Shatner On Being Poor, Almost Dying, & The New Movie | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Shatner On Being Poor, Almost Dying, & The New Movie January 15, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Shatner , trackback

Details Magazine has a new interesting interview with William Shatner where he talks about living out of his car after his run on Star Trek The Original Series, dealing with the death of his wife and (of course) what he thinks of JJ Abrams new moive (and his lack of involvement). Plus in a new video Bill talks about what keeps him going and what is next for the Shat.

Details Interview excerpts

Details: Is it true that after Star Trek went off the air you lived out of a car?
Shatner: A pickup truck, actually. It was the early 1970s and I was recently divorced. I had three kids and was totally broke. I managed to find work back east on the straw-hat circuit—summer stock—but couldn’t afford hotels, so I lived out of the back of my truck, under a hard shell. It had a little stove, a toilet, and I’d drive from theater to theater. The only comfort came from my dog, who sat in the passenger seat and gave me perspective on everything. Otherwise, it would have just been me counting my losses.

Details: Speaking of loss, there’s a spoken-word track on your 2004 album, Has Been, about discovering the body of your third wife, Nerine, after she’d drowned while mixing Valium with booze. Did you find recording it cathartic?
Shatner: I don’t understand closure, if that’s what you mean. That word never resonated with me. The epiphany I had, making that, was that we grieve forever. It’s as much a part of our life as eating, sleeping, and love. We live in grief for having left the womb, for having left the teat, then school, then home. In my case, it was leaving marriages, and the death of my wife. Making that recording was simply my way to express very deep feelings. . . . Death is an absolute marvel. I once had a great horse rear up and fall back on me, and in that moment I thought I might gain some clarity about the mystery—you know, the meaning of the universe suddenly illuminated, like in an orgasm—but it never came.

Details: So did you want to take another crack at Star Trek in the new JJ Abrams film version?
Shatner: He talked to me a few times this past year, but they shot in November and Leonard [Nimoy] is in it and I’m not. I’m disappointed. I’m not outraged, but I think it’s a stupid business decision, a stupid box-office decision. Here I am, still alive, still popular, on a hit show. It makes sense to put me in the thing. If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.

Details: So is that how you think of your Emmy for Boston Legal? And the millions of lives you touched as Captain James Tiberius Kirk?
Shatner: Careers are here and they’re gone. I enjoy performing, and I feel lately like I’ve reached the apex of what I can do as a performer. Even my memory for dialogue has never been sharper. But no matter how great we think we are, we’re nothing but the temples of Ozymandias—we’re ruins in the making.

Check out Details Magazine for the full interview

Shatner on what’s next for him
Here is another clip taken by the ShatnerVision team from Shatner’s appearance on PalTalk


Shatner Plans For The Future

Comments

1. TOS Purist - January 15, 2008

FIRST!! Mwhahaha…

The Shat is King. Always.

2. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

It was a poor business decision to actually name the new movie “Star Trek: Hold The Shatner.”

Go Bill, go! Awards- commercials- movies- music- Hope I am as active in my seventies.

3. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

It’s all a PR plot. Shatner is the star of the new movie, depend on it.

4. TOS Purist - January 15, 2008

I agree with him, though (of course); I mean, it IS a pretty stupid business decision not to have Bill in the film. He’s a great actor, and I would love to see him on the big screen again, where he deserves to be. Having Shatner in any film would only improve the picture, so it couldn’t hurt to have him in it.

5. star trackie - January 15, 2008

The man has paid his dues. Good to see him prospering…and enjoying long life.

6. Batts - January 15, 2008

He still sounds very sour!! Hey! Nimoy is going to make this movie a good one. Support your friend, I am sure he supported you with Generations. Nimoy’s business decisions with the movies always made money, The Shat’s ST5 well, need I say more???

7. sean - January 15, 2008

Oh yay, William Shatner complaining…AGAIN.

8. kewl - January 15, 2008

Maybe they should hire Shatner to record a commentary for the DVD!

Or even a track where he dubs in his own verions of all Chris Pine’s lines…

9. SirMartman - January 15, 2008

Come on JJ,,

Bring the fans what they want!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX9shr_Pq2I

10. Daniel Broadway - January 15, 2008

#3

Ha ha.

And 9/11 was an inside job, wake up sheeple!

11. Kirk, James T. - January 15, 2008

I think its not a silly business decision – i think the makers of this movie are quite capable of making a movie that can stand on its own two feet without having Shatner in it – however, he is entitled to be annoyed, he is the original Kirk and it would have been good to see him in the movie – who knows, we might get that chance, and if this spawns a new movie series, then theres no reason to believe we wont see him in Trek again but i don’t believe this movie will fail just because Shatner wasn’t in it.

12. Neil C - January 15, 2008

If hes bluffing about not being in it hes doing a pretty impressive job. Ive thought like many others for a while that JJ’s keeping Shatner under his hat right until the end but Bill just sounds too hurt to be kidding us (however great an actor he is).

Unless even he doesn’t know he’s in it yet – but surely not?

13. Gallifrey1983 - January 15, 2008

What an awesome surprise an unexpected Shatner shot in the teaser would have been.

14. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

This thread should be fun.

15. Jordan Currier - January 15, 2008

Doesn’t Shatner get it? He died in Generations… it would take a very implausible and disappointing story point — like cloning or something — to bring kirk back looking as old as Will. Shatner looks today.

16. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

Now, I never read any of the Star Trek novels but oddly enough, I got one by Shatner for Christmas… something to do with his character being in the TNG era and saving everyone, including Admiral Janeway.

I hazard to guess, given his schedule and the amount of work writing a novel is, that he plots it and then has the co-writers “write” it. But ya never know.
Maybe he just dictates pages while in the shower. Perhaps that’s how we get passages like this:
“Prell, the Klingon commander, approached me and seemed extra-slippery in the rain. My phaser sounded like an exhaust vent as I drained it… it gently scrubbed through Prell. I repeated scouring him out like so much bacteria until just a smell like that of a moist wig filled the air. ”

Sorry Bill… you take enough ribbing as is : )

17. Driver - January 15, 2008

So he was living payday to payday on TOS. Sounds like everyone I know!

18. Tom - January 15, 2008

So when does the official word come. Is he in or out??? When is the point of no return. Are they really still working on this??

19. me - January 15, 2008

Shat has his great emmies,
y doesn’t he grant Nimoy a only-Nimoy-movie?

I mean, they would need 1 hour to explain how Kirk came back, that’s simply impossible and only a small cameo is too small for him. So better without him than unlogical and bad with him.

20. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

So, another whiney lament from a cheesy actor…..

This guy could have his own whine+cheese party!! :)

21. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

Perhaps Shatner could portray Kirk’s half brother- Sy-kirk.

22. Colonel Kevin - January 15, 2008

I have to be honest, I don’t really think that throwing in a small part for Shatner would be that hard, even if he’s dead. There are *tons* of examples in movies and tv shows where dead characters have made apperances, either in 1) flashbacks or 2) artistic choices. An older Spock talking to a Kirk who really isn’t there except in his fondest memories could be a great way to just add a little flavor to the film and solidify it as a passing of the torch.

Anyways, just saying, the film doesn’t need to go all Search for Spock to have a little William Shatner in it

23. YUBinit - January 15, 2008

“silly oversight” …that’s an understatement. Here people harp on about the creativity involved with this project, and they couldn’t place him in it? It should have been all or nothing with the remaining TOS cast.

So much for the great creative minds at work on this. :P

“Who’s the greater fool? The fool or the one that follows?”

24. CanuckLou - January 15, 2008

Here we go again! :D

25. Pr011 - January 15, 2008

He’s doing himself no favors. “Stupid business Decision” – that’ll really get him in the film.

