The real Kirk dilemma.

Approximation of Kirk with Bill Shatner's new hairstyle.

So what's the real problem with bringing Bill Shatner back for a new Trek movie? The William Shatner School of Toupological Studies recently received a one page secret document that made us seriously question the official line. Admittedly, it was just a single piece of paper with "Top Secret" stamped on it - but still, it really made us think for some reason...

What if the real behind-the-scenes discussions about bringing back Bill Shatner aren't really about the Nexus, Kirk's death or all that sort of stuff? What if the real issue is the hair? The last time we saw Bill Shatner as Kirk in a truly canonical sense, he had a (suspiciously) thick head of curly hair. Now, thanks to Bill Shatner's real-life "intervention" we face the prospect of seeing Captain Kirk with a hairstyle the likes of which we haven't seen before. Would the short hair suit Kirk? Of course Shats could easily put a piece on top and recreate the curly style, but wouldn't that be a little weird? So many questions. It's no wonder the discussions are so protracted.

New hair, old bridge.
Shatner at Star Trek: The Tour in January 2008.

And now, Shatner's Toupee presents "Our Two Cents":

Dear J.J. Abrams,

In one hundred years time, when William Shatner is sadly no longer with us, the people of the future will wonder what it was like to live in the age of Shatner. They may try to re-create Bill Shatner in CGI, or try to put one of his famous toupees on someone else, but his real essence will have been lost forever. The people of that time will look back to 2009 and say: "You mean you had Shatner, you had a Star Trek movie and you couldn't find a way to fuse the two one last time?" That is a crime against humanity, they will insist.

J.J. - May we call you J.J.? You made a Star Trek movie in which you destroyed the planet Vulcan, made Spock "get a piece of Uhura's ass" (who today would believe a character that exercises self-restraint, right?); you managed to make a movie in which there were enough made up technobabble contrivances to put the deceased "Next Generation" TV shows to shame. You perpetrated the classic modern Hollywood blockbuster sleight-of-hand by overwhelming us with style to distract us from lack of substance (perhaps the direct opposite of the "Next Generation" shows in which substance was arguably increasingly trying to make up for a lack of style). You even had the Star Trek characters reveling in vengeance after killing the bad guy.

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek not just for the sake of colorful aesthetics and fun characters (both of which your movie admittedly had) but also as a means to slip meaningful stories past the censors, who would surely be too dumb to understand that sci-fi could comment on human nature or real life issues like the Vietnam War. Well, those censors would have had nothing to worry about with your movie. So you take all this disregard - and you're actually worried about how to bring Shatner's Kirk back realistically?!!?

Give me a break, "J.J." - let's be honest, we really don't care how you do it. Just do it. Do a Dallas and have Kirk in the shower with Star Trek: Generations having just been a bad dream.
Ok, seriously - put Shatner on the original series bridge, with his old gold Star Trek uniform and have him suddenly appear in the new Star Trek world as if he's been trapped in a surrealistic version of the existing Enterprise for decades. Why? Well, there's the cool plot - quickly say something about the Nexus and there you go. Wouldn't that be fun? Throw in Nimoy and you're set.


We want Shatner back ! In the words of fictional defense attorney Samuel T. Cogley - "We demand it! We DEMAND it!!!"

-ST

The official Paramount Pictures hearing on William Shatner's potential appearance in the upcoming Star Trek movie:

OK, folks - don't be mad at us. We weren't really as impressed with Star Trek (2009) as many others seemed to be, but, of course, respect those with different opinions on the matter.