WilliamShatner.com :: The Official Shatner Website (PNphpBB2)

J.J Abrams, are you Rick Berman in disguise???
1, 2, 3 Next

WilliamShatner.com Forum Index » WilliamShatner.com Message Boards » Old William Shatner Main Discussion

Author

Message

Graham2271

Post subject: J.J Abrams, are you Rick Berman in disguise???

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 01:24 AM

Member

Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 206

Status: Offline

William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForrest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Nichelle Nichols & Walter Koenig, all Star Trek legends and the only ones who will be recognised in the eyes of REAL TOS fans as Kirk, Spock, McCoy,, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura & Chekov. This so-called new movie is nothing more than a retro-reimagined version of the show we all grew up with and loved. Pine, Quinto, Uban and Co will never be accepted as Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc by true fans as the original cast are an impossible act to follow. Abrams is riding roughshod over Trek canon by casting actors with possibly the exception of Zach Quinto and John Cho who look nothing like the original cast, especially Anton Yelchin, Chekov??? You're having a laugh!!! "New Voyages" Chekov actor Andy Bray would have been a more appropriate choice as he bears such a close resemblance to Walter Koenig, you would think Walter was his father, and he carries off a very decent performance as Chekov.

Quite honestly, this is a real sickener and I would urge anyone who feels any sense of loyalty to Bill and the rest of the cast to acknowledge their excellent portrayals of the TOS characters and boycott this farce. The Enterprise Bridge looks more modern than Picard's Enterprise D and I shudder to think what Abram's redesigned ship will look like. Let's be realistic about this, Abrams wants this film to be a total re-boot of the original Star Trek and as DebE says, erase everything that has gone before, I think it will probably be the end of next year before I watch this rubbish on Sky Movies Premiere and even then only out of curiosity as I will not waste a penny on going to see it at the Cinema, NOR buy the DVD.

I never thought anyone could damage Star Trek more than Rick Berman, after he killed Kirk off in "Generations", but this is nothing compared to what Abrams has done by attempting to reinvent the original Star Trek in his own trendy image and destroy Trek canon for good measure. In this film, Chekov is in from the start, yet he never became a Bridge Officer until Season 2 of TOS, also, there doesn't appear to be any sign of Gary Mitchell, Janice Rand and as Abrams also seems to have conveniently forgotten or not bothered with, Dr. Mark Piper, McCoy's immediate predecessor as Enterprise CMO. Makes you wonder if Abrams bothered watching any TOS episodes, especially "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?

I would rather see James Cawley and his team portray the original crew as at least James and his colleagues have the original sets and ship and maintained the spirit of the original show. James is realistic to know however that his portrayal of Kirk can't hold a candle to Bill's, no-one can, there is only one Captain Kirk and that is William Shatner!!!

Finally, Harry and some may say, ah, but Leonard Nimoy was happy to appear in the film, I have to admit I am disappointed that Leonard wanted anything to do with it, especially after the indignant treatment Bill received from Abrams. If only Manny Coto and Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens had been put in charge of this movie, then they could have came up with a plausible story that would have seen the real Kirk (Bill) resurrected.

Harry_Mudd

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 01:35 AM

Member

Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Posts: 8631

The list of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes in film, television, stage, or radio includes:

* Hans Albers
o The Man Who Was Sherlock Holmes (1937 film, Der Mann, der Sherlock Holmes war)
* Joaquim de Almeida
o The Xango from Baker Street (2001 film, O Xangô de Baker Street)
* James D'Arcy
o Sherlock (2002 TV film)
* Tom Baker
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1982 mini series)
* John Barrymore
o Sherlock Holmes (1922 film)
* Jeremy Brett
o The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1984-1994 TV series)
* Clive Brook
o Sherlock Holmes (1932 film)
o The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1929 film)
* Michael Caine
o Without a Clue (1988 film)
* John Cleese
o The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It (1977 film)
o Elementary, My Dear Watson (1973 TV film)
* Peter Cook
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978 film)
* Peter Cushing
o The Masks of Death (1984 TV film)
o Sherlock Holmes (1965-1968 TV series)
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959 film)
* Robert Downey, Jr.
o Sherlock Holmes
* Rupert Everett
o Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004 TV film)
* Matt Frewer
o The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire (2002 TV film)
o The Sign of Four (2001 TV film)
o The Royal Scandal (2001 TV film)
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (2000 TV film)
* Stewart Granger
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1972 TV film)
* William Gillette
o Sherlock Holmes (1898 Broadway production)
* Charlton Heston
o The Crucifer of Blood (1991 TV film)
* Carleton Hobbs
o On BBC Radio (1952-1969 radio series)
* Ronald Howard
o Sherlock Holmes (1954-1955 TV series)
* Frank Langella
o Sherlock Holmes (1981 TV film)
* Peter Lawford
o Fantasy Island, episode "The Case Against Mr. Roarke/Save Sherlock Holmes" (1982 TV series)
* Christopher Lee
o Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady (1992 TV film)
o Incident at Victoria Falls (1991 TV film)
o Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace (1962 film, Sherlock Holmes und das Halsband der Todes)
* Vasili Livanov
o Nine Russian TV films from 1979 to 1986
* Patrick Macnee
o The Hound of London (1993 TV film)
* Raymond Massey
o The Speckled Band (1931 film)
* Clive Merrison
o On BBC Radio (1989-2004 radio series)
* Nis Bank-Mikkelsen
o The Blue Carbuncle (2007 Danish children's audio-drama)
* Ron Moody
o Sherlock Holmes: The Musical (1989 stage production)
* Roger Moore
o Sherlock Holmes in New York (1976 TV film)
* John Neville
o A Study in Terror (1965 film)
* Leonard Nimoy
o Sherlock Holmes (Royal Shakespeare Company stage production)
* Eille Norwood
o Numerous silent films from 1920 to 1923
* Peter O'Toole
o Sherlock Holmes and the Baskerville Curse (1983 cartoon)
o Sherlock Holmes and a Study in Scarlet (1983 cartoon)
o Sherlock Holmes and the Sign of Four (1983 cartoon)
o Sherlock Holmes and the Valley of Fear (1983 cartoon)
* Reginald Owen
o A Study in Scarlet (1933 film)
* Michael Pennington
o The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1987 TV film)
* Christopher Plummer
o Murder by Decree (1979 film)
* Jonathan Pryce
o Baker Street Irregulars (2007 film)
o Silver Blaze (1977 TV film)
* Basil Rathbone
o Suspense, episode "The Adventure of the Black Baronet" (1953 TV series)
o Dressed to Kill (1946 film)
o Terror by Night (1946 film)
o Pursuit to Algiers (1945 film)
o The Woman in Green (1945 film)
o The House of Fear (1945 film)
o The Pearl of Death (1944 film)
o The Scarlet Claw (1944 film)
o The Spider Woman (1944 film)
o Sherlock Holmes Faces Death (1943 film)
o Sherlock Holmes in Washington (1943 film)
o Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943 film)
o Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942 film)
o The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939 film)
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939 film)
* Robert Rendel
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1932 film)
* Ian Richardson
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983 TV film)
o The Sign of Four (1983 TV film)
* Nicholas Rowe
o Young Sherlock Holmes (1985 film)
* Richard Roxburgh
o The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002 TV film)
* Robert Stephens
o The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970 film)
* Geoffrey Whitehead
o Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (1980 TV series)
* Paxton Whitehead
o The Crucifer of Blood (1978 Broadway production)
* Nicol Williamson
o The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1976 film)
* Douglas Wilmer
o The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975 film)
o BBC series (1964-1965 TV series)
* Arthur Wontner
o Silver Blaze (1937 film)
o The Triumph of Sherloc

* Arthur Wontner

o The Sign of Four (1932 film)
o The Missing Rembrandt (1932 film)
o The Sleeping Cardinal (1931 film)
* John Wood

o Sherlock Holmes (1974-1976 Broadway theatre production)
* Edward Woodward

o Hands of a Murderer (1990 TV film)

_________________

Harry_Mudd

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 01:37 AM

Member

Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Posts: 8631

22 actors have played Dracula. They are Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr., John Carradine, Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Jack Palance, Udo Kier, Jonathan Massey, Frank Langella, Louis Jourdan, Klaus Kinski, Duncan Regehr, Stefan Lindahl, Gary Oldman, Leslie Nielsen, Gerard Butler, Patrick Bergin, Dominic Purcell, Richard Roxburgh, Marc Warren and Keith-Lee Castle.

_________________

Harry_Mudd

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 01:39 AM

Member

Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Posts: 8631

Great characters deserve to live! BRING ON STAR TREK!!!

_________________

DebE

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 02:33 AM

Member

Joined: Oct 09, 2007
Posts: 357

[quote="Harry_Mudd"]The list of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes in film, television, stage, or radio includes:....22 actors have played Dracula....

This is an argument I have heard many times but for me the difference is that the SAME actors have played Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc for FORTY years making them almost, synonymous with these characters IMO. Which of these other examples you have listed have that same amount of time invested in one character?

I think there are different kinds of Trek fans. Some that love any and all things Trek and want or need it to continue in any form; and hey that's fine for those folks. Another kind of Trek fan is the kind that perhaps only likes one incarnation of Trek and they are maybe more into the way the actors brought those characters to life. I am definitely in the second category. I am more of a TOS fan than a fan of all things Trek. My favorite character is James T. Kirk as played by BILL SHATNER (for the aforementioned forty years Wink

). This fact influences the way I feel about the changes I hear this movie is taking with my beloved corner of the Trek universe.

Will I go to see the movie? Maybe. But so far, I haven't seen or heard anything that will make me rush out to see it.

deb

morgram

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 05:42 AM

This account has been Permanently Banned

Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 6049

Status: Offline

Harry_Mudd wrote:

Great characters deserve to live! BRING ON STAR TREK!!!

Yes, but WHO`S Star Trek?

SMB

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 08:01 AM

Member

Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 14326
Location: Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Kahil Gibran

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

To see someone else play a character that we have associated with one actor for many years is a hard one.

For example, when Johnny Cash played the role of Davy Crocket in a made for tv movie, I just could not get into it because for years the role of Davy Crocket had always been played by Fess Parker (or at least while I was growing up).

Plus, I doubt that anyone could picture anyone else but Roy Rogers playing the role of Roy, but Roy, himself. And what if they subbed a black stalion in for Trigger. Shocked

I know that there have been numerous actors to play 007 James Bond but that character was mainly seen in movies.

When characters have been in our living rooms week after week for years, things get a bit different, unless you are a soap opera fan and have seen roles switched and played by different actors.

Personally, the idea of Star Trek going backwards, goes against the spirit of Trek which is supposed to be a glimpse into the future, even a fictional one.

I think that people would be more willing to accept other actors in the original ST if some of the original cast members were present to reminisce about their lives in Starfleet. They could be more than just cameos too. The older Kirk and Spock could be talking with each other and sharing stories together. Then there could be flashbacks, using younger actors to portray them at the appropriate ages.

And, for a whole new idea.... why not let Kirk and Spock be instructors for the Starfleet Academy and use their experiences to teach the young cadets coming up? That way no one would have to play the younger Kirk and Spock, except perhaps in brief flashbacks. The focus would be on a new generation of Starfleet officers.

But, who asked me anyways eh? It is very late and I need to get some sleep.

_________________

ASB

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 02:22 PM

Member

Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 1754
Location: Country NSW
Status: Offline

The single biggest problem facing Star Trek is the fans that critisise everything made, the original series is so dated and old now the modern generation find it hard to watch, my son is a real trekie and at 19 years of age he has watched every single trek except TOS because its to old.

Seriously, how many Bonds are there, how many Dr Who's and they totally reinvented BSG making a far better series than the original. It can be do and it may well be done but if the fans don'e give it a go, then the studio just won't bother in the future.

TOS was a great series but its time to let go and just enjoy whats on offer.

