He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
He was a fantastic narrator for The Hannukah Story though. First rate.
Leonard Nimoy on the new film
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
He was a fantastic narrator for The Hannukah Story though. First rate.
And he rocked on FUTURAMA.
But then...FUTURAMA rocked anyways.
But then...FUTURAMA rocked anyways.
He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
Amen. I don't think people should mistake their desire to see Nimoy play Spock again with Nimoy's presence meaning the movie is automatically good.
(And does this mean there's actually someone else who shares my low opinion of both VI and Reunification? 'Cause they're both terrible...)
number6
Vice Admiral
I never met so many people that hate Star Trek until I came here!
He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
Amen. I don't think people should mistake their desire to see Nimoy play Spock again with Nimoy's presence meaning the movie is automatically good.
(And does this mean there's actually someone else who shares my low opinion of both VI and Reunification? 'Cause they're both terrible...)
And yes I do think that Nimoy's presence in this film is reason for me to think that this will be good. I have no reason to think this film will suck. I would rather look forward to a new Star Trek film than be constantly cynical about it. I am sorry that some of you have to be so negative all the time.
^
^^ I don't mind people not being convinced that Nimoy's involvement is necessarily a positive...but it does bother me that some people take innocent little items surrounding this film and turn them into negatives.
For example, on another thread there was a poster who said that this film's cross-promotion with Intel was a sign that Paramount was "desperate". There are people on this thread who implied that since Nimoy felt the need to speak up, there must be something wrong with the film. That's the kind of stupid uneducated comment that pisses me off. I really don't mind the well-thought out criticism of a Star Trek episode or film. I may not agree with the thoughtful criticism, but I don't mind them.
And Lapis...you're certainly welcome to your opinion about VI, but I always saw that film as Star Trek's version of the "political thriller" -- and a pretty well-done one at that (although it would have been much better and more meaningful to have used Saavik instead of Valeris). It had its dumb moments, but I think the "feeling of intrigue" heavily outweighed those dumb moments.
^^ I don't mind people not being convinced that Nimoy's involvement is necessarily a positive...but it does bother me that some people take innocent little items surrounding this film and turn them into negatives.
For example, on another thread there was a poster who said that this film's cross-promotion with Intel was a sign that Paramount was "desperate". There are people on this thread who implied that since Nimoy felt the need to speak up, there must be something wrong with the film. That's the kind of stupid uneducated comment that pisses me off. I really don't mind the well-thought out criticism of a Star Trek episode or film. I may not agree with the thoughtful criticism, but I don't mind them.
And Lapis...you're certainly welcome to your opinion about VI, but I always saw that film as Star Trek's version of the "political thriller" -- and a pretty well-done one at that (although it would have been much better and more meaningful to have used Saavik instead of Valeris). It had its dumb moments, but I think the "feeling of intrigue" heavily outweighed those dumb moments.
I never met so many people that hate Star Trek until I came here!He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
Amen. I don't think people should mistake their desire to see Nimoy play Spock again with Nimoy's presence meaning the movie is automatically good.
(And does this mean there's actually someone else who shares my low opinion of both VI and Reunification? 'Cause they're both terrible...)
And yes I do think that Nimoy's presence in this film is reason for me to think that this will be good. I have no reason to think this film will suck. I would rather look forward to a new Star Trek film than be constantly cynical about it. I am sorry that some of you have to be so negative all the time.
I don't hate Star Trek, and that sort of hyperbole is laughable. I love Star Trek, but I have opinions about which parts of it are good, which parts are forgettable and which parts are cringe-worthy. Being able to discriminate is hardly cause to provoke your sarcastic claims of sorrow. It could spark a good discussion but people in this forum seem far more interested in being condescending than actually talking about what makes Star Trek tick.
I have no reason to think this film will suck. I have no reason to think this film will be good. Which is all I and Neopeius said - Nimoy has been in both good and bad Trek.
I will say, though, everything Paramount has put out under the name of Star Trek in the last 8 or so years has sucked so that does make me skeptical that they're going to knock one out of the park this time around. I'd love to be wrong about that. But, in the immortal words of Montgomery Scott, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Think you can fool me for eight years and then sell me more shit sight unseen and I start to think you've lost touch with reality."
Last edited:
My issues with TUC have to do with the characters and how they were handled for the most part. Shatner was playing an absolute parody of Kirk for most of the film, though the opening scenes with Spock about going to the Klingons were pretty good. The subplot regarding finding the killers was uninvolving and existed purely to give the cast regulars something to do - and most of what they did was dumb. But my biggest problem was that after looking like it was going to be decent ending to the character arc Spock had been going through in the movies, TUC pitched his character out the freaking window by having him mind-rape Valeris on the bridge. That was wrong on so many levels. So, the movie started good, but about 30 minutes in it starts to wobble and by the end it's flying off the tracks. My sister cried when she saw it, saying she was terribly upset to see these characters she'd loved as a child become such ridiculous cartoons of what they had been.
I know the film is regarded relatively well by most Trek fans, but honestly, I think that may have to do with how unwatchably bad V was, so in comparison VI seemed like it was better than it was, combined with it being the last official adventure of the old crew, which tapped some nostalgia. But if you watch a couple of first season TOS eps and then watch TUC - it's just awful.
Last edited:
Wow Lapis - I have to admit I am a little gobsmacked. I have NEVER heard ANYBODY say something like that about VI. Personally, I loved it at the time but that is beside the point here. I am just AMAZED and it adds credence to my understanding that for any work that exists, you will have somebody with EVERY reaction across the spectrum.
I just find it amazing that we all see SO differently in so many ways.
I just find it amazing that we all see SO differently in so many ways.
Yep. IDIC, baby!
A bit OT, but I haven't read any bad things being said about the scenes that were shown in Europe and NYC. Only rave reviews, both from Trek fans and non Trekkers alike.
Well, except Devin Fallaci - but what do you expect?
He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
Amen. I don't think people should mistake their desire to see Nimoy play Spock again with Nimoy's presence meaning the movie is automatically good.
(And does this mean there's actually someone else who shares my low opinion of both VI and Reunification? 'Cause they're both terrible...)
Let's not forget it was written by Nimoy, one of the clowns in the circus. Often what 'seems' right, isn't. Salieri's music seemed right to him but none of us. This is one of the reasons Rodenberry will be remembered alongside Serling, Shirly Temple and the Beatles in the lexicon of populr culture. Guys like Mozart set the bar pretty high for the rest of us.
Nimoy was one of three credited writers. Salieri's music is still performed today. Comparing Roddenberry to Mozart is just silly.
He was in Star Trek V. And VI. And that awful TNG cross-over.
His presence doesn't guarantee anything.
Amen. I don't think people should mistake their desire to see Nimoy play Spock again with Nimoy's presence meaning the movie is automatically good.
(And does this mean there's actually someone else who shares my low opinion of both VI and Reunification? 'Cause they're both terrible...)
Let's not forget it was written by Nimoy, one of the clowns in the circus. Often what 'seems' right, isn't. Salieri's music seemed right to him but none of us. This is one of the reasons Rodenberry will be remembered alongside Serling, Shirly Temple and the Beatles in the lexicon of populr culture. Guys like Mozart set the bar pretty high for the rest of us.
And TUC was a disappointing movie which left me feeling short-changed and somehow wronged as I walked out of the theater after seeing it for the first time, back in 1991. I continue to be surprised at how many hold it in such high regard.
As Lapis said above, though: IDIC, baby!
Gee, if fans can't admit he was something special, who will ? I consider him to be a genius of sorts. Remember many have tried and died. TOS is still going strong after fourty years. Well, I guess we'll see who's more right in a hundred years or so, when we're more 'civilized'.
All I could say is thank god we're getting a new style of film making. The old one was way too static. I liked Armeggedon. It's one of my favorite movies. I think the script was awesome. Like Brahms puts notes together and Sorkin with words.
Not at all. I like Nimoy as an actor, I like the character he was involved in creating, and he's done a lot of other stuff I liked, too. (This, for example.) His opinion about this movie also carries weight with me, but it is simply not enough to be the basis for calling the movie a home run. It is not an ironclad guarantee all by itself; I take it in consideration, but I reserve judgement.
His opinion is one of a number of things which make me inclined to want to see the movie. Once I have done so, (and assuming I live that long, modding this forum where the voracious low-flying hyperbole roam) then -- and only then -- will I know what I think of it. After I see it a second or a third time, my opinion will very likely be adjusted. That's just the way that works.
So now Nimoy sucks, is a sellout and has no cred??
Learn something new everyday at the Trek BBS.
Yes, that's exactly what we said.
I have no idea if Nimoy 1) really loved the movie, 2) has anything like my taste in movies (because if he doesn't, his liking it does me no good in judging whether or not I'd like it), 3) is doing his job by helping market the movie or 4) some combination of the above.
Characterizing that as having said he's a sellout is ridiculous.
Last edited:
Similar threads