26. Michael Hall - January 15, 2008

Ugh. Please, please, please–do people need really to post these same points points about Shatner in the movie, ad infinitum? I think at this point that minds are made up, one way or the other.

What struck me reading this is what a really thoughtful, articulate guy Bill Shatner can be when he’s not putting out the snark. “Temples of Ozymandias–ruins in the making.”–that’s a pretty good one. :-)

27. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

I have a simple message for the Shat.

GET A LIFE!

28. Brian - January 15, 2008

#24 You took the words right out of my mouth!

29. Chris Pike - January 15, 2008

For all the put-on Shatfoolery, underneath it all he really is a deep, deep thinker if you read between the lines. He’s had it all, rags to riches, obscurity and fame, deep tragedy and joy…I raise a glass of Tranya to His Shatness!

30. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

#22 “a little William Shatner”

With the Shat being “larger than life”, that phrase “a little William Shatner” seems nonsensical…almost bordering on an oxymoron like “military intelligence”! :)

31. A. - January 15, 2008

6. Batts – January 15, 2008 & 7. sean – January 15, 2008, etc.
I can’t find where he is sour or complaining. Please direct us to this. OR perhaps you misunderstand the term “complain” or “sour”.

He did state an opinion, which seems right on track. Given that Nimoy is in the film it seems remarkedly silly, no….;stupid… to omit the other actor that made the character iconic. If no Nimoy, then fine. But Given Shatner is more popular now than when he did Trek, it is dumb. Omitted his name forfeits many dollars.
I’m still excited about the film but I’ll just wait for the rental. Like many people. Had Shatner been in it, guaranteed additional revenue.
But of course the Shatner bashers wanted to use any excuse to ..well..bash him.

32. A. - January 15, 2008

“25. Pr011 – January 15, 2008
He’s doing himself no favors. “Stupid business Decision” – that’ll really get him in the film. ”

Agreed. Hence proof he really doesn’t care. Just commenting on the poor decision.

33. nscates - January 15, 2008

The rest of the article was interesting. Thanks, Anthony.

34. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

The Shat made a stupid decision to have his famous character got killed off in the Generations movie; otherwise, he could be in the new Star Trek movie.

35. DEMODE - January 15, 2008

I don’t think the film will fail without Shatner in it. It will “make” its money back. I just think it will make about $60 million dollars less than it would with him in it. Face facts… people love Star Trek and people love Shatner. Nimoy makes the movie special, and he will attract more people. But it should be simple math. For every old fan that Nimoy attracts, the combination of Nimoy and Shatner would attract double, if not more so.

Not every Trek fan goes to see a movie because of Spock. I’m a Nimoy fan, but I am much more of a Shatner fan. To me Trek was always about Kirk. So, I may see the new Trek with Nimoy at the theatre, but I’m more likely to see the film on repeat viewings because of Shatner.

36. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 15, 2008

Funny how the members who claim to be so sick of William Shatner cannot resist posting here to…..COMPLAIN about Shatner.

Wonderful.

Just swallow it: he’s a genuine entertainment legend, and along with Nimoy, the face of the entire franchise. You will never be able to forget him, silence him (or the fans who appreciate the man and his work) no matter how many negative posts one makes, so live with it, or bang your heads against the wall in eternal frustration.

Whatever gets you through the day.

37. Alex - January 15, 2008

#8

I think that’s the best idea I’ve heard this year! I’d buy two DVDs just to show my support. :-) (btw, I think Star Trek DVDs had some pretty good commentaries; BRaga/Moore on Generations and FC, Frakes on FC and the unreleased Insurrection commentary you can find floating around on the net are great. Plus Okuda’s track, is a must-see for me. Maybe they should hire him, too, to do the ultimate fanboy-point-of-view track. Now that’s he’s no longer an insider. Would be cool IMHO.)

38. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

Perhaps Mr. Shatner could record the soundtrack for the new film.
I understand he dabbles in the music industry.

39. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 15, 2008

#36 … I couldn’t have said it better myself. Shatner is Star Trek’s BIGGEST PHASER. Not having him in the new movie IS stupid.

40. CW - January 15, 2008

Ya know, kinda hard to say anything about Shat until after we see the finished product.

41. sean - January 15, 2008

#31

I’m not a Shatner basher. I like William Shatner. I am, however, tired of hearing him complain about not being in the movie. And yes, I know what complain means, and yes, he’s complaining. He continually expresses his disastisfaction with not being in the movie and that it’s a ‘stupid business decision’. That satisfies the criteria for a complaint. I would like to hear him say ‘no comment’ or at least come up with a new line.

#36

Who wants to ‘silence’ him? Is he testifying against a mob boss? I’m only commenting on the fact that he says the same thing over and over again. I like hearing Mr Shatner speak, but I’d love to hear him talk about something else. Yes, they keep asking the question, but I’m sure someone as creative as he is can come up with a more interesting way to answer it.

It truly bewilders me that the slightest remark about William Shatner not being God Himself qualifies someone as a ‘basher’ that lives their life to say nasty things about him. Anyone that’s been with this franchise from TOS on knows that Bill can be very charming, kind and intelligent, as well as loud-mouthed, obnoixous, and egotistical. We all have some of those tendencies, and there’s nothing wrong with someone calling us out when we’re being annoying. It doesn’t make Shatner a bad person, it just makes him like everyone else.

42. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

#36 – Saying it don’t make it so, no matter how many “attaboys!” the like-minded chime in with. :)

43. Reliant - January 15, 2008

Ok. Time to get in a time line comment in here. Yes, Kirk died in Star Trek: Generations. Which was some 80 years after he was assumed dead in the Enterprise B mission. The new movie itself is going to be when Kirk and Spock first met at the academy. This is long before the Enterprise B mission and quite some time before TOS missions. If you remember during Kirk’s Court Martial, it was mentioned that he served on board the USS Republic where he filed a negligence report on a fellow officer as a Lieutenant. In the episode Obsession it was mentioned that he was on board another starship where his captain was killed by the cloud. Kirk said, “one of the finest officers I ever served with”. That statement alone indicates that Kirk spent some time on that other ship with it’s captain before he was killed. So if they want Shatner back in the new movie by all means let him in!!

44. ensign joe - January 15, 2008

shat is the shizz yo.. better be in the flick oh.. maybe just a cameo..

45. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

Why isn’t Wil Wheaton in the new movie?
He has made the very same comments Mr. Shatner has.

(again I must say, Sorry Wil- you get enough ribbing. And yes, Shatner has been the very face of the franchise but what’s done is indeed done… until we see the movie and there he is! Singing in the Nexus. Or in his Lexus perhaps?)

46. COMPASSIONATE GOD - January 15, 2008

rE: 42. Dennis Bailey – January 15, 2008
“#36 – Saying it don’t make it so, no matter how many “attaboys!” the like-minded chime in with. ”

Yes…no matter how many “attaboys” are posted by the anti-Shatner crowd, their collective screams & groans do not turn into universal truth.

:)

47. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

To #41:

I absolutely agree with you.

I ain’t Shat basher. I love him as Captain James T. Kirk, but his persistent bickerings have outtired me.

48. Ivory - January 15, 2008

Dennis:

Like it or not William Shatner is the face of Star Trek. To minimize his contribution to Star Trek is foolish. It may also be a major reason why so few people have had any interest in the series since his character was killed off in such a meaningless manner back in 1994. It has been all down hill since then and you know it.

It would have been a lot of fun to see Shatner as Kirk one more time. What a waste of talent. What a waste of the perfect opportunity to give the character a dignified ending + have Kirk and Spock (Shatner + Nimoy) walk off into the sunset.

My own interest is this project is almost non existent now. I thought for sure they would include Shater as Kirk in some manner.

