Shaw said:
I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
And Star Trek V failed because...
- Thread starter Zaku
- Start date
I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
Still, I'm fairly sure Shatner would be quick to point out that he likes Shatner just fine himself, thank you.
Way to go reposting Shaw's huge post just to make some lame joke.
I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
To my knowledge, Shatner doesn't know Shaw.
True.
I don't dislike him... he can be a competent actor.I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
But I figured out a long time ago that actors aren't their characters. Actually, I think I solidified that belief back in 1978 when I met James Doohan and asked him a question about a technical aspect of the Enterprise. He was kind enough to try to answer my question, but he wasn't Scotty. And even at the age of 11, I was actually fine with that.
And I don't have issues with actors who essentially play themselves in their roles... most of the time they are cast for parts to do just that. But I do have issues when actors try to change great characters into something that more closely resembles themselves. And I pointed out that in the area of long running TV series, many lead actors morph their characters into being screen versions of themselves as they gain more creative control over series. I brought up Alan Alda and Tom Selleck as examples, but lets not forget someone a little closer to home... Leonard Nimoy.
Nimoy is a case where neither the producers or writers were quite sure where they were going with the character and Nimoy was intellectually curious enough to inject a ton of strong ideas into Spock and Vulcan culture. The difference being that Spock was still a character unique from Nimoy, even though Nimoy had invested a ton of time and energy in it. And because Nimoy was the origin of much of what Spock was, he played Spock in a way that made you believe that he was actually just playing himself (hence his need to write I Am Not Spock). Nimoy is awesome, a creative genius, the origin of what makes Spock Spock... but he is not Spock, nor was he playing himself as the character throughout most of Trek.
Shatner isn't that creative. In the absence of writing and directing from others, he can't just pull together a character (or characters) on his own. When given control of Trek he substitutes himself for the character of Kirk and shallow caricatures for the other characters. Why? He isn't doing it on purpose to hurt other people's work (after all, Trek is a collaborative work of art), he just doesn't have the range to do what he saw others doing (he really believed that he was as good as Nimoy in all these areas). Does Shatner know or understand Kirk? No... but he didn't think that was all that important anyways because people were lining up to see him.
Even if you go back and try to find the origin of the Kirk cliché of having a woman in every episode, you'll find that Shatner fanned that idea as much as anyone. Shatner wanted Kirk to be like that, and pushed for it throughout TOS (and got it more or less in season three). And because Shatner had so much more influence in Phase II (specially with the absence of Nimoy), he pushed for this even harder. Take, for example, Shatner's idea for the pilot In Thy Image...
Roddenberry: Received a call from Bill Shatner in which he made the following comments on the second draft script:
Suggest that we have an interesting dramatic opportunity if Kirk makes love to the "Ilia" machine and we actually see at least the beginnings of this on camera. He feels that it is not only a valid extension of what the story already has him doing but has the considerable opportunity for humor and helps reinforce the whole change in her.
This is the type of thing that Captain Shatner would do, but not Captain Kirk. And the thing is, all of this type of stuff came out unfiltered in TFF.Suggest that we have an interesting dramatic opportunity if Kirk makes love to the "Ilia" machine and we actually see at least the beginnings of this on camera. He feels that it is not only a valid extension of what the story already has him doing but has the considerable opportunity for humor and helps reinforce the whole change in her.
Shatner doesn't see this as a problem because from his point of view TFF was how Star Trek had always been, and I can't fault him for that. That is what he saw looking at Trek. And I can't fault people who call TFF the most TOS-like Trek film... after all, to them (just like to Shatner) there is no difference between the characters of TOS and caricatures they saw in TFF.
So no, I don't dislike Shatner... and in a way, I can't blame him for making a Star Trek movie that shows us exactly what he sees when he looks at Trek.
Shatner is what he is... and he is fine with that, so why shouldn't I be. But Any one thinking that Shatner playing Shatner isn't what has been going on for years now is only fooling themselves. Even though Shatner didn't make WatchMojo's Top 10 Typecast Actors list, he was an honorable mention (Typecast as: Himself).
Shatner is good for Shatner... I just don't think he is good for Trek.
What?