_________________
When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ski There Too
E=M'Ski Squared.

Ausi Ski Bum (ASB)

DebE

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 03:17 PM

Member

Joined: Oct 09, 2007
Posts: 357

Harry_Mudd wrote:

Great characters deserve to live! BRING ON STAR TREK!!!

Hey Harry
I agree great characters deserve to live and that's why Bill should have been given a chance to bring Kirk back for one last time and THEN they could move on; but JJ Abrams has said many times that the reason Bill couldn't be in the movie was because KIRK IS DEAD.

Kinda ironic really, since he wants to use Kirk et el to "reinvigorate" (or whatever term JJ is using this week) the franchise.

deb

Graham2271

Post subject: A question for Harry Mudd

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 06:18 PM

Member

Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 206

Status: Offline

[quote="DebE"]

Harry_Mudd wrote:

The list of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes in film, television, stage, or radio includes:....22 actors have played Dracula....

This is an argument I have heard many times but for me the difference is that the SAME actors have played Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc for FORTY years making them almost, synonymous with these characters IMO. Which of these other examples you have listed have that same amount of time invested in one character?

I think there are different kinds of Trek fans. Some that love any and all things Trek and want or need it to continue in any form; and hey that's fine for those folks. Another kind of Trek fan is the kind that perhaps only likes one incarnation of Trek and they are maybe more into the way the actors brought those characters to life. I am definitely in the second category. I am more of a TOS fan than a fan of all things Trek. My favorite character is James T. Kirk as played by BILL SHATNER (for the aforementioned forty years Wink

This indeed IS the difference Deb, Bill, Leonard, De, Jimmy and co brought their own unique style and magic to the characters they played for that forty years and that is why there should NEVER have been any attempt to re-cast the characters with new actors and modernise the sets and look of the Enterprise. This is also destroying canon from the TNG episode "Relics" which featured a Holographic recreation of the 1701 Bridge, DS9's "Trials & Tribbleations" where Sisko and Dax are actually aboard the real Bridge, not to mention of course, the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "In a Mirror Darkly" when the Mirror Archer and his crew commandeer the Constitution Class Defiant. In all of these post-TOS Star Trek shows, the Enterprise and Defiant look as they did in TOS.

Getting back to Abram's destruction of TOS canon, as I understand it, this movie is going to be about the first mission of the Enterprise under Kirk's command, therefore if McCoy, Chekov, and Uhura are Senior Officers and part of the Bridge crew in Abrams re-booted Star Trek, the events of TOS Season 1 will have been erased as will the characters that appeared.

Let me enlighten Harry and also Mr. Abrams as to the Bridge Crew and Senior Officers assigned to the Enterprise when the events of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" took place.

Captain James T Kirk (Commanding Officer)
Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell (First Officer/Helmsman)
Doctor Mark Piper (Chief Medical Officer)
Lieutenant Spock (Science Officer)
Lieutenant Lee Kelso (Navigational Officer)
Physicist Hikaru Sulu
Doctor Elizabeth Dehner (Ship's (Physiologist)
Ensign Smith (Yeoman)
Lieutenant Alden (Communications Officer)

Relevant Production Notes from Wilkepedia regarding casting of characters, costumes and ship's set from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Casting took place in June 1965. Jeffrey Hunter was unavailable to reprise his role as Captain Christopher Pike, and William Shatner was cast as his replacement, Captain James Kirk. The character of Number One, the female second-in-command, was dropped. The only character to be retained from the first pilot was Science Officer Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy, who was given Number One's unemotional demeanor. Spock was retained despite pressure from NBC, who were worried about his "Satanic" appearance.

Apart from Captain Kirk, the episode introduced two other regular characters to the show: James Doohan was cast as the Chief Engineer—the name Montgomery Scott was chosen after Doohan had tried various accents, and had decided that an engineer ought to be Scottish—and George Takei was cast as Ship's Physicist Sulu, who would become the ship's helmsman in the series. Uhura did not appear, nor did Dr. Leonard McCoy; the ship's doctor is instead Mark Piper (Paul Fix). Piper was intended as a regular, and DeForest Kelley—who played McCoy in the series proper—was considered for the role.

