Editorial on ST:IX (James Cawley)

[Lightinspire]

I'm totally deaf when it comes to Cawley. I'll not voice my concerns here though..this is not the place..let me say I'm not a big fan of his, the direction he is taking with his stories..

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh, I'll bet.

 

[Dale]

If this is not the place, where is?

 

[number6]

Except that he was in the movie and allowed to see things we haven't

Game, Set, match Number6.

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.

All I know is that Cawley was on set and was in the film. Considering he seems as hardcore about TOS as most of us are here, I do give his opinion some weight. He has more actual material to work with, having been on the set, than we do in terms of giving an informed opinion. None of us here can actually do that.

ETA: I'm not really fond of Cawley, nor do I know him. I respect him for taking my criticism of his production seriously and I am more impressed with what he has acheived. I take no credit, of course, because I'm sure that my opinion wasn't a factor at all in what he does. But he does know his way around a film set and knows what goes into a production far better than a lot of us.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

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?

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?

I would note for the record that what I remember of Cawley's comments from BEFORE his visit/cameo were very much of a negative type, then lo and behold, he starts praising that which previously he scorned.

We have every right to be skeptical of Cawley, and every right to be skeptical of YOU, Dennis...you ARE a Hollywood writer, hoping to sell stories and scripts are you not?

"Don't bit the hand that you want to feed you..." seems to apply here.

For the record, I am neutral towards the overall picture at this time. The ship isn't a deal breaker, nor the bridge design (though I question both). I'm more concerned with the story points and characterization that have been revealed, like "Kirk the drunken letch", and Uhura's borderline racist putdown against Iowans.

 

[number6]

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?

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?

I would note for the record that what I remember of Cawley's comments from BEFORE his visit/cameo were very much of a negative type, then lo and behold, he starts praising that which previously he scorned.

We have every right to be skeptical of Cawley, and every right to be skeptical of YOU, Dennis...you ARE a Hollywood writer, hoping to sell stories and scripts are you not?

"Don't bit the hand that you want to feed you..." seems to apply here.

Messrs. Bailey and Cawley have both expressed pretty candid opinions on a wide array of subjects.
I see no reason to conclude that there are always alterior motives behind what they have to say, vis a vis professional ambitions.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

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?

I would note for the record that what I remember of Cawley's comments from BEFORE his visit/cameo were very much of a negative type, then lo and behold, he starts praising that which previously he scorned.

We have every right to be skeptical of Cawley, and every right to be skeptical of YOU, Dennis...you ARE a Hollywood writer, hoping to sell stories and scripts are you not?

"Don't bit the hand that you want to feed you..." seems to apply here.

Messrs. Bailey and Cawley have both expressed pretty candid opinions on a wide array of subjects.
I see no reason to conclude that there are always alterior motives behind what they have to say, vis a vis professional ambitions.

And your reasoning behind Cawley's sudden 180 on the project post-visit/cameo?

 

[JoeRalat]

Again..What did I say...?

 

[number6]

I would note for the record that what I remember of Cawley's comments from BEFORE his visit/cameo were very much of a negative type, then lo and behold, he starts praising that which previously he scorned.

We have every right to be skeptical of Cawley, and every right to be skeptical of YOU, Dennis...you ARE a Hollywood writer, hoping to sell stories and scripts are you not?

"Don't bit the hand that you want to feed you..." seems to apply here.

Messrs. Bailey and Cawley have both expressed pretty candid opinions on a wide array of subjects.
I see no reason to conclude that there are always alterior motives behind what they have to say, vis a vis professional ambitions.

And your reasoning behind Cawley's sudden 180 on the project post-visit/cameo?

A greater understanding of the film we're so far unaware of.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I see no reason to conclude that there are always alterior motives behind what they have to say, vis a vis professional ambitions.

I have no "professional ambitions" with regard to the entertainment industry and have not since before most of you folks hit puberty. This is why I always get a kick out of this kind of shit - almost no one who takes shots at me has any idea where or what their target is.

I live on the East Coast and have lived here all of my life. My ambitions in general these days extend to having a cup of coffee this Saturday with my best friend, and helping out various members of my family. I divide my copious free time between socializing, working on some personal projects and wasting too much time sparring with morons long distance (it's an addiction, it really is). I am old. I will die before most of you. I take some pleasure in knowing that certain people will be puffing themselves up and obsessively trying to prove themselves "right" about meaningless shit long after I've ceased to care.

