to slide whenever they take their collective eye of the ball :rolleyes: