Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Khan 2.0, Aug 31, 2018.
Don't be absurd.
Zero absurdity involved. His shameless antics in promoting his latest book is recent proof. He knows exactly why Leonard Nimoy cut off contact with him and still tries to dupe folks into somehow viewing himself as the "victim." Shatner sought, by hook or crook, to shanghi Nimoy (his supposed best pal) into one of his money grubbing project's against Leonard's wishes. William Shatner is purely about money. He has an estimated net worth of $100 million and still has tunnel vision on making more. He has a 50 year track record of running rough shod over his co-stars. So where is the absurdity? Because he smiles to the fans while charging them vast sums he can't be a schmuck? I'd say the evidence proves William Shatner can and is.
Sure, he can be a bit of a schmuck. But your comparison was still utterly absurd. Take your irrational hatred elsewhere.
Again, when evidence exists it is not absurd. In fact it is utterly absurd to argue against the facts.
Again, when evidence exists it is not irrational. In fact, it is irrational idolatry to overlook the preponderance of evidence.
The math as I see it: when five out of six co-stars end up wanting nothing to do with you, and all cite, in one form or another, his sociopathy, well, that speaks volumes. When our current POTUS (Trump) is also a well known sociopath, again, sociopath=sociopath. So my math checks out.
Just no. Shatner might be a bit of an pompous ass. There is absolutely no indication that he is any sort of a sociopath. That you compare him to Trump shows that you've completely lost the plot.
Some of the possible symptoms of ASPD: Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others.
Other possible symptoms of ASPD can include: being “cold” by not showing emotions or investment in the lives of others; using humor, intelligence, or charisma to manipulate others; having a sense of superiority and strong, unwavering opinions; not learning from mistakes ; not being able to keep positive friendships and relationships ; attempting to control others by intimidating or threatening them ; becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, or other substances.
Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. They consistently break laws or overstep social boundaries.
Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain.
Sounds a lot like Shatner to me (of course, I am no expert, but still).
What is the formal diagnosis for forming irrational hatred towards a person one doesn't know and creating conspiracy theory style strained interpretations for justifying that hatred?
I-I-I know him. I've read his autobiographical Tek War series. I've watched his docu-series B.S. Hooker. I've read the eye witness testimony of his wholesale slaughter of caged (not free-range) tribbles to make his toupees and wigs and his Cruella Deville style leisure wear. The fact that, next to Willy Wonka, he is the biggest trafficker of Oompa Loompa's for work in his tribble fur sweatshops (now those are orange faced bastages who have my sympathy).
So I know him. Oh yeah, I KNOW HIM!
^^^^Is that you George. Lol
Well this certainly became a pile of iguana feces.
There's a link to TrekMovie, earlier in this thread, where Roberto Orci directly refutes the accusation that Shatner having Nimoy filmed at a convention for one of his projects was the reason for Nimoy ghosting Shatner. Orci says he knows the reason, but it's not his place to say. Does Shatner know? Maybe, though I doubt it. His description of his anguish at being ghosted sounds very authentic to me.
just wonder if it was anything to do with Orcis ST3? could it be possible shatner didn't want nimoy to appear in the movie and nimoy found out about it? (so shatner would equal nimoys 8 movie appearances. and there would be more emphasis on shatner if no nimoy there..) . Remember reading somewhere a while ago (might be BS tho) that when ST09 was being developed Nimoy had asked if Shatner could be in written into it somehow, but when approached about being in the movie Shatner had asked if he could be in it instead of Nimoy..
, like Trum
Just like Shatner knows, in detail, why Doohan, Nichols, Takei and Koening all nursed ill feelings towards him, and yet denied (and sometimes still does) having that knowledge. Then factor in the folks on the production side, well, the picture paints itself. For me, Nimoy turning on him was the last straw. When that many people have such negative feelings towards someone that informs my estimation of them as well.
As for the reason why Nimoy cut off contact with Shatner, well, that is a actually a moot point (for the record, the explanation I offered came from Shatner). I believe Leonard Nimoy to be of superior, more credible, character than William Shatner, therefore, I go with the preponderance of the evidence, and that for Nimoy to end a long term friendship that was forged in fire to have been done for good cause.
As for Shatner's "authentic anguish?" He is an actor. An actor who has feigned ignorance in the past as to why folks disliked him even after there was multiple testimonies of them having told him to his face what their problems with him were. Koening did it on camera when William Shatner interviewed him himself and then years later Shatner once again pretended not to know. The fact is he, like Trump, is out there telling lies that folks want to hear and believe. Since he is a Canadian born actor his lies are ultimately benign and I don't have to worry about him running for POTUS.