The Empire Strikes Back got better reviews and was more liked back then. I know that I, personally, didn't think that Star Wars was all that great when it came out... and I didn't have high hopes for The Empire Strikes Back because I was expecting Star Wars II: More of the Same. That movie hit me like a ton of bricks! And it hit audiences (and reviewers) back then the same way.
I saw it opening showing on opening day with some friends... and thenI saw it two more times that day and 30 times that summer in the theaters. Where Star Wars was shallow and light, The Empire Strikes Back was deep, dark and serious.
When Return of the Jedi came out I was hoping for more of what made The Empire Strikes Back great... but got more of what made Star Wars forgettable for me.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Star Wars and Return of the Jedi where liked more than The Empire Strikes Back, because that wasn't the case at all. In fact, Return of the Jedi had a hard time following up on The Empire Strikes Back and many people were very critical of it when it came out because of this.
History is history... lets not try to rewrite it. I'm sure little kids who sat down and watched all three movies long after their release found Star Wars and Return of the Jedi better at first... for the real (adult) world at the times of its release they favored The Empire Strikes Back over Star Wars, and sadly Return of the Jedi fell short of expectations on it's release.
For me, Star Wars only became an interesting movie after The Empire Strikes Back. Before that, nothing was even close to Star Trek.
Or, the other way around...
Peoples' exhibit A: the guy who played Elane's boss on Seinfeld.
I don't dislike him... he can be a competent actor.I take it you don't like Shatner. It's ok. He probably doesn't like you either.
But I figured out a long time ago that actors aren't their characters. Actually, I think I solidified that belief back in 1978 when I met James Doohan and asked him a question about a technical aspect of the Enterprise. He was kind enough to try to answer my question, but he wasn't Scotty. And even at the age of 11, I was actually fine with that.
And I don't have issues with actors who essentially play themselves in their roles... most of the time they are cast for parts to do just that. But I do have issues when actors try to change great characters into something that more closely resembles themselves. And I pointed out that in the area of long running TV series, many lead actors morph their characters into being screen versions of themselves as they gain more creative control over series. I brought up Alan Alda and Tom Selleck as examples, but lets not forget someone a little closer to home... Leonard Nimoy.
Nimoy is a case where neither the producers or writers were quite sure where they were going with the character and Nimoy was intellectually curious enough to inject a ton of strong ideas into Spock and Vulcan culture. The difference being that Spock was still a character unique from Nimoy, even though Nimoy had invested a ton of time and energy in it. And because Nimoy was the origin of much of what Spock was, he played Spock in a way that made you believe that he was actually just playing himself (hence his need to write I Am Not Spock). Nimoy is awesome, a creative genius, the origin of what makes Spock Spock... but he is not Spock, nor was he playing himself as the character throughout most of Trek.
Shatner isn't that creative. In the absence of writing and directing from others, he can't just pull together a character (or characters) on his own. When given control of Trek he substitutes himself for the character of Kirk and shallow caricatures for the other characters. Why? He isn't doing it on purpose to hurt other people's work (after all, Trek is a collaborative work of art), he just doesn't have the range to do what he saw others doing (he really believed that he was as good as Nimoy in all these areas). Does Shatner know or understand Kirk? No... but he didn't think that was all that important anyways because people were lining up to see him.
Even if you go back and try to find the origin of the Kirk cliché of having a woman in every episode, you'll find that Shatner fanned that idea as much as anyone. Shatner wanted Kirk to be like that, and pushed for it throughout TOS (and got it more or less in season three). And because Shatner had so much more influence in Phase II (specially with the absence of Nimoy), he pushed for this even harder. Take, for example, Shatner's idea for the pilot In Thy Image...Roddenberry: Received a call from Bill Shatner in which he made the following comments on the second draft script:This is the type of thing that Captain Shatner would do, but not Captain Kirk. And the thing is, all of this type of stuff came out unfiltered in TFF.
Suggest that we have an interesting dramatic opportunity if Kirk makes love to the "Ilia" machine and we actually see at least the beginnings of this on camera. He feels that it is not only a valid extension of what the story already has him doing but has the considerable opportunity for humor and helps reinforce the whole change in her.
