He could have simply said nothing instead of offering an unsolicited editorial.
Editorial on ST:IX (James Cawley)
- Thread starter T'Aerwynd
- Start date
He could have simply said nothing instead of offering an unsolicited editorial.
How much is your integrity worth to you?
How little are you willing to assume that another man's - someone you don't know - is worth to him?
Why do you think so, and does your uninformed evaluation of others say more about them or about you?
Can't we all just agree that there is a potential for bias, which can be mentioned legitimately.
And there is also the very real possibility that, independent of that potential bias, he sincerely means everything that he said.
How hard is that?
And there is also the very real possibility that, independent of that potential bias, he sincerely means everything that he said.
How hard is that?
Let me get this right, If you where given a look at the set and a part in the movie...And working to get into the movie business..you would tell people that a well known director did not do a good job???????
I am saying be fair, If Mr. Cawley did not get to be in the studio and get a part in the movie.. and seen the same photos and info that we all have seen..then I would said ok..
Its hard to give a true fair review when you are given stuff from the people you are reviewing. That is why reporter & Journalist can't take gifts from people they are reviewing. I am not trying to bash him, but I want to point out both sides of this..That there is a potential for bias..That is all.
I am saying be fair, If Mr. Cawley did not get to be in the studio and get a part in the movie.. and seen the same photos and info that we all have seen..then I would said ok..
Its hard to give a true fair review when you are given stuff from the people you are reviewing. That is why reporter & Journalist can't take gifts from people they are reviewing. I am not trying to bash him, but I want to point out both sides of this..That there is a potential for bias..That is all.
That is really easy. I'd agree with it. It doesn't involve slandering someone by suggesting that they've sold their opinion at all.
I wonder why it would be so difficult for other people to refrain from accusing strangers of lacking the integrity they would claim for themselve?
...and thanks to you, now I'm hearing it, too!Arghhh! Now that annoying [but nevertheless funny] song "Star Trekkin'" is playing in my head...Thanks!
Anyone who has seen any part of this has a more credible - and interesting - opinion to me than anyone who has seen nothing. And the more they've seen, the more interested I am in reading what they think.
That's just sensible.
That's just sensible.
James Cawley wasn't giving a review but rather doing an editorial. He's only seen the production and not the finished film. Thus, he can't review the film. Two very different things, but both rely on informed opinion. He's seen the production, talked with the actors, the director, the producers and the writers. He has an informed opinion based on seeing it first hand. Sure, he also had a cameo but if he didn't agree with it, he would've said so. He's done so in the past on his own board. However, changing one's opinion doesn't necessarily constitute as being tractable or "selling out" or "bought out." It just means that he was presented with new evidence that superseded his previous opinion.
Note that he also states that he doesn't agree with all the changes in the talkback below his editorial. That it isn't what he would've have done as a purist. But he only asks that we have an open mind.
Further, he understands the challenge faced by the filmmakers: make Trek relevant to a broader audience and not the niche that it's served for the last couple of decades and series.
As a former journalist, let me tell you that reporters take gifts all the time. Trinkets are given out at every press junket as part of the "press kit;" be it a pen, a button or a Guniess beer glass (I got one of these). Usually, these gifts are too small to sway opinion in one direction or the other. Now monetary gifts and high-priced items that's a whole other can of gagh and bad business.
Moreover, reviewers are by their nature biased. It's part of their job. They watch a film to offer a critique which is hardly objective. Of course, this begets the question: Is Journalism truly objective? Believe me, reviewers do take gifts when it comes to stuff they review-- they get to see movies for free, get special advance copies of books and then there are those wonderful press kits that often come with little "promotional" trinkets.
In any case, you are trying to bash Cawley as you are making an assumption on the kind of man he is. As they say in Journalism school, when you assume, you make an ass outta you and me.
Last edited:
Exactly.
And one problem with these assumptions is that they always seem to make the subject out to be less honest or smart or whatever than the person doing the assuming considers themselves to be.
Unfortunately, assumptions are persuasive on the internet to those that will listen to them and buy into them. This board is no exception.
number6
Vice Admiral
Except that he was in the movie and allowed to see things we haven't
Game, Set, match Number6.
I was in a movie and I've seen things you haven't. Hmm...
There is a potential for bias, Why is that a wrong to point out.
Again He want to get into the movie business, he has a role in the movie..why is that wrong to point out? I say it again..Like I said in the other thread..If you want to go see the movie..Please go see it and have fun. My point about this thread is to look at the whole thing..when you have someone supporting this movie.
Look at Star Trek Nemesis..When you have people working in the Movie (The Main Stars) say that this is a good movie...etc and then you ask them now..and they tell you the truth. Again I am trying to be fair in this thread..I am not picking on anyone or say bad things about the movie. I am saying be fair when you point to someone who is talking about the movie, who has something to gain from the movie.
Thats all.
Thanks.
Again He want to get into the movie business, he has a role in the movie..why is that wrong to point out? I say it again..Like I said in the other thread..If you want to go see the movie..Please go see it and have fun. My point about this thread is to look at the whole thing..when you have someone supporting this movie.
Look at Star Trek Nemesis..When you have people working in the Movie (The Main Stars) say that this is a good movie...etc and then you ask them now..and they tell you the truth. Again I am trying to be fair in this thread..I am not picking on anyone or say bad things about the movie. I am saying be fair when you point to someone who is talking about the movie, who has something to gain from the movie.
Thats all.
Thanks.
Porn doesn't count. Does it?
number6
Vice Admiral
How about - try this: that's not what you said. It's not even close, really.
I'm not saying he doesn't have more information than we do. I'm saying I don't give his opinion, informed though it may be, all that much weight.
That's also not to say I am not predisposed to love this film. I am a Trekkie. It takes a lot of fail to make me dislike soemthing called Star Trek. I just don't take James Cawley all that seriously.