The problem with all that: Paramount could tolerate working with Nimoy and despised dealing with Shatner. Shatner may have suggested a Nimoy-less future, but there was no way Paramount (or J.J. Abrams) would have bought into that, and Leonard knew that for they were well documented.
I've said it again and again: Shatner never had a story. He had some premises that did not hang together into a coherent narrative.
I don't know if I agree that he was wrong to direct. I think Trek 5 needed a rewrite, give more stuff to the second tier characters, have some different location shooting for Sha-ka-ree but I think the core ideas of a crazed man using his telepathy to make people do his bidding, taking over the Enterprise and sending it on a pilgrimage in search of God is a pretty cool idea. There's a bunch of ideas that might have made more dynamic action scenes with a younger cast, like having the guys escaping from the brig and being chased around the Enterprise sets or the confrontation shootout on Nimbus III. I think the rock monsters idea might have been cool if there was some serious thought about what they were they were trying to achieve in those scenes but the design and performance looked neat. Sha-ka-ree should have been some really interesting look at the concept of the Garden of Eden, whether still intact or decaying but something more than another desert world like Nimbus III. Sybok being Spock's brother was an unnecessary inclusion that just pissed of fans and Roddenberry and fans of Roddenberry and for no reason. He could have been any old Vulcan, just some asshole that Spock grew up with. I love him fucking with everyone's head and the novelisation goes into some of the guilt people like Sulu harbor but it would have been good to give them some overt motivation for why they follow Sybok or give them scenes where they are trying to resist but he's control is too strong and confront Sybok on his hypocrisy.
Trek 5 wasn't great but it also got it's ass kicked at the box office by some pretty big names. Indiana Jones 3 was out two weeks before, Ghostbusters 2 was out the week later and Batman was out two weeks later. The film should have been better anyway but there are some good scenes in my opinion like the campfire scene and Sybok/Kirk's pain scene and the confrontation with "God" and they are down to Shatner's directing.
I find the Final Frontier to be an decent film sure it loses itself after the ship gets hijacked but I thought up until that point esp the camping scenes between Kirk/Spock and McCoy were fantastic, it showed the friendship between them and probably the best interaction between characters in the whole movie franchise.
well Star Trek V had a religious plot like Indiana Jones 3 and some ghostly FX like Ghostbusters 2 and some masked individuals like Batman so instead of going to see those films people could've gone to see Trek V and got all 3 together!
Although...I think the scene in the observation room with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Sybok is one of the best in the entire franchise.
To be clear, and I said this at the start, Star Trek V does have some good scenes in it. It fails overall, but, in isolation, there are some good bits.
Wrong to direct? No. Even though I believed he failed the exam, I also believe he got somethings right. In retrospect, I do think his desire to direct was more out ego rather than the more noble ambition of telling a good story well. For Nimoy it was about the work and the art. For Shatner it's about the more superficial aspects. You know what, he's not the only director to be that way, and some of them are tremendously successful.
I did like the "our pain is part of what makes and defines us." I like it because it was a logical offshoot of episodes such as "The Enemy Within" as it speaks to larger, though unintended point, that a perfect world would not guarantee a race of perfect people. Probably just the opposite.
I agree that Star Trek V just needed one more top-to-bottom rewrite (I've said it myself in the past). A rewrite that would have heeded what Harve Bennett, and others, tried to communicate to Mr. Shatner. He didn't get more help because he wasn't being receptive to it and that put others in the position of not wanting to seem obstructionist. Honestly, I also do believe that Paramount had little to no faith in his ability and from the beginning probably worked to cut their envisioned losses and move on. A consequence of that is Shatner was, in a sense, setup to fail. IOW, Star Trek V's failure was the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As for the B.O. competition, I don't buy it. There is always competition. According to B.O. Mojo Star Trek II was up against E.T., Rocky III, and Poltergeist. That year it ranked as the 6th most successful film of the year (1982). I mean read the list of films released in the month of June 1982 and WOW!
As opposed to Star Trek V. It premiered in the number one spot (beating out Indy 3) then quickly sunk like a stone against, arguably weaker competition. Indy 3 Ghostbusters 2, Karate Kid III all did well but deemed much weaker than their predecessors. Star Trek V finished the year in the 25th spot. (1989)
So, again, the competition argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for it's box office failure.
Separate names with a comma.