BGR: So first off...tell us a little about yourself?

JT: I'm a twenty-two year old post-graduate in Media Production. Currently I'm seeking a career in comedy scriptwriting, which is a highly competitive business, difficult to break into. So I spend most of my hours writing sit-com pilots, with the hope that one day I may just be able to get my foot in the door. Jokes and humor are a large part of my life, so that's an ideal career for me.

Outside of this aspiration, my other dream is to see Captain Kirk appear in one last epic Star Trek adventure. Not only because I would like the ending of his legacy to be redefined to an optimistic send-off, but because Shatner wants to return and there is a reluctance to allow him back for a proper, dignified, goodbye. So as a result of that aspiration and some hard work, I became an official for the Bring Back Kirk campaign, and spend a lot of my off-hours interacting with fellow campaigners.

Other than all that, I enjoy spending my time at pubs (bars) and clubs, socializing and playing pool; or relaxing with a nice bottle of red wine at home whilst watching a few favorite classic Treks.

BGR: When did your passion for Star Trek begin?

JT: Like most people, I grew up with the series in my childhood. The first ever episode I saw was "The Enemy Within", which most will remember as being the outing where Kirk is duplicated by the transporter, and an evil alter-ego is created. As a five or six year old child, the concept blew me away. Ever since that episode I was hooked. I must have watched all those episodes in re-runs for about two years. I loved it.

I recall watching "The Wrath of Khan" for the first time, about the age of seven. Having only been use to the series, I wondered why Scotty was recast with that actor with the mustache, and why Shatner's hair had changed colour. I had no idea that these episodes had been shot two decades before that movie. So as a child, I grew up with all the Star Trek movies, going well into my teens. At that time, there was no such thing as a bad outing. I loved them all.

I'd say that my passion for TNG came when I started to see 5th and 6th season episodes at my local Star Trek club. I was hooked on Deep Space Nine much earlier, as early as its third season. I think aside from the original series, Voyager was perhaps the only other series I was excited about seeing from day one. By then I got over that "They can't do Trek with another crew" feeling, and was well into the 24th century.

BGR: Do you think the franchise has followed the right path since the original cast are no longer featured?...and what do you see for the future of Trek?

JT: The Next Generation was certainly a wonderful series when it got going. At its peak, the series did science fiction proud. Great Star Trek stories, like "The Drumhead", "Family", "The Inner Light", "Measure of a Man", and "A Matter of Honor", really struck home the fact that they were occasionally continuing in the tradition of the original series to tell powerful stories about the human condition. Not as many outings struck me as really trying to say something about ourselves as with the original. It was more of a science fiction series than truly great Star Trek in my opinion; but I certainly loved it.

Deep Space Nine was more inline with following the trend of science fiction, than following the trend of Star Trek. Mid-nineties science fiction was going in the direction of dark, and risky storytelling, and along with it the characters. Babylon 5 and The X-Files were probably initially responsible for this trend, using the now famous story arc. So I don't think it was following the route set out by Star Trek.

Do I think that makes DS9 a bad show? Not at all. I thought it was a fantastically entertaining and gripping saga. It succeeded in the eyes of its core audience, because it ventured into a new domain of storytelling. It wasn't afraid of telling stories about who and what we really are, and what we will do under extreme circumstances.

In the same breath, I don't think Gene Roddenberry would have liked that one bit. His vision of humanity in the future was quasi-utopian. He also detested militarism. You wouldn't have seen episodes such as "Necessary Evil", "In the Pale Moonlight", and definitely not "Inquisition" and any of the Section 31 follow-ups. These are some of DS9's best outings. From a science fiction point of view, it was a wonderful series, and one that I'm proud of being part of my collection. But from a Star Trek perspective, I don't think it was representative of what came before it.

Actually DS9 would have made a worthy Trek prequel. If they had all the mechanics of the series and simply set it as one of the first outposts in the 22nd century, then it would have served to show how much humanity has changed up to Roddenberry's Trek. But having spoken with one of Genes friends and colleagues about the matter, and carried out my own investigative studies into Roddenberry's vision, I have no hesitation in saying that he would not have been proud of the direction DS9. It was not Gene's Star Trek at all. But it was damn good television.

