Double standard?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
I think this sums it up more succinctly and eloquently than I could have. That said ... LOL ...
I think GR engaged in a lot of myth-making that has been accepted as gospel by fans. You can see in comments about newer shows and the franchise itself, attitudes that are like phantoms of GR's own publicity living beyond the grave. I think the actual nuance lies somewhere in the middle, but it's natural for the pendulum to swing a little the other way as we try to figure out the actual history. Star Trek may have been his baby, but it takes many talented people to TV and movies, and others were overlooked for too long.
The worst ones are "Am I the Only One Who...?"
Comic writer/artist John Byrne will not permit this thread title on his forum anymore. If you're not specific, and if you ask this particular question, the thread is not only closed, it gets deleted.
Yep.
I suspect most viewers are not as invested as we are. They see 'Created by Gene Roddenberry' and subliminally he registers the kudos of inspiring Trekdom. Shatner gets the same surface goodwill (along with any negativity) of being in a visual medium.
Those in front of the camera are in their domain when it comes to playing the audience and their fans and its loyalty. I'm not convinced that, especially in current times, actors or those behind the scenes are going to be held to a double standard. Nor should they. It is however more disappointing, even abhorrent, when someone you see who has played a character you like is a grubby little excuse of a human being after all.
Just to edit: I don't mean Shatner is a poor human being
He's doing his one-man show here at the moment. Saw him interviewed and again, surface impression, he's very humorous.
Those in front of the camera are in their domain when it comes to playing the audience and their fans and its loyalty. I'm not convinced that, especially in current times, actors or those behind the scenes are going to be held to a double standard. Nor should they. It is however more disappointing, even abhorrent, when someone you see who has played a character you like is a grubby little excuse of a human being after all.
Just to edit: I don't mean Shatner is a poor human being
He's doing his one-man show here at the moment. Saw him interviewed and again, surface impression, he's very humorous.
Last edited:
Say hello to George Takei; for all of his "Star Trek family" speeches he's given since the early 1970s, to constantly making the Vulcan hand salute, that was all dressing in conflict with his constant trash talking about Shatner / blaming him for his inability to be some greater player in ST, when he was just playing a recurring role and should not have expected more. Shatner (and Nimoy, who used as much career gamesmanship to his advantage as Shatner while on TOS--something Takei conveniently ignored) is not the career torpedo for anyone else in that cast.
I have personally felt for some time that Roddenberry created Star Trek not just as an idealized view of humanity, but as an idealized view of himself, knowing full-well what his own failings and weaknesses were and wishing he grew up in a better place that would have isolated him from all that.
^Explains the belief Wesley Crusher was the idealised version of himself
Sure it was a supporting/recurring role but he would have had more dialogue and opportunity to impress if Shatner hadn't taken it away.
Shatner didn't torpedo Takei's career and chances but he did literally reduce them.
The same can be said of Nimoy--but some fans seem to paint him as his character or a saint, when he was maneuvering and pressing throughout his time on the series, but that did not have any negative impact on anyone else? I see Takei's role for what it was--a somewhat recurring guest spot. No one promised him the DeForest Kelley treatment as the seasons moved forward, and he needed to face facts about series with large casts in the 60s: aside from ensemble series such as Bonanza, My Three Sons, Mission: Impossible, Dark Shadows, Peyton Place and others, most series of this kind had the supporting players never developed much beyond their formatted, series bible's two line character description (if that) or whatever was required. This is apparent on Gunsmoke, Lost in Space, The Big Valley, and other series, where the handful of leads had the expected lion's share of camera time and development while the rest were not much better than or on the same level of Takei.
Takei's whining has never been justified in the face of TV series practices of that period, and he started fooling himself with the early 1970s convention explosion with its "Star Trek family" talk that he was meant for greater things.
Sure.
Just like Tom Brady didn't torpedo Matt Cassel's career and chances, but he did literally reduce them.
DeForest Kelley made a place for himself in the permanent cast because he was so damn good. He took what he was given and made it into more than what was originally on the page. (And if you don't believe me, look at how unmemorable Paul Fix and John Hoyt were in what was essentially the same role.) And once the writers started writing to what Kelley was performing, McCoy became a essential part of the ensemble.
That never happened with Takei and Sulu. Now, whether that was because Takei didn't get the same opportunities as Kelley or because he wasn't as good as Kelley, or some combination of the two, is a matter of debate. But hell, the Sulu character was so undeveloped that he didn't get an official first name for 25 years. There's quite honestly not a lot there.
But it's interesting to speculate if Sulu might have become a bigger deal to Star Trek if "This Side of Paradise" had remained a Sulu-centric story.
Sure.
Just like Tom Brady didn't torpedo Matt Cassel's career and chances, but he did literally reduce them.
For the betterment of the overall product, though.
Not a fan of the Pats in their current incarnation but - yeah, I'll say.
I think that's an imperfect analogy, because Cassel is a quarterback. Takei was not playing the same position as Shatner, whose talent and charisma had catapulted him to the top job a TV actor could have.
I'm with the theory that the 1970s and 80s convention crowds were thrilled to be seeing anyone from the show, but Takei internalized their enthusiasm and became a star in his own mind. That created the need for an explanation: if I'm such a big star, why wasn't "Sulu" a starring role? Someone must have been keeping me down.
Nuance: Shatner probably did work to keep the focus of TOS on Kirk, but isn't that where most of the audience wanted it? At worst, Shatner was a jerk, but he was OUR jerk. Kirk and Spock were the audience representatives for the majority of viewers in 1960s America.
In fairness, I've always heard that, as a convention guest, Takei was the most talented and fan-friendly performer that TOS had going. And I will say that, as an on screen actor, he was NOT the least talented of the supporting cast.
You say that Nimoy wasn't a saint but all the supporting cast (in their biographies) and Shatner himself say he was generally a nice guy and most say Shatner was not. Is everyone mistaken? Is Shatner the nice guy and Nimoy the evil one? Sure Nimoy did some maneuvering and cashing in on Spock's fame but I never heard he did it to anyone else's detriment.
And I never heard of Shatner stealing anyone's money - that seemed to be GRs trick.
I just think Shatner was a bit of a jerk. Thought himself too good to mix with the cast with his fans etc. I'm sure the same applies to lots of actors.
The business about demanding most lines/stealing lines is probably greatly annoying to his fellow cast members nut maybe understandable considering what happened on Lost in Space. Still a jerk move but he has to protect his living. Though understandable still doesn't make him a nice guy.
Did he? I thought one of the reasons William Shatner was living in a Truck for many years after the cancellation; and taking ANY entertainment related job that paid he could get (IE narrating various small documentaries done for public schools); was BECAUSE he took a lump sum payment (and had to give most of the money he banked to his Ex-wife in a divorce around the same time the series was cancelled) as opposed to a percentage of the show's profits because he figured no one would ever see Star Trek again, once it was cancelled?
[And don't you LOVE run on sentences?
]
Did he? I thought one of the reasons William Shatner was living in a Truck for many years after the cancellation; and taking ANY entertainment related job that paid he could get (IE narrating various small documentaries done for public schools); was BECAUSE he took a lump sum payment (and had to give most of the money he banked to his Ex-wife in a divorce around the same time the series was cancelled) as opposed to a percentage of the show's profits because he figured no one would ever see Star Trek again, once it was cancelled?
[And don't you LOVE run on sentences?
Hollywood accounting kept the show in the red until a lawsuit or a threatened lawsuit in the 80s.
Similar threads