I can’t believe that William Shatner wants to be involved in this film and is being denied by tptb.

What a waste…

49. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 15, 2008

#42 “Saying it don’t make it so, no matter how many ‘attaboys!’ the like-minded chime in with.”

Really? Then let’s examine what Compassionate God wrote, point by point, shall we?:

“he’s a genuine entertainment legend”

Indisputable. Just try.

“along with Nimoy, the face of the entire franchise”

Also very true. When the general public thinks Trek, they think TOS. And when they think TOS, they think Bill and Leonard. Surely no realistic person can deny they are the 2 most well known faces of the franchise.

“You will never be able to forget him”

Considering that we’re here debating Shatner 40 years after TOS, and that Chris Pine, if lucky, might get to play Kirk for a grand total of 3 movies, this is also true. Like him or not, Shatner will never be forgotten by us Trekkies. Ever.

“(You will never be able to) silence him”

Unless you’re planning to physically kidnap the man and gag him, this is also true.

4 for 4. Everything Compassionate God said made perfect sense.

50. richpit - January 15, 2008

Nothing against The Shat…I love him as Kirk…but this new movie DOES NOT NEED HIM. How many times must we have this discussion? It’s a new movie that’s hoping to reinvigorate the franchise and gain a new fanbase. Having all the old-timers in it would not do that. Frankly, I think it’s a mistake to have NimoySpock in it as well. Again, nothing against Nimoy…he’s a great actor and (seemingly) a great guy…but I wish the movie wasn’t (or supposedly) a time-travel story.

51. Danpaine - January 15, 2008

The man is gracious and reflective in his comments; he’s a gentleman – and I must say that I’d be much more excited about this movie if he were in it, if only for a moment.

52. Dr. Image - January 15, 2008

Shat’s in the damn movie. It’s all a smokescreen.
That’s what I think. Period.

53. Reptileboy - January 15, 2008

For such a long time, Shatner has been a cheerleader for Star Trek. While I’ll always respect Nimoy and his work over the years as an actor and director, sometimes his relationship with the franchise can be frustrating. His involvement in the new movie over Shatner’s seems bizarre.

I don’t think Shatner is really bitching here, just stating his position and his belief. I think if he did ultimately end up in the movie, we’d all give a big sigh of relief and then look forward to it even more.

54. SPB - January 15, 2008

“…and in that moment I thought I might gain some clarity about the mystery—you know, the meaning of the universe suddenly illuminated, like in an orgasm—but it never came.” Ba-DUM-bum!!!

That Shatner… what a card!

55. Turgenev - January 15, 2008

Hey- Why not do what Keonig did? Make your own damn movie!

Come on, Bill! Why not film one of your novels for a ‘net movie?
CBS Studios could help out by loaning you their “giant green hand generating” technology…

56. TOS Purist - January 15, 2008

#27…The Shat DOES have a life. And a much better one than you can ever hope to have. Let’s see if you’re playing paintball and riding horses when you’re pushin’ 80.

57. j - January 15, 2008

Who wrote his responses for him?

58. jonboc - January 15, 2008

Yeah, Shat’s probably in the movie. Funny how even the sheer mention of the possibility threatens the anti-shat collective.

And to those so sure he will not be in the film…you may be right…but it ain’t over till the skinny Orci sings!

59. Spock89 - January 15, 2008

I am relatively neutral concerning the entire Shatner/STXI debate, but allow me to throw my two cents in: over the course of almost one year, the director of the film, one of the writers of the film, and the producer of the film have stated that they are still looking for a way to resurrect Shatner’s Kirk. At this point in the game, it would be in their best interest to somehow find a way to include him, and pronto, because, come 12/25/08 with no Shatner in the film, then you may have quite a number of angry Trekkies (myself not included), and I seriously doubt JJ Abrams and co wish to alienate the fanbase. In my opinion, Abrams should just not have made the announcement at Comic Con.