Voyager is more in the spirit of TNG, but lacking TNG's appeal, primarily due to inconsistent characters, and the significant lack of any truly powerful and unique relationships. I think one of the reasons for its low ratings is because it is not a series known to make bold risks with its stories and characters. It's a very "safe" series, and modern science fiction, is less than "safe". If you look at one of the more recent series, "Farscape", it is willing to take chances with its characters, so you can see where Voyager is lagging behind. Truly great "Star Trek" episodes are rare, if almost obsolete. "In The Flesh" is perhaps the closest they've come to Roddenberry's future where co-operation and friendship supersede hostilities. But that's not to say they can't make very good television; they can and they do.

What truly lets Voyager down is that the writers pick no bones about violating continuity. They rarely acknowledge Star Trek's roots, in fact they've ignored a pivotal Trek event (the Eugenics war which involved Khan) when Voyager went back to mid-1990's earth in "Future's End". On other occasions, Kirk and Spock have been deemed as being unsuitable to serve in Starfleet in the 24th century, and quick to fire their phasers. Kirk's meeting with the real Leonardo Davinci has been dismissed by Janeway, when he didn't even log that particular mission. This is sloppy stuff. Add to this the numerous errors in continuity that cropped up in "Flashback", it's no wonder why people find it hard to respect Voyager as a legitimate successor to the original series.

Fans love the references. But they don't like inaccuracies and contradictions. That's why TOS fans can relate to DS9 more, because they weren't afraid to mention Kirk and TOS, thanks to Ron Moore. Now people like Ron are out of the picture, there is little if not no chance of the franchise ever being TOS-friendly again. That is unfortunate.

As for Trek's future. I think, sadly, we've seen the end of Gene's Star Trek. That's gone. Although Insurrection is the only movie since Star Trek IV, to deal with Gene's vision in a Roddenberryesque way, quite frankly the humor was embarrassing to the fans and the characters. It wasn't Trek IV humor like they said it would be, it was Trek V humor. And Gene objected strongly to that. In Star Trek V the audience' were forced to laugh at the characters and not with them. The same was true for at least the first half of "Insurrection". It ruined the movie for most. It is definitely not a fan favorite. And for me it's for that very reason.

The story also didn't work for the average theatre attendee. It was too light and not big enough to draw in an audience. "Generations" had the first ever meeting of Kirk and Picard. That sells. "First Contact" had the Borg, and some outstanding trailers. It drew the audiences to the cinema. So Star Trek X is probably going to have to be either a dark, action-packed film, or an "event" movie. They seem to have done the Borg to death in the series, so perhaps we'll see the Dominion in the next film. If so, I'd imagine that DS9 will get a shot in some capacity. I wouldn't be surprised to see a movie starring Stewart, Frakes, Spiner, Brooks, Meaney, Aberjonais, Picardo, and of course Jeri Ryan in a tight costume.

Of course, I'd like to see Kirk in a movie, but unless we can convince Paramount to do that, my guess would be a variation of the above. There's no way that Kirk can't fit in with the above, even in a cameo capacity. His death has never been mentioned in Star Trek by any character. So it's quite possible with a 2 or 3 minute flashback that we discover Kirk didn't truly die at Veridian III, and becomes a part of the story 5 or 6 years later. All it takes is some clever writing.

BGR: Do you think the inclusion of members of the original cast would add strength to the franchise at this point?

JT: I think a lot of people for differing reasons have lost faith in Star Trek. I'm not just talking about fans either. TOS and TNG actors, noted science fiction writers, the media in general, and even Paramount itself according to some reports. Something needs to be done to boost the franchise. It is in serious decline. Nobody enjoys seeing this. I think we'd all agree on that. The quality of Star Trek seems to have slipped too. The last season of Deep Space Nine wasn't as good as it has been. Insurrection was generally disappointing. Recent Voyager episodes appear to be dull compared to the last season. There's no buzz. There's little excitement.

