North Pole-aris said:
Kegek's Unified Theory of Shatner. It works.
This would indicate the transporter accident in "The Enemy Within" should have spilt him in three.
*He's a witch!!!!!! Burn Him*
Shatner: "I hope that movie bombs"
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
This would indicate the transporter accident in "The Enemy Within" should have spilt him in three.
*He's a witch!!!!!! Burn Him*
Has anyone even stopped to consider that maybe Shatner is hoping the movie bombs for the very same reasons that all of Trekdom apparently also wants it to bomb? Maybe he's just afraid it'll suck.
This is just too funny... everyone on this board is hoping and predicting this movie will do badly, and won't be worth a damn, but boy, howdy... if SHATNER says the very same thing, it's all; "Oh, how unbecoming", and "What a bitter man". LOL... he has a right to his opinion, period. We don't have to like it one bit, but he's entitled to it.
Shatner is not involved in Trek anymore, other than maybe convention appearances. He does not have to function as its spokesperson anymore. Like Kirk said in "The Undiscovered Country"... "We've done our bit for king and country"... he is now free to do and say whatever he darn well wishes about Trek.
This is just too funny... everyone on this board is hoping and predicting this movie will do badly, and won't be worth a damn, but boy, howdy... if SHATNER says the very same thing, it's all; "Oh, how unbecoming", and "What a bitter man". LOL... he has a right to his opinion, period. We don't have to like it one bit, but he's entitled to it.
Shatner is not involved in Trek anymore, other than maybe convention appearances. He does not have to function as its spokesperson anymore. Like Kirk said in "The Undiscovered Country"... "We've done our bit for king and country"... he is now free to do and say whatever he darn well wishes about Trek.
I find it funny that after all these years people still can't tell when Shat is making a flip comment. There is no evidence (aside from the usual OMG! reaction to this quote) to support the idea that Shatner is being this petty.
Everything we've come to learn about Shat tells me he was kidding. It would be very out of character (and dumb) for him to have said that and ment it.
Everything we've come to learn about Shat tells me he was kidding. It would be very out of character (and dumb) for him to have said that and ment it.
Not everyone - and I'd go as far as to say, only a vocal minority here desire such a thing.
Hmm... no, and that's certinaly not a good reason to hope something does. Mind you I assume he's kidding at anyrate.
Sharr
Superman
Fleet Captain
North Pole-aris said:
I don't know or care whether he's bitter or not; I don't know him. I'm just trippin' at how determined people are to force an interpretation that makes them comfortable on the rest of the world as if it were a fact. I'm a little more interested in the reports of witnesses than in the opinions of Shatner's fans.
You are right, though...the insistence by people who don't know them that celebrities and the wealthy don't experience moods and frustrations in the same way other people do is naive, peculiarly unobservant in this day and age, and tinged with its own kind of envy - ie, the assumption that if one only had thus-and-so or had accomplished fill-in-the-blank everything would of course be peachy keen. T'ain't so.
I'll take the warning here.
Please just shut the fuck up.
\S/
I once read that shatner posted here a few times years ago. I wish he'd come back so he can see that some people, like myself, agree with him.
Ask yourself this...if he meant it whys he want it to fail?
Two reasons spring to mind, firstly because hes not in it in anyway at all, and then if he was do you think he would be happy if it wasnt as Kirk (I know I wouldnt and Im not at all bothered about any sort of reboot)
Second if this film is good and a new series of films takes off mayb hes worried he will be forgotten even being Kirk by the mainstream audience
Two reasons spring to mind, firstly because hes not in it in anyway at all, and then if he was do you think he would be happy if it wasnt as Kirk (I know I wouldnt and Im not at all bothered about any sort of reboot)
Second if this film is good and a new series of films takes off mayb hes worried he will be forgotten even being Kirk by the mainstream audience
MattJC said:
jon17HoHoHo1 said:
That is an absurd quote, with absolute no basis in reality.
Yes, the truth is most people on this board are ready to kiss Abrams' ass.
You've managed to top him.
We dont "kiss his ass".
We are simply prepared to give him a fucking chance.
It's scary... really... watching the various extremists on this BBS. (I'm not saying you're one of those, mind you...)jon17HoHoHo1 said:
MattJC said:
jon17HoHoHo1 said:
That is an absurd quote, with absolute no basis in reality.
Yes, the truth is most people on this board are ready to kiss Abrams' ass.
You've managed to top him.
We dont "kiss his ass".
We are simply prepared to give him a fucking chance.
There are the extremists who gleefully hope that this movie rips "canon" to shreds. NOT because of any "story-driven" need to do so, but simply because they want to make other people unhappy and they see this as a "fun" way to do so.
These people may be "Star Trek" fans but they consider themselves "better" than the rest of us mere mortals. And they really, REALLY want to see everything Trek tossed aside, just so they can feel smug about being "right" that they, PERSONALLY, "get it" better than the rest of us do.
Then, you've got the "This movie is going to tank no matter what" folks. They're very much similar to the first group of loony extremists. They are either totally unhinged (possible but less likely, IMHO) or they're just using another "tool" to express the same nasty attitude being shown by the first group. They want it all to fail, not because they hate the show (though they well might... just saying that's not the main cause). No, they want it to fail so that they can make the rest of us suffer, and then become (just like that first group) smug as they lecture us about how much we deserve to suffer.