Gary Lockwood, chosen to play Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell, had starred in the title role of Roddenberry's earlier series on ABC, The Lieutenant. The other major guest part was Elizabeth Dehner, played by Sally Kellerman. Both actors needed silver eyes, which were produced by an expert contact lens fabricator who sandwiched wrinkled tinfoil between two scleral contact lens which covered the white of the eye as well as the iris. These were outdated even in the 60s and dangerous to the health of the actors' eyes. Although Kellerman could insert and remove the prosthetics easily with no discomfort, Lockwood found them almost impossible to use. He needed to raise his face and sight along his nose in order to see out of the tiny holes in the foil that aligned with his pupils. He used this to enhance his performance as the mutating Mitchel, as the unusual gaze gave him an arrogant and haughty demeanor.[4]

Other cast members included Paul Carr playing Lee Kelso, Lloyd Haynes as Communications Officer Alden and Andrea Dromm as Yeoman Smith (Alden and Smith were intended to be regulars in the show, but were replaced by Uhura and Janice Rand, respectively).[4] The episode also is the first time long-running background actor Eddie Paskey appeared; his character would later be identified as Lt. Leslie.[5]

The costumes from the first pilot were used in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" but would be changed in the series proper, with the colors altered and black collars introduced. Most of the Enterprise sets were also reused from "The Cage", while Sickbay was the only major set constructed for the episode.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it, Mark Piper was Kirk's first CMO, NOT McCoy, Gary Mitchell was his first Helmsman, Lee Kelso his first Navigator to be later succeeded by Kevin Riley throughout Season 1 and Alden his first Communications Officer. Yet Abrams is going to erase all of that with this new film.

As I said, this is a total re-boot of the original Star Trek, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Abrams wanted to eventually do a re-boot of "TNG", "DS9" & "Voyager".

My question to Harry is are you wanting to see the events and characters depicted in the Original and best Star Trek erased for this reinvented rubbish???

Jami

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 07:03 PM

Member

Joined: Feb 27, 2005
Posts: 1720
Location: California
Status: Offline

Far as I'm concerned this is not a Star Trek movie because they not only recast everyone, but they're rewriting Trek-history. It's going to make the complaints made about Enterprise look puny by comparison.

_________________
~Jami JoAnne Russell~
www.jamisings.com
This Space For Rent
Hey, in today's economy, can you blame me?

Graham2271

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 08:00 PM

Member

Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Posts: 206

Status: Offline

Jami wrote:

Exactly Jami, you hit the nail right on the head, Abrams IS attempting to rewrite Trek-history, I think the guy's ego must be so big that he sees himself as the new Gene Roddenberry. Rolling Eyes

Jami

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 18, 2008 - 10:07 PM

Member

Joined: Feb 27, 2005
Posts: 1720
Location: California
Status: Offline

Yep. That's my biggest problem with the new Trek movie. Shame so many people who were against Enterprise are for this movie. Even though it's doing what they complained Enterprise did. To me that smacks of being a hypocrit. At least Enterprise tried it's best to stay with Trek history.

I've said it before, I'll say it a billion times - If they want new Trek stuff, go back to Roddenberry's own notes for his planes for the series Assignment Earth. Yes, Seven, Isis, and Roberta will have to be recast, but since the actor and actresses in question only played those characters once, it's not as big a deal. After all, they recast Kriste Alley's part between movies.

By using Gary Seven - a time traveler who mostly is there to help earth (but no in the Doctor Who sense) - they can have all sorts of fun with it. People who played characters with human ancestry can guest star as their character's own ancestors. (William Shatner for one. Leonard Nimoy, Nichelle Nicoles - But also Marina Siris, Patrick Stewart, LeVar Burton, Avery Brooks, etc.) Seven could travel to the future to save Data at the very last second before the explosion, bringing Data back to earth to help him with an assignment. (Using his alien boss' technology to make Data look completely human so Spiner won't have to wear the gold makeup. Then he can either return Data to the future or Data could choose to stay on Earth and occastionally help Seven - or Seven's boss' could hire Data to work as an agent on another planet all together.) They can start the series out in the 60s and every couple of seasons up it by ten years, working through the 70s, 80s, all the way up through the Eugenics Wars.

