Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
Yeah, LeVar Burton's complaints sound like sour grapes that TNG movies are done.
Any word yet on where R2-D2 is?
If a veteran actor praises the films, he/she "is a class act". If a veteran actor criticizes the film, he/she "is bitter" or "butthurt".
I don't understand why people care one way or the other what an unemployed actor thinks. I don't give two shits what Shatner or Nimoy or Stewart or any other prior Trek actor thinks of these films.
I don't need their stamp of approval for how I feel one way or the other.
I like seeing what they think regardless of if I agree or not. Sometimes I like reading / watching the opinions of actors I have respected. I can't really say I agree with Burton because, well, it was really just a comment to a TMZ reporter that he made in 30 seconds in getting into his car. It's hard to even understand what he means by there needing to be more Gene in the movie, exactly.
But it didn't strike me as sour grapes either because the interviewer said something along the lines of, "They should've put you in the movie." Burton said they didn't need him.
You post that as if there isn't a reasonable likelihood that it's both sensible and entirely true.
Does this mean that Gene Wilder, who played Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, described Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as an insult?
Is the argument being made that the opinion of employed thespians should be respected, while their unemployed brethren should be given less respect? Considering the life that these people live, which varies from periods of unemployment to employment, and back again, how is this a sound argument?
No. It means I don't give a shit what people think who weren't involved in the production. It also means that an actors motives may be suspect we they evaluate a property that they are no longer collecting a paycheck from.
I think my favorite example of someone who was previously involved with a production commenting on films made after he was no longer involved would be James Cameron and the Terminator films. He said that the soup had been pissed in by the other directors. I doubt it had anything to do with being bitter or caring about paychecks.
Because the people who were involved in the making of the film will speak their honest opinion on it?
For example, I honestly do not believe that Simon Pegg would be so glowing about JJTrek if he were just a viewer. I can't know his mind, but I just don't buy it.
Why? What specifically makes you think Pegg is lying or being disingenuous? Your own dislike of the films is NOT an applicable piece of evidence here.
How can you really say that ?
Do you know him personally ?
I can pull some of that out of the air too. I say Zoe Saldana will say STID sucks in 4 years time, Pine will say its good, Yelchen will say it was the worst mistake of his like and Urban (T'm going to see him soon) will say is was fantastic. My interpretation of other people's opinion is just as valid as yours and just as ridiculous.
Also I don't mind that anyone says any Star Trek movie could do with a bit more Gene in it.
At least Burton knew Gene and may had some sort of idea how he thought.
But Gene always went with the money. And he was always prepared to ditch old Star Trek in favour of new Star Trek. He had no problem with ditching TOS in favour of TNG canon. And I agree (reluctantly) that the living Star Trek must have priority over the old. That doesn't necessarily mean the new is better than the old.
What evidence? I make no claim to the truth of the matter, I only expressed an opinion. And why do you assume I didn't like it?
I am only basing it on the kind of fan he is (as I perceive him). His public opinions over the years about other films and TV shows, I am extrapolating from that. Scotty's funpark waterslide in ST11 strikes me as exactly the kind of thing he would have made fun of when asked for his nerd opinion in an issue of SFX. And I'm not saying he's a liar...I just think that he just knows (as most actors do) that it's bad form to shit on a film you're in.
But I could be wrong, obviously. Every actor who was interviewed for ST11 or ST12 may honestly love every artistic decision made on the films. It's possible.
Yes, and yes.
Eh, anyone else remember the stink Quinto's comments raised?
Revisiting that now, I get the same sense I had back in the day - he didn't entirely agree with some creative decision made for ID & please don't shoot him if you don't like it or it under performs at the BO.
Actors badmouthing their own films, especially upon release, is seen as the height of unprofessionalism--the kiss-of-death of their career. It happens, but very very rarely. I mean, there's a reason they send actors out on the interview circuit. They are intended to promote a film, not bash them. I'm not saying anyone in particular involved with JJ Trek may hate the final product, but what they say about it should be taken with a grain of salt, and this even includes Nimoy since he had cameos in both.
Spock running like a dork is fine in principle, since Spock IS a dork, despite his super-human strength. Spock running like a dork when the film is trying to portray him as Dirty Harry in Spock drag isn't very effective filmmaking.
No. It doesn't come across that way at all.
Just saw this posted on Twitter:
But, but, but…nah. I've got nuthin'.
Separate names with a comma.