Then, of course, there are the opposite-end extremists. They, in my experience, are less offensive, because their extreme is about their INTERNAL feelings, not about stirring up negative feelings in OTHERS. These, of course, are the folks who think that if Kirk's safe combination is altered... if anyone besides Shatner plays Kirk... if the Enterprise isn't portrayed by a thoroughly refurbished Smithsonian model, looking just like it did in 1968... the film will be bad. These guys aren't about making OTHER PEOPLE HURT, like those first two groups are. They're just about refusing to accept the inevitability of change in life.
Look... the best way to think of this (as I've said before) is to assume that there is some "real" version of Star Trek that actually happen(s/ed) in some alternative reality, in 250 years or so. And the 1966 show was the best attempt that the people of that time could make to matching up with that mythical "real" Star Trek. It has flaws... but those flaws are based upon budgetary and other limitations. They can be ignored, because that show was only an approximation, though as close as possible to the "real" version.
What any "revisitation" of that series needs to do is keep in mind that it's portraying the same "real" Star Trek universe, but that it's doing so with actors, materials and resources from a later time. They still need to portray the same characters, they still need to portray the same ship, the same sets, etc. Because BOTH are aiming towards a mythical "target" that they share.
As long as that's how this film is approached (and every indication is that it IS how this film is being approached!), it's not a "reboot" or "make-over" or "reimagining" or anything else. It's just another portrayal of Star Trek.
Everyone needs to collectively take a deep breath, pop a valium, and chill out. Especially those who are part of the three "extremist" groups I mention above.
I think you have hit it on the head, although I think some people have a number of attributes from each group you described, mayb they are the middle ground ones
Personally Im willing to give it a chance, not too bothered what other people think, only wish they would stop thinking up random ideas and then basing their decisions on something which has nothing to do with the actual film
Personally Im willing to give it a chance, not too bothered what other people think, only wish they would stop thinking up random ideas and then basing their decisions on something which has nothing to do with the actual film
MattJC said:
jon17HoHoHo1 said:
That is an absurd quote, with absolute no basis in reality.
Yes, the truth is most people on this board are ready to kiss Abrams' ass.
Umm no. Like someone else said we're willing to give him a chance. This anger or distrust might make more sense if it was the previous production team - but it isn't. These guys deserve at least a chance to "screw up" before we condemn them for doing so.
*By screw up I mean deliver a totally critical and artistic failure btw not that they might change some aspects of previous Trek.
Sharr
Superman said:
North Pole-aris said:
I don't know or care whether he's bitter or not; I don't know him. I'm just trippin' at how determined people are to force an interpretation that makes them comfortable on the rest of the world as if it were a fact. I'm a little more interested in the reports of witnesses than in the opinions of Shatner's fans.
You are right, though...the insistence by people who don't know them that celebrities and the wealthy don't experience moods and frustrations in the same way other people do is naive, peculiarly unobservant in this day and age, and tinged with its own kind of envy - ie, the assumption that if one only had thus-and-so or had accomplished fill-in-the-blank everything would of course be peachy keen. T'ain't so.
I'll take the warning here.
Please just shut the fuck up.
\S/
No warning (for now), but EVERYONE, please knock off the personal sniping. This thread is getting nasty.
Actually, I just have no reason to think he's doing a bad job - and no one criticizing him has provided any persuasive reasoning or evidence to the contrary.
Garibaldi O'brien said:
North Pole-aris said:
Kegek's Unified Theory of Shatner. It works.
This would indicate the transporter accident in "The Enemy Within" should have spilt him in three.
*He's a witch!!!!!! Burn Him*
If Shatner's toupee weighs the same as a duck...it must be made of wood. And therefore, Shat is a witch.
That's not really accurate. There are some "Church of the Most High Roddenberry" worshipers here, but most aren't that way.
It's a FICTION that Roddenberry was responsible for everything in Star Trek (one that he created, largely, on his own, and largely intentionally at that). The PRODUCTIOn was very much a team effort, and I personally associate Gene Coon, not Gene Roddenberry, with the "best of Star Trek," though I give lots of credit to all the other folks involved too.
So, to say "if you question Roddenberry it's a bad movie" really is a misstatement.
I'd say that a better statement would be "if the movie overtly contradicts material that was established by the ORIGINAL TOS PRODUCTION TEAM, that's going to be a problem for the movie."
Key phrases there, which you overlooked, are "PRODUCTION TEAM" (rather than "Roddenberry") and "overtly contradicts."
It's VERY EASY to make a 2-hour movie that does not overtly contradict anything previously established. You'd really have to be remarkably sloppy, or set out to INTENTIONALLY do so, in order to overtly contradict things that have been seen before in such a short timeframe.
An example of this in TNG-era terms would be for "Nemesis" to have determined that Data was built by Dr. Roger Corby, or that he was built in a factory on the planet Delta Nine, or something like that. It would have required EXTRA EFFORT to say something like that, which would overtly contradict the previously established "facts" of Data's creation.
They didn't overtly tell us, in the film, what a "Soong-type android" is. So, someone who'd never seen the TV shows concerning that might conclude that was a model identifier or a planet of origin. And that's FINE. There's no need to tell that sort of detail in a 2-hour movie!
Does this make sense to you?
All the "TOS Fans" are saying is that the production team needs to avoid doing anything stupid like that.
It's far less "worshipful" and far less stringent than your post would make it appear, I think.
Similar threads