Shatner doesn't see this as a problem because from his point of view TFF was how Star Trek had always been, and I can't fault him for that. That is what he saw looking at Trek. And I can't fault people who call TFF the most TOS-like Trek film... after all, to them (just like to Shatner) there is no difference between the characters of TOS and caricatures they saw in TFF.
So no, I don't dislike Shatner... and in a way, I can't blame him for making a Star Trek movie that shows us exactly what he sees when he looks at Trek.
Shatner is what he is... and he is fine with that, so why shouldn't I be. But Any one thinking that Shatner playing Shatner isn't what has been going on for years now is only fooling themselves. Even though Shatner didn't make WatchMojo's Top 10 Typecast Actors list, he was an honorable mention (Typecast as: Himself).
Shatner is good for Shatner... I just don't think he is good for Trek.
What?
The Empire Strikes Back got better reviews and was more liked back then. I know that I, personally, didn't think that Star Wars was all that great when it came out... and I didn't have high hopes for The Empire Strikes Back because I was expecting Star Wars II: More of the Same. That movie hit me like a ton of bricks! And it hit audiences (and reviewers) back then the same way.
I saw it opening showing on opening day with some friends... and thenI saw it two more times that day and 30 times that summer in the theaters. Where Star Wars was shallow and light, The Empire Strikes Back was deep, dark and serious.
When Return of the Jedi came out I was hoping for more of what made The Empire Strikes Back great... but got more of what made Star Wars forgettable for me.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Star Wars and Return of the Jedi where liked more than The Empire Strikes Back, because that wasn't the case at all. In fact, Return of the Jedi had a hard time following up on The Empire Strikes Back and many people were very critical of it when it came out because of this.
History is history... lets not try to rewrite it. I'm sure little kids who sat down and watched all three movies long after their release found Star Wars and Return of the Jedi better at first... for the real (adult) world at the times of its release they favored The Empire Strikes Back over Star Wars, and sadly Return of the Jedi fell short of expectations on it's release.
For me, Star Wars only became an interesting movie after The Empire Strikes Back. Before that, nothing was even close to Star Trek.
Empire Strikes Back (hereafter, TESB) definitely did well, mostly for the shock value of "The Big Reveal" which was surprising to everyone, including James Earl Jones. It definitely had a host of action, including a more intense saber fight than Star Wars ever had (Thank you, Bob Anderson) and some crazy space chases.
But, TESB is not my favorite film out of SW films. I have always liked both Star Wars and Star Trek, and wanted to grow up to be my hero, Captain James T. Skywalker
I think Shatner is a decent actor, and TOS is certainly some great work, for the most part. I think he needs a director who is willing to put up with his shenanigans and still get good performances. That can be difficult to do, but the earlier films certainly indicate the possibility
But, I agree that him being the director did not work in his favor, because there was no limit, beyond what studio execs said. Shatner is kind of similar Lucas in that he needs limits to function better.
Just when I thought there was nothing new in the world to bitch about, Dukhat bitches about scrolling an extra millisecond.
Now THAT is "lame".
You know, "lame" like my joke...or your sig...
TNG is a fine series, but for reasons including the following:
The starship's bridge looks like the Hilton Hotel lounge;
There's a psychiatrist on the bridge;
Speeches;
Technobabble;
Klingon culture;
etc.
-- it's an entire different animal.
Still they kept trying to hammer themselves into TOS lore, in-universe and out.
Also the production time and budget and other practical constraints determined assets (sets, costumes, props, ship models) had to leak between the TOS movies and TNG productions.
V and VI, even though they bigger budgets thav IV, look like a TV cheapo production.
To be fair, Captain Kirk never had access to the show's creators and scriptwriters. Plus, Captain Kirk never had issues climbing into bed with a beautiful woman if he thought it would help his cause.
If there was no Shatner, there would be no Kirk. If there had been no Kirk, Star Trek might never have made it to TV in the first place.
.
What?
The Empire Strikes Back got better reviews and was more liked back then. I know that I, personally, didn't think that Star Wars was all that great when it came out... and I didn't have high hopes for The Empire Strikes Back because I was expecting Star Wars II: More of the Same. That movie hit me like a ton of bricks! And it hit audiences (and reviewers) back then the same way.