60. nscates - January 15, 2008

I can hear panties bunching…. always so entertaining when the thread devolves to the “We love/hate William Shatner” debate. Amazing how worked up people get. Hopefully people will start typing in all caps soon. heh

61. Dennis Bailey - January 15, 2008

#48: “Like it or not William Shatner is the face of Star Trek.”

One of them, anyway. “Mr. Spock” is probably the most universally recognized Trek character around the world.

“To minimize his contribution to Star Trek is foolish…”

One doesn’t have to do so in order to have become bored with the useless cheerleading for him to appear in this “Star Trek” film. “Old Home Week” may give some fans that warm Mom’s-macaroni-and-cheese feeling, but it doesn’t make a good or successful movie.

There aren’t many surer ways for the studio to burn investors’ money than producing comfort food for Trek fans.

62. The Realist - January 15, 2008

Sorry fell asleep is Bill bitching again?

63. Captain Presley - January 15, 2008

The thing I find interesting is I have had people who don’t follow Trek, and probably don’t know there have been Trek films with out Shatner, say to me: “Hey I hear they making a new Star Trek movie without William Shatner? What’s up with that?!”

That’s all they know about this new movie. So wether your sick of hearing about “is he or isn’t he”, perhaps it’s good PR, that people are talking about it.

For the record I think it is an intentional PR ploy, and he is in it.

64. The Realist - January 15, 2008

I have a war epic I would like to produce. It’s called…..SHAT WARS Tadah!

The early 21st century, war has spread to the four corners of the globe.

The SHATS hell bent on getting their leader into the centre seat, launch attack after attack, campaign after campaign to get him there.

The ANIT-SHATS determined to stop the SHATS from achieving their goal, and determined to usher in a new era.

The REST are kicking back enjoying the sun and wondering, “where the heck is the waiter with my cocktail!”

65. Ivory - January 15, 2008

Dennis:

What is the downside to hvaing Shatner in this film? The way I see it there is none. Espically when you consider Nimoy is all ready cast in the film.

To suggest Shatner would hurt the bottom line is off base.

66. ensign joe - January 15, 2008

The real reason is because Shatner’s not sexy enough for the new age paris hilton trek.. Whoa! Hey! Somebody get Megan Fox on the line we’re goin latinum!!

67. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 15, 2008

#65 “To suggest Shatner would hurt the bottom line is off base.”

Indeed. After all, I don’t think anyone is advocating that the new cast be ousted; merely that Shatner be given a role as Nimoy has.

68. D. McCoy - January 15, 2008

Does anyone else know of any other recent film with this much secrecy? Did the new Star Wars movies have this?

Oh…uhmm…yeah. Cloverfield.

Shatner’s comments plus ALL the secrecy (and a December 25th gift release) seem to imply he very well could be in it.

69. Randall - January 15, 2008

To all these Shatner-bashers… come on. A) Shatner has been in the business for over 50 years. Let’s give the guy some credit that, by now, he knows good business decisions from bad ones. He’s earned the respect, in that sense, at least. B) Given that, and just thinking it over logically, it clearly ISN’T all that smart a business decision to exclude Shatner from the production. As he says, he’s still alive and he’s available. He IS Kirk. Now, will the movie tank without him? No, probably not. If it tanks it’ll be for other reasons. But it’d be a stronger movie WITH him, and that’s certain. Because, as I said—the dude IS Kirk. But not only that, in a large sense, Shatner IS *Star Trek.* At least when we’re talking about TOS, which is the subject, after all, of this film. TOS was basically Kirk’s story—the archetypal hero… and Spock, McCoy, et al were supporting characters. Now, granted–Spock in particular has a more vital, important role… basically they’re equal. But Star Trek was never Spock’s story—it was always Kirk’s. To leave him out, regardless of the silly argument about the character’s death (in an earlier and mediocre film) doesn’t seem terribly smart. It’s like leaving out all the other trappings of Star Trek—the Enterprise, the fictitious history, etc., and still calling it Star Trek. It makes no sense.

