SHATNER/KIRK: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
- Thread starter Samuel T. Cogley
- Start date
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Cogley, You summed up my feelings precisely..well done for having the courage to say something. I couldn't vote because I don't think there is anything wrong with you. But I suppose the post was too long, but it needed to be.
Cogley, You summed up my feelings precisely..well done for having the courage to say something. I couldn't vote because I don't think there is anything wrong with you. But I suppose the post was too long, but it needed to be.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
QFT. I don't get the obsession some have with Shat being in this movie. Seriously, I don't.
davejames said:
Um... I hate to break it to you, but no one here "hates" Shatner. We might bag on him now and then for fun (and to annoy guys like you), but mainly we just don't think it's necessary for him to be in the movie for it to work.
Abrams certainly isn't OBLIGATED to put Shatner in the movie... just because he's Shatner.
Personally I'm gonna go with the writing instincts of the guy behind Lost, who actually has a story he wants to tell here-- and not the instincts of a bunch of fans whose only concern, apparently, is seeing Shatner on screen again.
QFT. I don't get the obsession some have with Shat being in this movie. Seriously, I don't.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Drama Queen. Asshole. But you're also my hero. So there.
Drama Queen. Asshole. But you're also my hero. So there.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
For one thing I think what our esteemed colleague Samuel T. Cogley thinks.
For another I would point out to all the Shat bashers that Steven Seagal has gotten bigger with age but still makes kick ass good movies.
James T Kirk is not dead...that is all.
For one thing I think what our esteemed colleague Samuel T. Cogley thinks.
For another I would point out to all the Shat bashers that Steven Seagal has gotten bigger with age but still makes kick ass good movies.
James T Kirk is not dead...that is all.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Afraid I was too busy laughing to make it the entire way through. What was the question again?
Afraid I was too busy laughing to make it the entire way through. What was the question again?
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Great post. You're absolutely right.
I voted option #1, though it's not embarrassing at all to like Shatner. I like him well enough, the guy's uber cool. I still don't need him to be in the movie. So... yes, I agree with you.
Great post. You're absolutely right.
I voted option #1, though it's not embarrassing at all to like Shatner. I like him well enough, the guy's uber cool. I still don't need him to be in the movie. So... yes, I agree with you.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Basically what I was going to say. I don't hate Shatner, I have no reason on Earth to hate the guy. I may make cheap shot jokes at his expense, but I do that about nearly everyone I know/have ever met/know of/make up, so it's hardly a criticism.
What I don't like is the attitude that he should (or in fact must) be in Star Trek XI in order for it to 'be' Star Trek. The idea that time should be wasted and audience confused on bringing him back to life when Abrahms says the story doesn't need him. That's what I have a beef about, and I think that attitude is shared by the vast majority of the 'don't bring back Shatner' crowd.
When we pull out something like Star Trek V, we're not saying 'ha ha Shatner's crap, look at this one example', we're disputing the idea that having Shatner involved in a Trek project automatically makes it better. This may not be an idea you yourself are peddling cogley, but you can't deny it's the attitude of some posters here.
We don't hate Shatner, we just don't think he belongs in this movie.
davejames said:
Um... I hate to break it to you, but no one here "hates" Shatner. We might bag on him now and then for fun (and to annoy guys like you
Basically what I was going to say. I don't hate Shatner, I have no reason on Earth to hate the guy. I may make cheap shot jokes at his expense, but I do that about nearly everyone I know/have ever met/know of/make up, so it's hardly a criticism.
What I don't like is the attitude that he should (or in fact must) be in Star Trek XI in order for it to 'be' Star Trek. The idea that time should be wasted and audience confused on bringing him back to life when Abrahms says the story doesn't need him. That's what I have a beef about, and I think that attitude is shared by the vast majority of the 'don't bring back Shatner' crowd.
When we pull out something like Star Trek V, we're not saying 'ha ha Shatner's crap, look at this one example', we're disputing the idea that having Shatner involved in a Trek project automatically makes it better. This may not be an idea you yourself are peddling cogley, but you can't deny it's the attitude of some posters here.
We don't hate Shatner, we just don't think he belongs in this movie.
Superman
Fleet Captain
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Welcome, Cogs, to the Brotherhood of the Shat.