I REALLY wish someone would listen to me because I think, done right, Star Trek: Assignment Earth would work out really well.

_________________
~Jami JoAnne Russell~
www.jamisings.com
This Space For Rent
Hey, in today's economy, can you blame me?

ASB

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:12 AM

Member

Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 1754
Location: Country NSW
Status: Offline

My god people its FICTION, fiction does not actualy have a hard and fast history, the last James Bond movie did a restart and it was just what the series needed

Characters do change

_________________
When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ski There Too
E=M'Ski Squared.

Ausi Ski Bum (ASB)

Mirizor

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:50 AM

Member

Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 14477

Maybe some of you would prefer to be stuck in a rut but as far as I can see where Star Trek is concerned, the Star Trek universe should also expand beyond the familiar characters that we grew up with. A lot of folks are afraid of change, and to stifle change is like telling a child not to grow up. Let Star Trek evolve, not descend into obscurity because it feels comfortable to do so with the same old characters.

DebE

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:21 PM

Member

Joined: Oct 09, 2007
Posts: 357

Mirizor wrote:

aaah but therein lies the rub. They are NOT moving forward. They are moving backward, covering ground that has already been done to perfection IMO by the original cast of TOS, and they are indeed using the same old "characters" to do so. As Sue mentioned and I agree, I think it would have been better if they just used new characters and moved on from there.

But anyway, believe me I clearly understand that this is a done deal. JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman had the right to do anything they wanted with Star Trek, and they pretty much did (although I do appreciate Orci's efforts as a Trek fan, put in a near impossible situation). But as anyone in "show biz" knows, along with that comes the right for the audience to like or dislike the choices they made AND to be able to voice their opinions on the subject whether positive or negative.

Mirizor

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:22 PM

Member

Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 14477

DebE wrote:

Mirizor wrote:

Of course everyone has the right to agree or disagree. I just don't like being put down because of what my opinions are.

Jami

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:27 PM

Member

Joined: Feb 27, 2005
Posts: 1720
Location: California
Status: Offline

ASB wrote:

My god people its FICTION, fiction does not actualy have a hard and fast history, the last James Bond movie did a restart and it was just what the series needed

You can't compare the two because James Bond all around stinks. That's like comparing apples and dog turds.

Star Trek has a set history. One of the reasons the tv show Enterprise failed is because they messed with set history. Which ticked fans off. You'd think that they'd learn from that mistake and not try to mess with the set history yet again. That's why this movie deserves to flop. Heck, even Gene Roddenberry HIMSELF tried to do it and the script got rejected because of it! If the man who CREATED Star Trek can't do it, no one else should try because it's obviously a BAD IDEA.

_________________
~Jami JoAnne Russell~
www.jamisings.com
This Space For Rent
Hey, in today's economy, can you blame me?

Mirizor

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 06:57 PM

Member

Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Posts: 14477

Of course Bill was joking when he said "get a life".

ASB

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 11:21 PM

Member

Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 1754
Location: Country NSW
Status: Offline

Don't forget Jami, Enterprise lasted a year longer than TOS. It failed due to the silly attitude os some fans to take it all to seriously and not just sit back and enjoy it.

I have never understood some of the silly arguments Star Trek generates like the correct route from the bridge to Engineering and one series being more historically accurate than another, its a TV show, not real life.

_________________
When Hell Freezes Over I'll Ski There Too
E=M'Ski Squared.

Ausi Ski Bum (ASB)

TheWebMan

Post subject:

Posted: Oct 19, 2008 - 11:52 PM

Member

Joined: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 1675

Enterprise didn't last that long on its own merits
And saying a TV show is just a TV show or a Novel is just a Novel or a Play is just a Play is no way to justify anything

CaptainRobertApril

Post subject: I've been away too long....

