Is Paramount Feuding with William Shatner?
'Star Trek' marketing campaign snubs Captain Kirk, ageless star isn't surprised
“Star Trek” is giving the James Bond franchise a run for its money.
The saga began in 1966 while the first 007 feature, “Dr. No,” bowed four years earlier.
Gene Roddenberry’s intergalactic vision took a knee following the original show’s three-year run. Once the series hit the big screen in 1979 the saga has lived long and, for the most part, prospered.
Credit Roddenberry for creating an indelible space franchise, a tale that allowed a galaxy of talented stars to bring it to life:
- Leonard Nimoy
- Patrick Stewart
- DeForest Kelley
- Brent Spiner
- Chris Pine
- Levar Burton
- Kate Mulgrew
None have had the impact, and longevity, of Captain James T. Kirk, immortalized by William Shatner.
Yet the 91-year-old star just got snubbed in Paramount Plus’s latest “Trek” marketing campaign, and Shatner himself isn’t shocked by the decision. The image in question features iconic “Trek” figures above the teaser text – “Star Trek: An Entire Universe to Explore.”
The visual features 11 “Trek” heroes, including Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Stewart), Spock (Nimoy), Captain Janeway (Kate Mulgrew), Captain Sisko (Avery Brooks) and Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan).
Who’s missing? The actor who anchored the franchise and remains its heart and soul … William Shatner. The actor suggests the omission wasn’t accidental in a cryptic response to a Twitter fan’s outrage over his snub.
And that surprises you? 🤣 https://t.co/zvdW2VhaXc
— William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) March 8, 2023
Chris Gore, founder of Film Threat and host of the “Film Threat” podcast, thinks the snub is no accident.
“The exclusion of James T. Kirk in modern ‘Star Trek’ marketing is yet another example of efforts to diminish Shatner’s contribution and to emasculate strong male characters on television and at the movies,” Gore says. “There would be no ‘Star Trek’ without Kirk. Wiliam Shatner created an iconic character whose passion for exploring strange new worlds spawned a generation of fans.”
Gore adds that “Star Trek’s” legacy includes inspiring generations of Americans to “pursue working in fields including technology, science and NASA.”
Shatner didn’t share much more about the marketing snub on Twitter, other than the fact that he seemed to expect it.
The veteran star is no stranger to feuds, though.
He and “Star Trek” co-star George Takei have been publicly fighting for decades, although it’s mostly been the man known to millions as Sulu who starts each dustup.
I wonder how long this war on men can continue? Good times make weak men. But now the bad times are here…
War on men? Hahahaha Your fragile male ego is showing. Get over yourself and your false ideas of the world and what it means to be a man. You and this fool they quote need to get a life.
And what do you know of the world? Tried living in Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia or the Middle East? No? Then how in the world do you know men are like? I also don’t see anything in Rebs comment that is egotistical.
What I do say is immature behaviour on your part by openly laughing and mocking another poster.
You’re the one who needs a life. You do support the war on men, soyboy.
Your message is childish.
If you think that the social marginalization and demonization of men and boys in this country isn’t real, then you are blind and deaf, and I’ll hazard a guess that it’s willful.
Fragility is learned. It is not inherent. If you think it applies only to the male ego, you deny the human condition. Women complain constantly about pretty much everything men say and do, claiming they are oppressed by men behaving in their own nature. Talk about fragility … even a sincere compliment will dial the pearl-clutching and whiny outrage up to 11 by women who weaponize their treasured sense of victimhood, which is expanded regularly. The rhetoric of their “suffering” is preposterous.
Feminists always frame their arguments in terms of men, placing their locus of control squarely in men’s domain. Whatever they think is wrong with their lives or the world as it is, it’s men’s fault and men have to fix it, whether it means being a facilitator or a docile, obedient lapdog. It isn’t enough for women to succeed and flourish on their own terms … men must be brought to heel.
It’s an utter repudiation of their own ostensible goals and aspirations. After invading men’s spaces for decades, and now that men are invading theirs, feminists are completely bereft of any moral or intellectual principle on which they might support their argument. They have hoisted themselves on their own petard.
You said it!
You just know David has blue hair and pronouns.
Shame that some people can carry the iconic name of a king without acting like one!
Shat is (more or less) Conservative. Of course they don’t like him. Seems like a great guy.
Shatter is a life long democrat support….
True but he’s no whiny butt hurt Wokester like Takei
Nobody in the Star Trek franchise has ever been able to outshine Captain James T Kirk. The original and the best.