Every time a TOS cast member has appeared, the ratings have benefited. "Unification" (featuring the return of Spock) was the highest rated TNG episode I believe. It was an event. Events sell, just as much as quality does. The original cast haven't been seen on screen for nine years on mass. Kirk hasn't been seen for six. A return would be a publicity and media event, and would also give those who have lost faith in the franchise an opportunity to come back.

A series of TV movies like the recent B5 ones, would be perfect to not only fill in the gaps, but celebrate the 35th anniversary in style. Have one with Sulu on the Excelsior, have one with Scotty on his shuttle, and have a Kirk/Spock reunion. The possibilities are endless. Personally, I'd like to see a temporary boost, followed by a rest. The 35th anniversary could do just that. And I'm 99% convinced it would sell. Paramount seem reluctant to exploit Star Trek's potential, and are too quick to right actors off.

5. Putting the focus on the character of Kirk...what does that particular role/character mean to you?

Kirk is someone who can assess the situation pretty much instantly. He uses his intelligence over that of his emotions. Or to put it differently there's an enormous emotional intelligence about the character. Episodes such as "This Side of Paradise" are a prime example. In joining with the spores, Kirk had found paradise, total peace and contentment, yet he knew deep down that it wasn't in his interests to live the rest of his life in a stagnant unchallenging condition. He was the only person on board the Enterprise that could shake the influence of the Spores intentionally. Which is why the influence that Kirk's nirvana in the Nexus had on him was utterly ridiculous, and totally out of character.

I think we all wish that we could use our intelligence to counteract our desires when it's good for us. And Kirk was the man that could do this. He had to be super-human, and to every one else he was. Deep down he was human and flawed, and Kirk best summarized the importance of his weaknesses in Star Trek V, in an excellent speech.

"Damn it Bones you're a doctor, you know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand! They are things we carry with us, the things that makes us who we are. If we lose them - we lose ourselves! I don 't want my pain taken away from me. I need my pain!"

He was, as Spock would no doubt say, truly human, in every sense of the word. To recognize one's strengths and use them as an advantage is a great trait, but to do that with one's weaknesses also, is something else. And in the case of being a leader, he made sure that he was never vulnerable, at least not in the eyes of those he was leading. I'd like to be like that. Kirk embodies all that I aspire to become as a human being -- intelligent, honorable, respectful, and not afraid to say and do what needs to be said and done, regardless of the consequences to himself.

BGR: Of course, from the viewpoint of Generations...Kirk was killed on Veridian III...so how do you see the character being revived?

JT: There are many ways that Kirk could be revived. William Shatner has pursued one possibility in his novels. But I see the Nexus as a definite possibility. In fact Kirk and Picard are probably the first individuals EVER to consciously decide to leave the Nexus, and prior to what anyone claims about "echo's" etc, we do not know that should someone else enter the Nexus, that they wouldn't find both Picard and Kirk back in there as they arrived. Time has no meaning. Eighty years had passed since Kirk entered, yet when Picard met up with him, Kirk had only just got there. Logic would suggest that the same would happen if anyone else entered the ribbon. Kirk would be there chopping wood. Nexus time and real-time are not linear.

Why did Kirk say "Oh my" as he was dying? Not because he feared death. But perhaps because he was returning to the Nexus. Or he saw the beginning of a new adventure.

Of course, a major part of Trek mythology is ignored, unless that person who engineers his return is Spock. After all, Kirk told Spock that he would have returned the favour. It would be a grand literary event. If Kirk comes back, I'd like to see Spock at the forefront. It is my belief that Trek mythology demands it.

BGR: Do you think the character should meet a more noble end?...or perhaps continue on in the 24th century?

JT: I think most fans would agree that the best way to say goodbye to a character is on an optimistic note. Star Trek VI was the perfect goodbye, and closed the chapter on the TOS saga, until Generations re-opened it and left it on a sloppy note. So if they are going to bring Kirk back just to kill him again, I would suggest that they devise a more noble and dignified exit. Being smashed onto a cliff face because of a loose bracket is hardly that.