I saw it opening showing on opening day with some friends... and thenI saw it two more times that day and 30 times that summer in the theaters. Where Star Wars was shallow and light, The Empire Strikes Back was deep, dark and serious.
When Return of the Jedi came out I was hoping for more of what made The Empire Strikes Back great... but got more of what made Star Wars forgettable for me.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Star Wars and Return of the Jedi where liked more than The Empire Strikes Back, because that wasn't the case at all. In fact, Return of the Jedi had a hard time following up on The Empire Strikes Back and many people were very critical of it when it came out because of this.
History is history... lets not try to rewrite it. I'm sure little kids who sat down and watched all three movies long after their release found Star Wars and Return of the Jedi better at first... for the real (adult) world at the times of its release they favored The Empire Strikes Back over Star Wars, and sadly Return of the Jedi fell short of expectations on it's release.
For me, Star Wars only became an interesting movie after The Empire Strikes Back. Before that, nothing was even close to Star Trek.[/QUOTE]
Uh I'm not rewriting anything my friend. It is well known in the Star Wars community that when "The Empire Strikes Back" came out it received mixed reviews from the public and film critics alike. I don't remember anyone coming out and saying it was a total disaster but it did not originally open to the same almost universal acclaim that eventually happened to "Star Wars" once it caught fire.
There were many reason for this but two of the bigger are 1. Many people were surprised to see that it had such a dark tone to it, this was a time before "Dark" was vogue in films and most film goers expected something similar to "Star Wars", a lighter good vs. evil tale where the good guys win and many did not like seeing the good guys basically get their asses handed to them through out the entire film like the Rebels losing at Hoth, Han getting frozen, Luke getting thrashed by Vader and losing a hand and so on. Except for destroying a few TIE Fighters and killing a few stormtroopers and escaping at the end the Empire basically owned the Rebels throughout the film. Also scenes where Vader executed his officers (although it was implied in the first film) and things like the Luke "dream" sequence on Dagobah were totally different concepts from the first film. When you have "Oh it's Star Wars part II in mind and it turns out differently, people often show disappointment until they realize why it was different and better.
2. It was not the non stop action fest that "Star Wars" was. It had a much more sedate opening scene as opposed to the classic battle that started "Star Wars". Once they hit Mos Eisely in "Star Wars" and right up to the end of the film there were only a few minutes in places where something wasn't fired, launched, blown up....etc. In Empire there were long stretches where the pace was slower with not as much action. Yes the Hoth battle kicked total ass and it was/is my favorite battle in any of the Star Wars films even as a 7 year old. After the Falcon hides in the asteroid there are hardly any actions sequences, except for a few brief scenes with the Falcon, right up until Luke and Vader square off and Leia and co. make their break for it from Cloud City. A good deal of the middle part of the film is taken up with things like the Dagobah sequences and Vader talking to the Emperor and trying to figure out where the Falcon is. Again in retrospect people realize now that those were some of the most important scenes in the film, but at the time they seemed totally different from what people were expecting. Plus they didn't have the advantage of being able to see how everything in this built depth and added to the overall story since the saga was incomplete.
This is not without precedent. Neither "The Wizard of Oz" or "Casablanca" were huge hits at the box office and were not consider to be classics until some time after their initial release. In fact many people at the time thought "Casablanca" was nothing but a blantant piece of war propaganda (which it was) but it was also an extremely great film as people eventually realize. "Shawshank Redemption" was a failure at the box office. Now it often makes the list of greatest films ever made.
"Jedi" was also generally more well received at the time because it was more action packed and brighter, and the Ewoks weren't immediately seen as the crass marketing tool they were. Keep in mind a lot of "Star Wars" fans were children or young adults who don't often see things in deeper perspective until they're older.
If you didn't like "Star Wars" then I can't imagine what your expectations are. Besides "Gone With the Wind" I can't think of a film that totally revolutionized a genre and was like nothing like anyone had seen before.