In the supreme uphill battle against all odds Kirk was your man. Verile, often frisky and a leader .. and always Human. Kirk was my favorite Star Trek character
They put two animated “Stars” on there graphic. How sick is that!
That they would do that rather than choose the original flag bearer of the franchise is disturbing.
They went WOKE, now watch them go BROKE.
Only Willian Shatner has the gravitas to hold my interest on the show. Everyone else is a pretender. Khannnn.
Kirk is fine, but Benjamin Sisko of Deep Space Nine is my all time favorite Captain.
Sisko has to do everything Kirk did and be a loving, responsible father and husband. That’s next level masculinity.
Oh stop being a father is not what Captain Kirk is all
He was American, male amd dripping with confidence and testosterone
Shatner was Canadian.
Kirk was American – originally born in Iowa.
Hmmm I thought he was Canadian
Shatner is Canadian. Kirk is American. Just proving there is far less difference between Americans and Canadians than some Canadians like.
Yes, especially that hapless former drama coach/queen turned full on dictator Justine Turdeau
I assume you’re being sarcastic about Kirk and his parenting skills.
Kirk was a top-notch explorer and strategist. But his track record as father needed work as seen in this video:
“Who Are Actually Star Trek’s Best and Worst Parents?”
You’re a grifter. We don’t want a grifter like you here.
I was more of a fan of Spock than Kirk.
I enjoy the animated series, Lower Decks and Prodigy. I do agree that Paramount should’ve had Will Shatner in the lineup.
Star Trek isn’t going broke. It’s been around longer than conservative media.
STD isn’t doing too well…
Star Trek: Discovery has lasted four seasons with a fifth on the way. That’s impressive in light of all the grifters on Youtube who declared the show would get the ax after its first season.
You’re the real grifter. You’re defending a show that was a failure, but keeps getting renewed for ESG reasons. You are the grifter, not the YouTubers,.
You’re the real grifter. STD was a failure, yet gets renewed for ESG reasons.
Although I do agree that Star Trek is not going broke, conservative media actually pre-dates its inception. Have you ever heard of William F. Buckley?
I liked him as Captain Kirk, but the rest of the cast were every bit as good. As for The Shat….he’s an ego maniac who would fight with his own shadow!
Shatner does have an ego. This is so well known that the Trek parody, Galaxy Quest, couldn’t resist poking fun at it.
Yet, you’re willing to defend George Takei, who’s a miserable human being, you disgusting grifter?
Shatner himself pokes fun at himself for his overblown ego and makes no apologies for it.
William Shatner is Canadian.
Captain James Tiberius Kirk, Star Trek character played by Shatner, is American – from Iowa to be exact.
No human ego is more fragile than the female human ego. A woman’s entire day can be ruined by her thinking that the jeans she put on “make her butt look big”. It is rare indeed when such nonsense troubles a man.
I like all Star Trek shows except for the animated ones except the original animated one. I like the fact that Star Trek, Star Wars and finally Doctor Who is all science fiction and that’s that. I appreciate most science fiction movies,tv and books for what they are; escape from reality.
As a kid, I never got into the animated spinoff series for the original Trek. But I’m enjoying the new animated shows, Lower Decks and Prodigy.
Animated Star Trek characters but, no Captain Kirk…. highly freaking illogical
There are some great actors in each Star Trek series that deserve some kudos. But it kind of sounds like they want to take some of the shine off William Shattner.
The original will always be number one. All others, while worthy in their own right, will always be ‘also rans’. But I stopped watching STD after episode 4 as I don’t need the ESG load of BS. Gotta love the 110 lb women kicking the 6’3″ males butt. Politically correct fantasy.
Star Trek has been liberal since the original series.
* Racially diverse cast? Check
* Free love mindset, e.g. Kirk’s womanizing? Check
* The Federation is post-capitalist, arguably socialist utopia? Check
So, a new Trek show like Discovery being liberal is staying on brand for the franchise
You are moving the goalpost, propagandist. When Star Trek dealt with politics, it was more humanist/universal, not partisan/personal opinion, which is what your pushing for, partisan-personal opinion politics that happen to be Far Left.
I agree. Politically, there is a universe of difference between being Liberal and being Leftist. TOS was Liberal; STD is Leftist.
How is Discovery Leftist?
I take it you’ve never watched Star Trek Discovery.