He could certainly continue on in the 24th century. Regular guest appearances in a series of TV movies would be wonderful. In fact it would be great to see that Kirk had some influence in the recent Dominion war. Perhaps he could have been in charge of one of the fleets that were in the background. I would prefer he was sent back to his own time. Scotty knew that Jim Kirk was still alive when he was beamed from the Jenolan. Perhaps official records don't record that. Incidentally that's part of Robert Meyer Burnett and Mark Altman's movie idea.

BGR: Tell us about the campaign to Bring Back Kirk...what does that entail?

JT: The Bring Back Kirk campaign is a fan movement, dedicated to the canonical return of Captain James T. Kirk. We're here because of the dissatisfying manner of Kirk's demise at the hands of a collapsed bridge. We're also here because we'd love to see the character again, and dislike the messy exclusionist politics that is currently preventing Kirk from ever returning.

Contrary to what some people believe, we are not totally focused on a Kirk-movie. It would be fantastic to see Kirk on the big screen again, but we'd settle for a TV movie, or even a special episode appearance. I mean, it 's the 35th anniversary of the original Star Trek series next year, and all we're hearing talk of is a brand new Star Trek series with new characters, and possibly a brand new cast in a Star Trek movie if what Sherry Lansing has reported to have said comes about. I'm a massive Star Trek fan. I am the first to applaud quality. I am not one to attack the product when it doesn't meet standards; I just lose faith. And I've been losing a lot of faith lately.

Shatner is still active enough to play Kirk again. He wants to come back. We want him to come back. Paramount doesn't. He's just been in a hit-film, he regularly appears on television, and was recently nominated for an Emmy for his work in Third Rock. So Shatner is ready and fit to return. Kirk is as popular as ever. Ignoring all the rants and prejudice you read on bulletin boards that are propagated by the younger fans, Shatner's novels are best sellers (the greatest being "The Return" in which Kirk was resurrected); the original series sales on video and DVD are just as high as new Voyager and Deep Space Nine videos, despite being 34 years old; Kirk and Spock are coming out in most of the polls under the greatest 20th century icons. There 's a mass market out there for Kirk and the original series.

"Trials and Tribbleations" increased DS9's viewing figures by 35%. TOS still sells. So if they were to make TV movies featuring the original cast, they are certain to pull in the viewers. As long as they are of quality then the figures should remain as high for as many stories they care to do. I read somewhere that Rick Berman stated that Star Trek doesn't do TV movies. In the UK, "Dark Frontier", and "What You Leave behind" were promoted in video sales as "feature length TV Movies" with special sleeves. And, yes, they were straight at the top of the sales charts.

My advice would be to take a leaf out of Babylon 5's books. Some of those movies, were fantastic. And they were at the top of the charts too. If Paramount truly care about the "buck" then they wouldn't waste their most precious and potentially profitable resource - the original cast. And if they truly wanted to celebrate the 35th anniversary with a bang, they would integrate characters from all "four" sagas, properly this time. I'd also advise that they cover their bets and bring producers and writers back into the fold that know what makes good classic Trek. That would be people like Leonard Nimoy, Dorothy Fontana, Nicholas Meyer, and Ron Moore. People with proven track records.

The fans know all this, and we're trying to convince Paramount of this by writing letters, distributing flyers, and raising general awareness. It's a shame that they cannot put two and two together and invest in some special Star Trek projects. They play it far too safe as it is. Star Trek was never safe - something that Deep Space Nine recently proved. It's time they took a leaf out of their own books. But before they see the light, we'll be here trying our best. If that means dangling the carrot and the stick until our numbers significantly steer them in the direction of higher profit margins, then so be it.

BGR: What are your methods for raising awareness of the campaign?

JT: So far we've been mainly concentrating on internet promotion. People have been slowly drifting in, and joining our base for the past year or so. The officials recognized that this is all very good, but we need to take the campaign a step further. The Excelsior movement has been going at warp speed from day one, and we have been very impressed by their professionalism and efficiency. It's time for us to take this movement a step further, which you I'll be seeing among the coming months. We have big plans, which will really shift us up a gear or two.

BGR: We hear that there's a newsletter out?