Posted: Oct 20, 2008 - 07:11 AM

Member

Joined: Nov 04, 2002
Posts: 22
Location: Denver, Colorado
Status: Offline

Nice to see they've made some improvements around here.

Bill, I think at this point, you should be thankful you didn't get a part in this turkey, because my spidey sense is telling me it's gonna be Star Trek's answer to "Ishtar" (yes, you'll finally be off the hook for ST V).

My main fear is what's gonna happen to the property when it does that big public bellyflop. They haven't figured out why previous Star Trek projects have cratered, and I don't expect them to figure it out this time, either. I fully expect the suits to decide that Star Trek is a dead property after all and start shelving the old girl, never quite understanding that it's not Star Trek we're tired of, it's BAD Star Trek that we're sick and tired of.

Bill, this is where you might be able to swoop in for the rescue. The performance of your novels alone can show that innovative story telling CAN be done while toeing the line with established continuity (hell, your Star Trek novels held the line better with canon than the shows that were on the air at the time!), and possibly make the pitch for a direct-to-DVD CGI adaptation of "The Return" (CGI as in the recent version of "Beowulf", not "Clone Wars"; if they can turn Ray Winstone into Sean Bean's stunt double, getting you back into prime drop-kicking form will be a piece of cake!).

Mark my words, JJ's travesty will fail. It might get a decent opening weekend, but it's gonna drop like a chunk of neutronium in Week 2. We need to start planning now for how to pick up the pieces.

_________________
ROBERT D. APRIL, Captain, SFC
Commander, USS ELDRIDGE NCC-1787
Captain April's Briefing Room

Harry_Mudd

Post subject: Re: I've been away too long....

Posted: Oct 20, 2008 - 05:10 PM

Member

Joined: Nov 07, 2002
Posts: 8631

CaptainRobertApril wrote:

Mark my words, JJ's travesty will fail.

Mark my words, no it won't. It will be one of the biggest releases next year. There is already a positive buzz surrounding the film from industry insiders; including Leonard Nimoy. Besides, it is being pitched to audiences beyond Trekkers.

I just "adore" critics who criticise things they have neither seen nor experienced. Some Trek fans remind me of the extremists, who declared a fatwah on Salman Rushdie, even though most had not read The Satanic Verses. A bit of a strong comparison for a fantasy film, I know, but nonetheless, the naysayers are beginning to annoy me.

I am just delighted to see Trek in the good hands of Abrams. People, if the early reports are all true, why can't you be excited to celebrate the continuing adventures of the crew we ALL love? The possibility that it may be great, should be exciting.

I am well aware of the tragedy and disappointment that was Indiana Jones 4, but I have an inkling Trek will be different. Let's hold judgement after it has been viewed.

_________________

Johnny_Turbo

Post subject: A Schedule for TV Land, see below

Posted: Oct 20, 2008 - 07:00 PM

Member

Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 8366
Location: Chillville, PA
Status: Offline

Harry_Mudd wrote:

Excellent list! Glad to see Eille Norwood listed from 1920 - 1923.

I'll add some pre-1920's Sherlock movies

A Midget Sherlock -- 20 July 1911
Sherlock Holmes Jr. -- 13 March 1912

Some pre-1920's films were produced under the personal supervision of A. Conan Doyle.

_________________

"The problem with price quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity."--Abraham Lincoln

morgram

Post subject: Re: I've been away too long....

Posted: Oct 20, 2008 - 07:14 PM

This account has been Permanently Banned

Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 6049

Status: Offline

Harry_Mudd wrote:

CaptainRobertApril wrote:

Mark my words, JJ's travesty will fail.

Harry, do you think that the personalities of the main characters should be re-interpreted in any way? In other words, do you think that Chris Pine as Kirk should be given the freedom to notice women in an old school mid-20th century kind of way like Bill Shatner did 40 years ago on TV as Kirk.....or is that now one big politically incorrect no-no for 2009?....and please, Harry.....don`t evade the question.

All times are GMT - 8 Hours

1, 2, 3 Next

WilliamShatner.com Forum Index » WilliamShatner.com Message Boards » Old William Shatner Main Discussion