I personally surprised they only included Spock (who was more popular than Kirk) and Uhura (one of two of Roddenberry’s delights (the other being Nurse Chapel/TNG Computer/Roxanna Troi), per rumor), and snubbed Sulu/Takei, who should be the ‘ideal’ wokester from the original cast… an oppressed gay man who Roddenberry wouldn’t out in TOS script, who’s been an outspoken critic of Kirk and all things not woke, who’s an unrepentant, crass, sexually harassing online bully… But maybe it’s because Takei’s background includes an horrible example of logical conclusion of Marxist/progressive identity/class politics because he and his family were forced into internment camps by the progressive FDR administration during WWII.
Shatner has always been petty and egotistical, but, despite that, except for occasionally bad decisions, I’ve liked him and his character, Kirk (no matter how badly acted… He seemed much better in the original Twilight Zone episodes). I always meant to try reading his ghost-written TekWars books and tried watching the series, but had trouble getting past the poor early CGI special effects… but, someday, I may try again (after all, I made it through most of the early Doctor Who).
“Shatner has always been petty and egotistical,…”
Well, he’s an actor, so…
STD is culturally Leftist.
This is obvious to all but the Woke.
Funny isn’t it how STD is also a medical condition frequently suffered by the same politico/economic fantasy mind-set.
Its acronym is an apt one.
At this point in current American history that should really not be necessary, as the term has been well discussed in the Media for nearly a decade now. “Woke” is a term invented by university Leftists to describe their own social and political perspectives on every aspect of American society. To know more about it, look up the sources of those who created the term: left-wing university academics. They know more about it than anyone. It is their term.
Actually, decades ago, African Americans first coined the term woke, which simply meant to be vigilant and not blindly swallow any idea. White Leftists hijacked the term and refined it as being synonymous with Leftist ideology.
White conservatives then embraced the Leftist redefinition of woke instead of doing in-depth research into the word’s origins. This was not wise.
Maj Toure did a great video on the subject:
So why did you ask me to define a term that you already well understood? I first became aware of the term myself only after it had come to define Leftist ideology, as asserted by both white and black Leftist academics, at the universities. Their definition of the term is the one widely understood today, regardless of its earlier origins. They created a entirely new meaning for it. The meanings of words can evolve, and the current meaning of any word or term becomes the valid one. For example, for centuries the word “gay” simply meant “happy”; it did not solely refer to homosexuals. Based upon your comment, it can be argued that homosexual activists hijacked the term gay; but I would disagree. Words, in fact entire languages, evolve. Many conservative historians know the origin of the term woke; but it was still not unwise for Conservatives to take woke at its new meaning, since they were facing the actions of the Leftists who had redefined it. With the current titanic political struggle in which Americans are engaged, of what real use would it be to focus on the decades-old origins of the term? It is actually wiser, and far more important, to understand the term as your political opponents define it and use it today; because the actions that they are taking are being done under its banner.
I asked because most conservatives toss around the word woke without knowing what it is,
One more thing. Why do conservatives go along with Leftists redefining words? Should conservatives start calling Bruce Jenner in a dress a woman because the Left says so?
Conservatives do not simply toss the term around, they focus it back on those who initiated its current use. Conservatives use the word woke today to aptly label, and oppose, the far-left policies being pushed on our society by Leftists. In doing this, they are simply using the term that the Leftists THEMSELVES use. How more accurate can that be? Several years ago, both white and black Leftist academics declared that they were going to advocate policies which they called woke. It took a few years, but Conservatives finally began to stand up and actively oppose those policies. To be clear which policies they disagreed with and would oppose, they used the term that the left-wing advocates of those policies were ALREADY using. Neither side was focused on the origins of this grammatically awkward term; both sides were applying it to today’s political and social dynamics. First the Leftists, then the Conservatives in response. Words, and especially political terms, evolve. As I pointed out, gay has left behind ITS original meaning of happy, and become the name applied to a homosexual, a change which was enthusiastically endorsed by homosexuals, and may in fact been initiated by them. In the main, American society has accepted this new meaning for the word gay. Accepting this new definition for the word was not difficult, since it does not deny reality. Accepting Bruce Jenner as a woman DOES deny reality, biological reality. Jenner may assert that he is a female, but his X/Y chromosome duo calls foul on such an assertion. So, no, Conservatives should not go along with the Leftists and call Bruce Jenner a woman. I am not one of those who enjoys playing verbal ping-pong: endlessly knocking a topic back and forth, and back and forth, and back and forth, ad infinitum. So I will agree to disagree at this point, and just leave it alone.