JT: Yes, Monday 20th March sees the launch of the Official BBK Newsletter, produced and edited by Joe Beaudoin, which we're all very excited about. It will provide the campaign with a new nerve center for operations. Subscribers will receive exclusive news announcements, on a weekly basis. You'll also be able to be a part of the new jump-start in our strategy. We will be coming a much more focused movement, and the newsletter is the first step among many. People can subscribe by sending a blank message to : [email protected] and our official website for the project resides at : http://bbkioc.iwarp.com/bbkn

BGR: There was a recent bit of buzz in the press about the BBK campaign...what's your reaction to that?

JT: I think it's fantastic that we're starting to receive mainstream recognition, from reputable sources such as SciFi Weekly, and a lot of other great sci-fi sites. This is what I hope is the beginning. The real test will be whether or not the general offline press will pick up on our efforts. We have plans to go public on a grand scale very soon. It's the logical step forward. For as long as we can move forward, there's no time to sit back and wait. We're actively sticking to the philosophy of onwards and upwards, bigger and better, which keeps us on an optimistic par. And it's the optimism that Star Trek has lost lately that we seek to rediscover. Our hearts are in the right place, so that's half the battle won.

BGR: What similarities do you find between the BBK campaign and the Battlestar Galactica Revival campaign?

JT: Both campaigns are currently fighting franchises controlled by people that don't cater for the fans' needs, and fail to see that it's the characters that make the franchise great. Every time they belittle the fact that the characters that started it all aren't important to the future of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, the fans lose faith; and they risk losing money, if they haven't already.

Neither of our campaigns are rejecting the possibility of new and familiar characters being apart of future projects; but we are disheartened that this has to be at the cost of the franchise' roots. Paramount and Universal are financially endowed enough to meet everyone's needs. Yet they fail to do this. We both exist to tell them that in neglecting the past; they risk damaging the future.

Paramount already kicked Star Trek fans in the teeth when they killed Kirk the way they did. So BBK is asking them to heal that wound, and give us an optimistic send-off. So far you're lucky that a major blow hasn't happened onscreen yet, so I urge you to do everything in your power to make sure that it doesn't. Because, they'll kick you if there's money to be made. You've got to convince them that there is more money to be made without kicking you.

We are both blessed with the fact that Shatner and Richard Hatch, want to come back, and have, and are, making that known. Yet, neither studio is budging. That's why we are backing up their desires with a contingent of fans. Battlestar Galactica's creator seems to have given up on the original characters. Star Trek is being run by people who aren't even fans of the original series, and don't understand why it is popular. The fans want the original characters back, the actors are willing to reprise their roles, but the studio's are reluctant. That's why we're fighting.

We're also here to correct the studio myth that people who go out on the frontline to fight for justice in numbers are not "fanatics" and cannot be dismissed as the anorak image the studio's delight in making up. We're the people who buy all the merchandise. We are their customers. Rule number one in any business: The customer is always right. Rule number two: The customer is always right. It's about time we were treated with the respect we deserve. So in that respect we're looking to change their outlook not only on the franchise, but on us as fans.

We have unmitigated love for those characters, and all we ask for is for the people in charge to understand why these characters are so popular. If they truly did, neither of us would be here. Business may be business for the studio's, but their strategy stinks. They should be looking back to see how they can emulate the success of these franchises. It's not so much they want to introduce new characters, it's the fact that it comes at a cost: The dismissal of both respective saga's roots. Surely that's bad for business. With Star Trek it is showing. The franchise is sadly dying. But there are always possibilities (a theme brought to light by Trek's past).

It is our determination and persistency that can and will make a difference. That's where Battlestar Galactica fans follow the series heart - never lose sight of your goal. Never give up. Star Trek fans operate on Kirk's philosophy. We don't believe in the no-win scenario. So far Paramount presents us with Kobiashi Maru. We challenge them. And somehow, sometime, we 're going to change the rules. The fans will matter again if Star Trek is to endure for 30 more years, and I hope it gets that opportunity.

We are all faithful to the literature and mythology that started our interest, and we will not conform to the business-like mentality that seeks to destroy it. And on that note, I'll be seeing you at the theatre when Kirk and Apollo return. If passion is the key, then we're already there. Never lose faith, no matter what the odds.