• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Editorial on ST:IX (James Cawley)

Guy sold his dignity for a cameo...

With that attitude, you couldn't buy dignity at any price.

Poor, poor Dennis... just trying to curry favor with 'The Idiots in Charge'. Doesn't it get old?

Yes...

Pathetic isn't it?

Poor, poor Dennis.

Desperately begging for... what was it again?

And what a brilliant strategy!

He does it by defending a guy who makes Star Trek fan films that very few people see on a website that very few people read.

Gotta give him some credit.

Dennis may be desperate and pathetic, but his strategy is flawless.
 
Dennis -- I hear that Cawley is looking for Bolians for an upcoming Phase II webisode. Do you mind dying your skin blue...and do you have any 'barbering' skills? ;):p
 
Doesn't it get old?

What gets old quickly is idiots like you - snarky loudmouths who've never done anything of note who choose to impugn the integrity of people you've never met - from the safety of anonymity - because they express opinions that:

1) Are based on experience and information you'll never have;
2) They stand behind with their names and reputations (that, however limited, immensely exceed the value of yours);
3) Are of interest to vastly more people than your opinion is; and
4) Disagree with you.

You're a petty little coward and a no-account. Go ahead and fantasize enviously about others selling their opinions and reputations, since no one would ever offer you the ten cents and the promise of a little undeserved attention for which you'd eagerly sell yours.

Oh, and kiss my ass you worthless turd.
 
Why do threads that are supposed to encourage good discussion always degrade into childish sniping? It's ridiculous. I wish this thread was locked.
 
Doesn't it get old?

What gets old quickly is idiots like you - snarky loudmouths who've never done anything of note who choose to impugn the integrity of people you've never met - from the safety of anonymity - because they express opinions that:

1) Are based on experience and information you'll never have;
2) They stand behind with their names and reputations (that, however limited, immensely exceed the value of yours);
3) Are of interest to vastly more people than your opinion is; and
4) Disagree with you.

You're a petty little coward and a no-account. Go ahead and fantasize enviously about others selling their opinions and reputations, since no one would ever offer you the ten cents and the promise of a little undeserved attention for which you'd eagerly sell yours.

Oh, and kiss my ass you worthless turd.
Well, Dennis, there's not a lot I can say about this that you don't already know. One for flaming.

BillJ, you might just want to back off the personal stuff, yourself.
 
Another similarity between something like Star Trek and, say, Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Paramount did that big event because they had to. The backstories had gotten so convoluted and contradictory that they had to do something. There were at least three or four versions of Star Trek alone. The decks had to cleared if they were going to move forward and pose a serious challenge to Star Wars.

It was also getting a little tough to take Kirk seriously, either, particularly with William Shatner still kicking to remind us just how bloody long the series & movies have been going.

Star Trek does need to be rebooted!

Paramount has been trying to change Star Trek into a big screen Star Warsy epic since the late 70's, AND IT JUST HASN'T WORKED SO FAR!! Star Trek is now being set up that way. You can tell a big epic story set in the Star Trek universe.

Star Trek is good stories, some epic, like "Best of Both Worlds", some more personal and intimate, like "The Naked Time" or "Data's Day". Therefore it can work on the big screen and make Star Trek accessible to the masses again.
Amazing how well your argument works in favor of the new movie (with the bold changes I made). You can't even fault me or call me names because it's your own words, Captain Robert April. Never get in a battle of logic with a Vulcan, especially when he's wearing the royal purple and the Holy Headgear!:vulcan:
 
For those unwilling to go back upthread and reread my post, here it is, unaltered.

Another big difference between something like Star Trek and, say, Crisis on Infinite Earths.

DC Comics did that big event because they had to. The backstories had gotten so convoluted and contradictory that they had to do something. There were at least three or four versions of Superman's origin alone. The decks had to cleared if they were going to move forward and pose a serious challenge to Marvel.

It was also getting a little tough to take Bond seriously, either, particularly with Sean Connery still kicking to remind us just how bloody long the movies have been going.

Star Trek, on the other hand, does not need to be rebooted! Even a prequel could've been done without tossing the whole works in the garbage in the process.

I think Jon Povill said it best in those bits quoted by TGT. Paramount has been trying to change Star Trek into a big screen Star Warsy epic since the late 70's, AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!! Star Trek isn't set up that way. You can tell a big epic story set in the Star Trek universe, but that's not the same thing.

Star Wars is an epic, told in six chapters, with a few side stories tossed in for good measure.

Star Trek is a setting for stories, some epic, like "Best of Both Worlds", some more personal and intimate, like "The Naked Time" or "Data's Day".

Isn't there something in the rules about deliberately misquoting someone?

If there isn't, there should be.
 
No. In the United Socialist States of America, under Comrade Obama, misquoting someone is perfectly fine.
 
TO be honest I am a crotchety old die hard TOSer. I read that editoral and said yeah...Why the hell not?

I may not like the new ship's looks much but you know what ?

Its not that Gawd Awful, the bridge for me is the same way. I dont like it but its not too Gawd Awful!

These things just might grow on me.

I said in another thread the key here is not to ever show contempt prior to investigation. Soooo that being said I still wait eagerly until the release to see JJ's take on my beloved show!

Who knows? I mean Chris Pine might just give us a hero we can root and cheer for again! I still remember that night watching TWoK in the theaters when the crowd wooped it and applauded when Shatner's Kirk smirked at Khan and said ...