A lot of younger fans have lost sight of this, that Star Trek was originally about Kirk, in essence. If you’re going back to the original story, to the inspiration—then to leave the guy who *played* Kirk out of it seems like leaving a vital ingredient out of a tasty recipe.

70. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

to No. 50

Then he should stop bitching about not being in the new movie.

He looks like to me if he wanted to get a life, then he must be in the new movie.

71. The Realist - January 15, 2008

69. Randall – January 15, 2008 – “A lot of younger fans have lost sight of this, that Star Trek was originally about Kirk, in essence” No alot of younger fans see “Kirk” as been dead and see Shatner as past it. Trek has never been about anyone charact “in essence”. Why should Trek writers be confined to what the die hard fans want?! Kirk is dead Shat helped kill Kirk. Kirk….Dead…No…….More …..Kirk (well shatner kirk anyway).

72. Juli - January 15, 2008

“you know, the meaning of the universe suddenly illuminated, like in an orgasm”

That’s such as Denny Crane line. (:

There’s now a family living inside my kidney stone. Only in America!

ROFL

73. Woulfe - January 15, 2008

[ direct TV ad re-re-re-visited ]

Kirk : Again with the Shatner !

– W –
* smirks *

74. CmdrR - January 15, 2008

Did Shatner just say he wants to have an orgasm with a horse, so his ankles can be found in the desert? I’m so confused…

I think Bill has a missing filter between his brain and his mouth. Most people would tone it down a touch. I don’t disagree with his viewpoint, but if he were more diplomatic in this case maybe he’d get his way and we’d get one more Shat T. Kirk.

Still not sure I want any lengthy Spock-Zpock scenes. I really just want to get back into new adventures with my old friends in Starfleet.

75. 1701 over Gotham City - January 15, 2008

Funny, I don’t hear him complaining in this article… He WAS ASKED THE QUESTION. He didn’t bring it up.
Geez… those who do not like the Shat, do not understand the Shat.

And why are people surprised he’s talking about it anyway???
Here’s something he’s forced to be recognized for, for over 40 years, whether he wants it or not. Then, he’s asked to NOT be a part of it? Wouldn’t YOU have something to say?? I know I would.

And I’m sorry… he’s dead is a weak excuse in a genre that can do anything from transport a person to cracking the galactic barrier to Vulcans storing their essence in another person. With Science Fiction, there is rarely an excuse beyond that of a poor writer.

It might be difficult, but isn’t thata challenge to a writer worth his salt?

If he’s in it, I’ll be delighted… overjoyed, even if the rest of the film is crap. If he’s not in it, so be it.

76. Classic trek - January 15, 2008

i have to agree with mr shatner- its a mistake to not have him in this movie. it doesnt make sense. come on JJ get it sorted before its too late. the movie can only be the richer with him in it. its going to be brilliant but lets go the extra half yard and get bill into it.

cheers
greg
UK

77. Steven JB - January 15, 2008

Kirk is dead. What is JJ supposed to do? What can he possibly do? The character is dead and buried. Is Kirk supposed to just wander into a scene and say “Well that was a good nap. Sure was hard climbing out of the grave though and somehow getting off a deserted planet in the middle of nowhere.”

78. Ivory - January 15, 2008

This film will not be half as fun without Shatner as it would be with him.

I don’t want to hear that Kirk is dead nonsense either. Every ST character has been dead at one point or another only to be brought back to life.

If they really want Shatner this would find a way.

79. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

Yes, I’d say this thread is going exactly as planned.

80. CW - January 15, 2008

Wow.

This is stupid.

81. The Vulcanista - January 15, 2008

[shakes head]

Here we go again.