I've always loved the man. Yes, I'm sure he's been arrogant off-screen before. But who hasn't been?
In my opinion, he's a hell of an actor, writer, and yes, EVEN DIRECTOR!
He will always be Captain James T. Kirk to me and will very likely avoid Trek XI if he's not in it.
I'm not afraid to say that. I'm also not afraid to say my opinion could change.
Anyway, thanks for having the courage of your convictions.
"Risk is part of the business, if you want to sit in that (Shatner fan's) chair."
\S/
Welcome, Cogs, to the Brotherhood of the Shat.
I've always loved the man. Yes, I'm sure he's been arrogant off-screen before. But who hasn't been?
In my opinion, he's a hell of an actor, writer, and yes, EVEN DIRECTOR!
He will always be Captain James T. Kirk to me and will very likely avoid Trek XI if he's not in it.
I'm not afraid to say that. I'm also not afraid to say my opinion could change.
Anyway, thanks for having the courage of your convictions.
"Risk is part of the business, if you want to sit in that (Shatner fan's) chair."
\S/
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Akiraprise: BUSTED
Akiraprise: BUSTED
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
That was a seemingly stupid idea. I don't know what I was thinking.
In unrelated news, choice number three seems to be distracting a lot of people from choice number two. I may not have to accept discommendation, after all.
DeafPoet said:
I like the Shat and thought that was a very well written post, Cog. However, you left the door open for option 3, so that's the vote you're getting, asshole
That was a seemingly stupid idea. I don't know what I was thinking.
In unrelated news, choice number three seems to be distracting a lot of people from choice number two. I may not have to accept discommendation, after all.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
^ I think that people are so used to voting for "I like Pie" that they are getting confused by the options...none of which include pie.
^ I think that people are so used to voting for "I like Pie" that they are getting confused by the options...none of which include pie.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
Since when was Star Trek fandom a democracy? As a whole, fandom seems to work on the principle of anarchy - every fan for himself! But the TrekBBS is clearly a Monarchy, where the elected heirs of Christian appoint feudal lords to have soveriengty over different terriorities. They sometimes appoint more than one to the same terriotiries, doubtless so that they will be so busy scheming against each other they will be too preoccupied to make a bid for the throne...
I had a point there, once.
Anyway, just hope that in the event of a server failure they don't scapegoat the blasphemous Shaternists and burn you all at the stake, okay?
Samuel T. Cogley said:
In unrelated news, choice number three seems to be distracting a lot of people from choice number two. I may not have to accept discommendation, after all.
Since when was Star Trek fandom a democracy? As a whole, fandom seems to work on the principle of anarchy - every fan for himself! But the TrekBBS is clearly a Monarchy, where the elected heirs of Christian appoint feudal lords to have soveriengty over different terriorities. They sometimes appoint more than one to the same terriotiries, doubtless so that they will be so busy scheming against each other they will be too preoccupied to make a bid for the throne...
I had a point there, once.
Anyway, just hope that in the event of a server failure they don't scapegoat the blasphemous Shaternists and burn you all at the stake, okay?
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
You missed my point.
You missed my point.
You missed my point.
Damn. I knew I should have made my post longer.
davejames said:
Um... I hate to break it to you, but no one here "hates" Shatner. We might bag on him now and then for fun (and to annoy guys like you
You missed my point.
You missed my point.
You missed my point.
Damn. I knew I should have made my post longer.
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
You're always welcome among us as a Trek fan, even if you are a *gag* Shatner supporter
You're always welcome among us as a Trek fan, even if you are a *gag* Shatner supporter
Re: An Admission, an Apology, and a Vote
For me Shatner will always be Kirk, but he has never been a young Kirk, which is why I will have no problem whatsoever with Trek XI. I would have an issue with someone else attempting to play Kirk at an age that Shatner has already done. The whole situation is a bit like the Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford/River Pheonix thing, which again I have never had any problem with.
For me Shatner will always be Kirk, but he has never been a young Kirk, which is why I will have no problem whatsoever with Trek XI. I would have an issue with someone else attempting to play Kirk at an age that Shatner has already done. The whole situation is a bit like the Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford/River Pheonix thing, which again I have never had any problem with.
Similar threads