If you thought Empire was better then congrats you were ahead of the curve and it took me until I was in in my teen to understand the things that made Empire the best film of the series and IMHO the best Sci-Fi film ever, a change of heart a lot of Star Wars fans apparently since it is generally regarded by most fans as the high point of the Star Wars series.
But don't sit there and act all high and mighty and accuse me of rewriting history. The facts speak for themselves. Yes it was a blockbuster but it was the lowest grossing of the three films in it's initial release, despite the fact it had a marketing and hype machine going before it's release that Star Wars could have only dreamed of since it was pretty much expected to fail and only caught on by word of mouth. Which means that a lot of people did not like it as much as Star Wars initially and did not go back to see it again and again like they did Star Wars, just because you did that does not translate into what the wider facts were.
And if you do even a cursory search on the history of the film and it's initial release it is widely mentioned in many many sources that it was not initially as well received as Star Wars and even in Jedi in some cases. And I had lots and lots of Star Wars fans and we all openly admit as adults that we were wrong about Empire but didn't have the capacity to really understand it's greatness at our age.
I'm sure many people thought it was the best the first time they saw it and it's grown in stature far beyond it's initial reception as more people came to understand it's greatness, but do some research on the facts of what happened when it was released in 1980 and unless you are just determined to deny it and think I'm full of shit, you'll see that what I've said is mostly spot on and I'm not "rewriting" anything.
The Empire Strikes Back got better reviews and was more liked back then. I know that I, personally, didn't think that Star Wars was all that great when it came out... and I didn't have high hopes for The Empire Strikes Back because I was expecting Star Wars II: More of the Same. That movie hit me like a ton of bricks! And it hit audiences (and reviewers) back then the same way.
I saw it opening showing on opening day with some friends... and thenI saw it two more times that day and 30 times that summer in the theaters. Where Star Wars was shallow and light, The Empire Strikes Back was deep, dark and serious.
When Return of the Jedi came out I was hoping for more of what made The Empire Strikes Back great... but got more of what made Star Wars forgettable for me.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Star Wars and Return of the Jedi where liked more than The Empire Strikes Back, because that wasn't the case at all. In fact, Return of the Jedi had a hard time following up on The Empire Strikes Back and many people were very critical of it when it came out because of this.
History is history... lets not try to rewrite it. I'm sure little kids who sat down and watched all three movies long after their release found Star Wars and Return of the Jedi better at first... for the real (adult) world at the times of its release they favored The Empire Strikes Back over Star Wars, and sadly Return of the Jedi fell short of expectations on it's release.
For me, Star Wars only became an interesting movie after The Empire Strikes Back. Before that, nothing was even close to Star Trek.
[/QUOTE]Uh I'm not rewriting anything my friend. It is well known in the Star Wars community that when "The Empire Strikes Back" came out it received mixed reviews from the public and film critics alike. I don't remember anyone coming out and saying it was a total disaster but it did not originally open to the same almost universal acclaim that eventually happened to "Star Wars" once it caught fire.
There were many reason for this but two of the bigger are 1. Many people were surprised to see that it had such a dark tone to it, this was a time before "Dark" was vogue in films and most film goers expected something similar to "Star Wars", a lighter good vs. evil tale where the good guys win and many did not like seeing the good guys basically get their asses handed to them through out the entire film like the Rebels losing at Hoth, Han getting frozen, Luke getting thrashed by Vader and losing a hand and so on. Except for destroying a few TIE Fighters and killing a few stormtroopers and escaping at the end the Empire basically owned the Rebels throughout the film. Also scenes where Vader executed his officers (although it was implied in the first film) and things like the Luke "dream" sequence on Dagobah were totally different concepts from the first film. When you have "Oh it's Star Wars part II in mind and it turns out differently, people often show disappointment until they realize why it was different and better.
