As you will perhaps remember, Pine, Quinto and Nimoy were on SNL and after a "suitable" build up Nimoy apparently said: "To not like it would make them dickheads".
Now I have never seen the skit so I can only assume its one of those situations where "you had to be there", but as someone on another site said, I thought Nimoy would have had more class. It’s a salutary tale of what can happen when you get in with the wrong crowd!
Since you haven't seen it, let me tell you: it was funny. Were you offended with Shatner told fans to "Get a life!"?
Actually no, I think Nimoy crossed a line that Shatner didn’t. Granted, that in itself is surprising. "Get a Life" is helpful advice!
Describing people as "dickheads" is just poorly considered infantile name calling.
... There was a thread about it here. I can only salute kitsune (post #54, 56), the only poster I saw who thought there was anything wrong with Nimoy’s decision to say that. Given the general reaction, I can understand why most people like the movie so much (Note how Jeri doesn't appear to understand the problem).
Jeri understood perfectly well that Pine, Quinto and Nimoy were making an appearance to promote the movie--just one of an extremely varied number of promotions in a campaign aimed at many demographics which hadn't been targeted for Star Trek series or movies for many years (if ever)--and, as pros, the three performed a scripted sketch aimed squarely at the SNL audience. They did what they were there to do, and if the Nimoy line cited above didn't sit well with you, then perhaps you (like me, who hasn't watched SNL for years) aren't part of the targeted demographic ...
You mean they were only "following orders"?
Actually that’s pretty much what I took from her comments. Since I am mindful of the possibility of misrepresent her (which still might exist), your expansion helps alleviate my concerns. Thanks. However, what you both appear to be overlooking is the possibility that (IMO) Nimoy was ill advised to make that comment irrespective of the circumstances, as a matter of principle. It seemed to me this was
kitsune’s view, but again I don’t want to put words in his text editor.
... , just as the "this is not your father's Star Trek" tagline was aimed at other people and is not something to which any offense need be taken by the rest of us.
Regarding that comment I would of course agree. But I’m having difficulty seeing much similarity between the two statements, even considering the actual manifestation of "… not your father's Star Trek."
I did see the sketch, however, and taken in context, it worked exactly the way it was supposed to…
I’m sure it did, however once again, lack of effectiveness is not
exactly my complaint. But perhaps you are suggesting that "
taken in context" it was the epitome of genteel erudition (?), which is still not something I can visualise!
…; changing the line would not have improved it.
Except to make it less objectionable of course. Oh, don't tell me the rest of it was just as bad?!
Anyway, I hope that shines some light on what I meant by "… doesn't appear to understand the problem".
By the way, there was another much publicised item about hard core fan reaction to STXI which I did find funny so I don't think I am being overly sensitive.
UFO said:
And that was before his unnecessary post movie comment.
To
me, his comment was aimed at people who put themselves ahead of what is good for the franchise overall. He had to make a choice; NOT do the film for the sake of few who might get bent out of shape or DO the film and save the franchise, and he did. So, yeah, taking his comment to mean,
suck my balls, is probably correct.
Ah, the old “End justifies the means” gambit eh? Oh and let’s find an excuse to suppress dessent while we’re at it. OK, going out on a limb here, but just maybe he could have held out until they fixed the most objectionable problem with the movie. I’m not even talking about the ridiculous plot, lack of substance and poor science, which most people (including myself) are obviously able to forgive (more or less). No, not even the lens fares! Just get Star Fleet’s ethics right dammit! I couldn’t say whether your or
M'Sharak’s view of his motives are more correct, but it seems safe to say objectors to the movie should be grateful you weren’t writing Nimoy’s SNL script! Hey
M'Sharak, now I see what you mean about changing the line not being likely to "improve" it.
UFO said:
It just seems to me that at time when Star Trek could be taking a helpful lead in social issues (and yes, I know its entertainment), it contains attitudes that to some degree at least, make it appear to be part of the problem, in my view.
When in the past 40+ years of Trek has it ever caused some social ill to be diminished or eliminated?
Okay, I'll give you one; keeping potential psychos holed up in their basements watching re-runs and posting on fan-sites.
Have to say, nothing much really I guess, unless you include helping to reduce racism and sexism by hiring a black woman for a bridge position on the Enterprise. Apparently that was so important a certain religious chap encouraged her to stay put when she considered resigning.
Oh and that keeping "psychos in their basements" thing you mentioned shouldn't be underestimated, given current affairs. Though its a poor substitute for socialising children properly in the first place.
...
Whether you like it or not, that is the truth.
See... it really isn't the truth. Been a fan since 1975 (4 years old), and I didn't need
anyone to be in it for me to think it's Star Trek. What I actually needed was a solid story that wasn't built on coincidence after coincidence and juvenile humor (like tit grabs).
I honestly hope Abrams and Company have a solid story in mind for the sequel. But based on Transformers 2, I'm not holding my breath.
Probably a wise precaution. Also, I can't help agreeing with you: We should all try to keep a stronger grip on the difference between "truth" and "IMHO"! Ok, that's not going to happen.