 

[Psion]

OMG, Dennis, you're a crotchety, old curmudgeon! C'mon, tell the rest of these kids to get off your grass! I'll give you my tapioca if you do!


Well, darkwing, is that enough for you? It's good that you're keeping a healthy bit of skepticism going, but you aren't balancing it with consideration that maybe these people with Hollywood contacts know something you don't. Some of these comments come across unnecessarily accusational ... I share your misgivings about both the bridge and the ship, and a few other things I've seen as well. But, my God, man! Express yourself with some tact!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OMG, Dennis, you're a crotchety, old curmudgeon! C'mon, tell the rest of these kids to get off your grass!

Well, most of you...

 

[Aragorn]

I don't know who Cawley is, I don't give a damn about fan fiction and fan films, but the way some of you berate him -- even going as far as to said he was paid off -- it's not just idiotic, it's downright sad and pathetic.

It's funny how people even pass off their own uninformed opinions about people they don't know and will never know as the absolute truth. Should I start saying that MattJC was busted on "To Catch a Predator" just because I can?

So Cawley changed his opinion on some aspects of the next movie. So what? Would it be better for him to be a Captain Robert April or The Wormhole, where he hates everything in advance, intends to hate everything about the movie while watching it, and then afterward declares to everyone how right he was all along about the movie? Is there some sort of ulterior movie behind all their unconditional hate and plans for self-fulfilling prophecies? Or does that only apply to people who say good things?

Why does "I used to like it but now I think it sucks" work here, but "I used to think it sucks but now I like it" does not?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why does "I used to like it but now I think it sucks" work here, but "I used to think it sucks but now I like it" does not?

Day-am! If we knew the answer to that, we would know the answer to a great many things.

 

[BillJ]

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.

My apologies, Dennis (great comeback by the way ).

I actually admire a great deal of the work you've done. Hell, I know that your creations have adorned my desktop more than one once. I don't have the time nor the patience nor the talent to pull off the type of things that you and others from the Trek art forum do. Kudos on that.

But, when you see someone that is either currently or formerly part of the entertainment field continuously heap praise on a project, it raises flags. I don't think I've ever seen you speak of one concern you've had with this project. Defending every choice along the way. It's almost as bad as Captain Robert April and his merry band, who are going to dislike it no matter what.

As for James Cawley... I stand by my comment and he is more than welcome to come bash me for it. He hated it... got a cameo... and now he loves it. As Barney the Purple Dinosaur says "2+2=4".

 

[Sector 7]

In the For What It's Worth Department: I had many preconceived notions about Star Trek and Hollywood... until I actually went there and pitched a television series and visited the sets and watched filming in progress and put up with Paramount execs.
There is a lot more to it than the average person realizes.
I don't know James Cawley and have never watched a Phase II episode. I do however, know that involvement and just damn being there can change one's views considerably.

 

[Dale]

Why does "I used to like it but now I think it sucks" work here, but "I used to think it sucks but now I like it" does not?

Day-am! If we knew the answer to that, we would know the answer to a great many things.

In another thread, MattJC intimated that he is "warming up" to the new movie, so it does happen.

 

[dru]

Cawley is compromised. He has a cameo, he has a "gentleman's agreement" with Paramount. He's a mouthpiece and nothing more.

The multi-pronged Batman franchise character is not remotely like the large body of continuous Star Trek canon. The comparison is wholly meritless and just outright insulting.

The things we read at Empire about the clips talking of breasts and bestiality and more is at least as bad as anything done to the Batman franchise in the film Batman and Robin. Trek has never been that boorish even "Enterprise" with its bigoted portrayal of Ensign "Driving Mr. Archer" Mayweather as an oversexed black male in the pilot "first, second and third hand."

The characterizations we're reading about are as low brow and juvenile as Knight Rider 2008. Trek used to be about something.

 

[Saul]

Star Trek has been doing it's best to keep the continuity for 40+ years.

And it's been doing great for the last 12 years.

In terms of continuity you mean?

Or in terms of financial viability which isn't related to the discussion or Cawley's comments.

 

[Devon]

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?

Perhaps you should read further into the article in the comments section.

Cawley still doesn't like the Enterprise, and he still doesn't like the bridge for an Enterprise bridge and apparently told J.J. himself!