2. It was not the non stop action fest that "Star Wars" was. It had a much more sedate opening scene as opposed to the classic battle that started "Star Wars". Once they hit Mos Eisely in "Star Wars" and right up to the end of the film there were only a few minutes in places where something wasn't fired, launched, blown up....etc. In Empire there were long stretches where the pace was slower with not as much action. Yes the Hoth battle kicked total ass and it was/is my favorite battle in any of the Star Wars films even as a 7 year old. After the Falcon hides in the asteroid there are hardly any actions sequences, except for a few brief scenes with the Falcon, right up until Luke and Vader square off and Leia and co. make their break for it from Cloud City. A good deal of the middle part of the film is taken up with things like the Dagobah sequences and Vader talking to the Emperor and trying to figure out where the Falcon is. Again in retrospect people realize now that those were some of the most important scenes in the film, but at the time they seemed totally different from what people were expecting. Plus they didn't have the advantage of being able to see how everything in this built depth and added to the overall story since the saga was incomplete.
This is not without precedent. Neither "The Wizard of Oz" or "Casablanca" were huge hits at the box office and were not consider to be classics until some time after their initial release. In fact many people at the time thought "Casablanca" was nothing but a blantant piece of war propaganda (which it was) but it was also an extremely great film as people eventually realize. "Shawshank Redemption" was a failure at the box office. Now it often makes the list of greatest films ever made.
"Jedi" was also generally more well received at the time because it was more action packed and brighter, and the Ewoks weren't immediately seen as the crass marketing tool they were. Keep in mind a lot of "Star Wars" fans were children or young adults who don't often see things in deeper perspective until they're older.
If you didn't like "Star Wars" then I can't imagine what your expectations are. Besides "Gone With the Wind" I can't think of a film that totally revolutionized a genre and was like nothing like anyone had seen before.
If you thought Empire was better then congrats you were ahead of the curve and it took me until I was in in my teen to understand the things that made Empire the best film of the series and IMHO the best Sci-Fi film ever, a change of heart a lot of Star Wars fans apparently since it is generally regarded by most fans as the high point of the Star Wars series.
But don't sit there and act all high and mighty and accuse me of rewriting history. The facts speak for themselves. Yes it was a blockbuster but it was the lowest grossing of the three films in it's initial release, despite the fact it had a marketing and hype machine going before it's release that Star Wars could have only dreamed of since it was pretty much expected to fail and only caught on by word of mouth. Which means that a lot of people did not like it as much as Star Wars initially and did not go back to see it again and again like they did Star Wars, just because you did that does not translate into what the wider facts were.
And if you do even a cursory search on the history of the film and it's initial release it is widely mentioned in many many sources that it was not initially as well received as Star Wars and even in Jedi in some cases. And I had lots and lots of Star Wars fans and we all openly admit as adults that we were wrong about Empire but didn't have the capacity to really understand it's greatness at our age.
I'm sure many people thought it was the best the first time they saw it and it's grown in stature far beyond it's initial reception as more people came to understand it's greatness, but do some research on the facts of what happened when it was released in 1980 and unless you are just determined to deny it and think I'm full of shit, you'll see that what I've said is mostly spot on and I'm not "rewriting" anything.
^will you guys take that out to a Star Wars board? thanks
Christ give the guy a break. He's allergic to Retnox 5, don't you think the man has suffered enough?
Yep, I had a problem with your reposting a huge post just to make a dumb joke. Deal with it. And one doesn't need to scroll though a huge post to read my "lame" signature.
Deal with it? Just like you had to deal with scrolling?
No, but I got to scroll through the content above it, which is far worse.
Aw, c'mon, guys...don't fight.
Just pretend this is The Next Generation forum, where there's no interpersonal conflict!
Just pretend this is The Next Generation forum, where there's no interpersonal conflict!
You mean you know who I am? I'm impressed.
And perhaps I did come off as a bit asshole-ish in my post. I apologize. Although it would have been nice if your post had some actual substance to it if you were going to requote a gigantic post above it, is all.
Oh, and my sig is fucking hilarious. You clearly must have something wrong with your sense of humor if you don't think that. ;p
And perhaps I did come off as a bit asshole-ish in my post. I apologize. Although it would have been nice if your post had some actual substance to it if you were going to requote a gigantic post above it, is all.
Oh, and my sig is fucking hilarious. You clearly must have something wrong with your sense of humor if you don't think that. ;p
Aw, c'mon, guys...don't fight.
Just pretend this is The Next Generation forum, where there's no interpersonal conflict!
Similar threads
- Locked