"Here it comes"

Not to mention when the old E rises up from behind the Reliant in the nebula battle.

Everyone went nuts!

You know that just might happen here and scoop a whole new Generation of fans for our show. Fans who will seek out and explore the strange new worlds of the previous series :)

TOS isn't going anywhere and amen to that.

Let's see what these kids can do with the roles and their weirdly shaped spiffy new ship!

"Here it comes!" :D
 
For those unwilling to go back upthread and reread my post, here it is, unaltered.


Isn't there something in the rules about deliberately misquoting someone?

If there isn't, there should be.
You know perfectly well that there is. However, when it's accompanied by a disclaimer such as this...

Amazing how well your argument works in favor of the new movie (with the bold changes I made). You can't even fault me or call me names because it's your own words, Captain Robert April. Never get in a battle of logic with a Vulcan, especially when he's wearing the royal purple and the Holy Headgear!:vulcan:
...calling attention to the fact that he's done so and pointing out that it's done to illustrate a point, it sort of knocks the legs out from under any argument you might make that he's tried to misrepresent what you said, doesn't it? The rule applies to intentional misquotes with intent to deceive or ridicule, and I don't really see that happening here.

Isn't there something in the rules about deliberately misquoting someone?
No, it's just really annoying.
This may also be true. YMMV.
 
Because Star Trek is not Batman. Besides the fact that, in the case of Batman, the source material had already been "rebooted" about fifteen times before Tim Burton even signed the contract (so what was done in those two movies wasn't all that better or worse than when Columbia did those two serials in the 40's), it's a different matter when you're doing a movie based on a pre-existing property. Michael Keaton didn't originate the character of Batman, nor did Adam West, or the guys in the aforementioned serials. Sean Connery did not originate the character of James Bond.

Star Trek IS the source material. There were no Star Trek novels prior to September 8, 1966, so there was nobody to complain about how the ship didn't look right, or how William Shatner is completely wrong for Kirk, what was on screen is the source material from which all other Star Trek related material is derived, including the look of the ship, interiors, uniforms, weapons, equipment, etc.

Frankly, this highly polished turd shouldn't even have a "Based on Star Trek" credit. At best, "Inspired by Star Trek", at worst, "Any resemblence between the characters and situations presented and Star Trek is purely coincidental."
Actually Shatner didn't create Kirk Shatner just acted how Shatner always acts and that how Kirk is thought about. Roddenberry created Kirk after the execs at NBC said they didn't like Pike so Roddenberry changed him into more of a womanizing cowboy shoot first ask later always get the girl type guy.

But if they stay true to the source material we need lines like "He's Dead, Jim. It's life sir, but not as we know it. Maybe they can actually say in this version of TOS Beam me up, Scotty (Which is attributed to being said but never was) I'm a doctor, not a (Place occupation here) and they can all share a good laugh at the end after rehashing the moral lesson of the week.
 
Actually Shatner didn't create Kirk Shatner just acted how Shatner always acts and that how Kirk is thought about. Roddenberry created Kirk after the execs at NBC said they didn't like Pike so Roddenberry changed him into more of a womanizing cowboy shoot first ask later always get the girl type guy.

Shatner is on record as stating that as the series wore on he was playing Kirk as an idealized version of himself. TWOK is a perfect example of how Kirk was unlike this idealized-Shatner, but mostly due to Nick Meyer's wearing Shatner out take after take. In fact, the earliest episodes of TOS showed that Shatner was capable at a subtle performance. Kirk is really nuanced in those episodes. The larger-than-life Kirk came later.

In fact, Kirk's reputation as a space cowboy and womanizer is greatly exaggerated. It is a caricature of the character.

Kirk is quite thoughtful and introspective. He is fond of high-brow literature and philosophy ("the long-haired stuff") and often quotes from his favorite pieces ("All I ask is a tall ship and a star..."). He has more than a passing interest in history. He is familiar with all aspects of starship operations and is handy with a wrench (space wrench, of course). Kirk is a generalist in a variety of subjects, which makes him a good starship captain and tactician. Kirk knows enough to get where Spock, a specialist, is going in his thinking. Kirk often comes to the conclusion before Spock can finish. Kirk seems one step ahead in many of the episodes, which also shows his brilliance at critical thinking.

In the early episodes, Kirk is nearly indistinguishable from Pike. Both are Hornblower-like in their damnation of themselves and their command choices, especially if it lead to someone's death.

"Bones, I look at them and they're waiting for me to make the next move," Kirk tells McCoy in The Corbomite Maneuver. "But what if I wrong."

Kirk is fallible, intelligent, ambitious, charming, self-centered, insecure and all together human especially in that first season. When the suits insisted that Kirk get the girl more and as the years went on, Kirk became more and more like that idealized version of Shatner.

I'm hoping that the Kirk from the first-season with all his nuances is what we get in this movie and from what Chris Pine has said about the character, it seems we do.

On a side-note, James Cawley started out performing his Kirk with this larger-than-life, idealized-Shatner persona. I'm glad that in the course of the most recent episodes, he has made his performance subtler and his own. His Kirk is different from Shatner's as Pine's will be. And I enjoy having more than one take on my favorite starship captain.
 
I am sorry and with all due respect Mr. Cawley was "paid" to give a good review. When you give someone a look at the set and is given a part in the movie, can you give a fair review?

Mr. Cawley want to get into the movie business, you think he is going to bad mouth a Hollywood director? No.

Lets be fair and point out some of this stuff.

Thanks
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top