It's basically a blow-by-blow adaptation of "The Soft Weapon." Definitely one of the more memorable TAS episodes.
Do you think the feud between Shatner and Takei is fake?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
It's basically a blow-by-blow adaptation of "The Soft Weapon." Definitely one of the more memorable TAS episodes.
Human relationships are complicated ... longstanding ones even more so. And when those relationships are lived out in the public eye, it can't make them any easier to nail down.
I don't have any trouble imagining two people feuding off and on, but also still being willing to share a stage or work together on occasion.
I don't have any trouble imagining two people feuding off and on, but also still being willing to share a stage or work together on occasion.
Lol.....Thanks for the warning. Don't worry though I have far too may buffoons in my day to day life I have to deal with that impact me far more than George Takei. I only wish I had a boss or coworker I could bitch about and make significant sums o money in doing to
Like I said I just think he's been particularly dirtyhanded in his shots at Shatner. Bill gave him the chance to clear the air in "Star Trek Memories" and he chose to let it drop and Shatner wrote some pretty nice things about him.
Then when TUC is in the can and he realizes there aren't going to be any big paydays from Paramount anymore that he might be left out of if he were to blast the Shat.......Then he lets loose on him both professional and personal levels. I'm sorry but that is weak ass shit.
At first it was probably real, but he realized if he adds a little fuel to the fire every now and then it keeps his name in the entertainment news and brings him attention and he still does it 25 years after he last had to work with him......Also bad form.
And his hypocracy is the final straw. He took great pains to let people who read his book that he thought Shatner was just some sad pathetic person who was a characture of himself by TUC. Yet Takei, who like I said I always thought carried himself with class, has basically turned himself into a campy, buffoon acting character as well because again it keeps him somewhat visible.
I excuse Doohan a little bit, although it was unfortunate he seemed to carry such bitterness pretty much to his death bed, but with James I think it was more a case of him not respecting Shatner as a man, as opposed to him being upset over what it did to his role in the franchise.
It's kind of like in Batman Begins when Bruce Wayne goes to confront Falcone. Wayne is all angry and wants to show Falcone he's not afraid of him and how tough he is....etc. Falcone gives him a backhanded compliment about admiring his spirit, but doesn't respect Wayne at all because, even though he saw his parents killed, he's never really known true desperation where you have to worry about keeping you and others fed, clothed, a roof over their head and even turning to illegal ways to do it where you have to worry about being killed or jailed or you have to kill and to other things to survive.
I think Doohan saw Shatner in the same vein. Here's this guy who can be pompus, arrogant and downright mean to others and acts like he's king stud. Yet what has he really done in life? He was in the acting industry for basically all his adult life, he'd studied Shakespeare and so forth. Sure he'd probably had hard times, but Doohan had fought in wars, killed people, been shot himself, probably saw men he was friends with and respected die so he knew the darker side and he just could never accept this guy acting all high and mighty when, in Doohan's mind, he never really did anything to earn that respect.
Just my opinion. I'm done playing dime store Freud. Don't worry though I'm not going to my deathbed cursing George Takei.....It's just come up lately and I've always had a strong opinion on it.
It is funny how I think regular people have a tendency to think actors, musicians and athletes must be best friends in real life because they act that way while performing or have to work as a team.
When I was young I loved the Boston Celtics and thought, because they played so well together in games. Larry Bird, Robert Parish and Kevin McHale must all be best friends in reality. Turned out Parish just kept to himself and got high a lot, and Bird and McHale had a passive aggressive relationship because McHale thought Bird was a hard assed jerk at times and Bird thought McHale was a simple minded fool because of his laid back and carefree attitude.
Hell John Lennon and Paul McCartney grew up together, fought through hard times together, and finally has a small measure of success with some band I can't remember the name of right now.......Yet they couldn't stand each other by the 70's and never got past it up to Lennon's death.
Entertainment is just like any other job. You work with people, some you may like, some you may hate, some are just there. I don't have any real friends in my coworkers and that never shocks anyone because a lot of people feel the same. Most of my co workers are ok and I'm sure we could have a beer together, but I just choose not to make work people part of my private life.
Yet a lot of people are STUNNED when they discover so and so from some show or some team really hate each other when they seem to work so well together.
In a note of irony. The ST TOS cast has become known for it's tension between people, yes usually involving Shatner even on the show they were all comrades and friends. Yet the cast of Dallas, where they were always screwing each other over and stabbing each other in the back, got along great for the most part and everyone seemed to love Larry Hagman, who was the biggest dirtbag on the show, because in real life he'd often throw his weight around to help out his co-stars if they were having difficulty with the producers in some way.
Who came with theidea that anyone famous has tobe a role model? It's creepy.
Well, doesn't it really go back to the ancient Greek notions of immortal fame and greatness being tied together? The application to celebrity is kind of new, but it's surely in the same vein.
Parents are concerned that their impressionable children will behave - for good or bad - like those they invite into their home every day. It's the parents who impose responsibility upon those whom their children find familiar. And some of those celebrities happen to be parents who agree with such sentiment and hold other celebrities equally responsible.
Parents should know that direct influence is way more important. Kids will see good and bad around them even without celebs. No reason to impose puritanical standards on people who just like to play sports or make art.
The Greeks were probably too busy to invest in nonsensical controversies.
They were humans. I'm pretty sure they had their share nonsensical controversies.
Yes, both concepts are not mutually exclusive. One way they exercise their direct influence is by expecting better of others.
Sometimes, you end up having to split the difference. I try to tell my niece (she's 9) that its ok to be a fan of Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj and other people like that. By all means, watch whatever videos you want to, listen to their music but normal people don't act like that. There is a difference between entertainment and acceptable, normal adult behavior. Never confuse pretend with reality.
Why? What's wrong with having heroes?
It's not having heroes that's the problem, it's demanding that your heroes conform to your expectations. It's the belief that they owe you something in return for your admiration of them.
Good stuff, a lot of it I've never heard. I always assumed since Shatner was egomaniacal enough to force Paramount intro giving him the directors chair that he didn't deserve and the fact that he wanted Kirk's two best friends to turn on him, to which Nimoy and Kelley rejected as any fan would have.
All this time I always had Shatner pegged as the jerk who alienated everyone.
enterprisecvn65, I agree with everything you said - very well written - just didn't want to quote it all in order to respond to just one paragraph!
I have noticed that most people are passive-aggressive in nature. When confronted with someone of a higher aggression level, I've found that a vast majority of the people involved retreat because they don't want to make waves.
I find this to be the case specifically with those members of the particular generation in which most of the TOS stars belong. There is clearly some irrational respect for a higher authority, in this case the Paramount suits and/or Shatner himself as the top-biller, at their own expense. This leads to a build-up of resentment over the years because they never felt like they had some kind of release or justice.
Those of this older generation seem to have always been less willing to stand up for their own personal justice. In the case of the TOS folks, now that the opportunity is gone to actively effect positive change, they "retcon" their own lives later in an effort to make what they did seem more important than it really was, in effect, "lashing out" irrationally over something they have no control over in an effort to regain what they perceive as that control. Sad thing is, it's far too late for any of them to reasonably do that, if it could be done at all. The feuds seem a bit of a salacious and voyeuristic side-show, on par with the sitcom tell-all's that have appeared on cable in recent years. You think Trek was rough? Hell, you should see the people talking about each other from the cast of Gilligan's Island, Brady Bunch, Diff'rent Strokes or One Day at a Time! Some of those people either openly despised each other until death or had a hefty collection of mug shots, post-cancellation!
Many fans forget these actors are merely human, just like everyone else and are often-times victim of human foibles. When they fall, they can fall hard, and the falling can become quickly public thanks to TV tabloids and Teh Interwebz - far more quickly than us "nobodies". That can take a toll on an individual, from which some never return. The good ones continue on with dignity, and they are ever so rare.
24 hour news cycle. Also hero is someone who stands up to what is right in a time of crisis, not someone who is perfect 24/7.
But they lacked the wealth to make such huge deals of out of those. Living in the Antiquity was rough.
Ideally, we should all behave as if we're role models for children, whether we have kids or not, and whether we're famous or not.
What does that mean?
What should be the universal standards accepted by almost everyone?