Bless your Shatner-lovin’/Shatner-bashin’ hearts.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

82. dannyboy1 - January 15, 2008

As I’ve pointed out countless times – Kirk is still in the nexus. It would have been easy to have included him if they wanted to. But they chose not to. Fair enough, they can make the movie however they like. But to ask Bill for his involvement and then leave him hanging a year or more without even a courtesy phone call was cruel. I for one WON’T be seeing the movie for that reason.

83. Dr. Image - January 15, 2008

#82 HOW do you know exactly what they chose??
I guess we’ll see.

Hell, right now I’m more interested in what the ship will look like.

84. cd - January 15, 2008

#16 – Conan once asked Shatner how his writing collaboration with the Reeves-Stevens worked. Shatner basically said “I sit around their house while they type.”
>;>)

85. Ali - January 15, 2008

When he was living in the pick up truck, he survived baldness by wearing the two toupees he stole from Star Trek (see Bob Justman’s book)

86. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 15, 2008

Gah! Bill Shatner’s orgasms! Too many images!

*burns out eyballs*

87. sean - January 15, 2008

#79

Just wait till we hit 500 on this baby, and Anthony has to buy a new server.

88. Oregon Trek Geek - January 15, 2008

85. Ali – January 15, 2008
When he was living in the pick up truck, he survived baldness by wearing the two toupees he stole from Star Trek (see Bob Justman’s book)

Perhaps I am naive, but I always assumed the toupes didn’t start until after TOS. I thought his hair looked pretty real and natural in TOS…..

I have been bald since I was in my early 20’s, so it’s possible he was bald during TOS, I guess. I wish I had one of Shatner’s toupes, come to think of it… :)

89. The Realist - January 15, 2008

Every ST character has been dead at one point or another only to be brought back to life.
– 78 Ivory – Wrong, not every Trek Character has died.

90. nscates - January 15, 2008

@ 79 – yup

You know, I never realized how much I have in common with that little pin-wheel alien in ‘Day of the Dove’. Maybe I can stir things up a bit more:
SHATNER SUCKS!!!
NO HE DOESNT!!!
DOES TOO!!!
DOES NOT!!!

muwahaahaa muwahahaha!

91. JS1701 - January 15, 2008

First and First!!! What is First?!?!

92. dalek - January 15, 2008

well said Bill *clapping*

Abrams Orci and Co have created quite a mess

93. 1701 over Gotham City - January 15, 2008

#91…
ahem…
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!
:)

94. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 15, 2008

#85 “he survived baldness”

Yeah, I hear it is fatal in some cases…

95. PaoloM - January 15, 2008

Shatner will be in the new movie. Too much talk. Too much interviews. Too much complaining. As #3 said, it’s all a PR plot to keep the audience in suspence.

96. drlondon - January 15, 2008

Maybe they’ll throw him in a s a “Force Ghost” at the end.

97. jonboc - January 15, 2008

#77 “Kirk is dead. What is JJ supposed to do?”

My God, the lack of imagination around these here parts, from Trek fans of all people, is often staggering. It’s fiction….in fact, it’s science fiction…that’s all a good writer needs to know.

98. Mickey MET - January 15, 2008

You know what I’ve gleaned from this thread??

#1 – IF Shatner is in the new movie 1/2 of us are going to gloat HUGE!

#2 – IF Shatner isn’t in the new movie 1/2 of us are still going to complain that he wasn’t!

:)

99. Stef* - January 15, 2008

I just found this …

… *gasp* …. any chance this guy describes the real teaser?

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/forums/star-trek-teaser-description

100. Gene - January 15, 2008

I think that JJ Abrams will be faithful to the Star Trek universe. God Bless him and the writers, they are taking on a great task indeed.

However, if the powers that be read all these comments on the web, they will realize that most don’t really care about these new faces in trek, but the story and whether Shatner will be back.

I have always been more of a fan of Star Trek, than Star Wars. I think mostly because I grew up as a child on the reruns (only 35 yrs old) and I think Star Trek seems more plausible that Star Wars.

I do hope, even if it seems hard to imagine, that Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci, find a way to include Shatner. I will tell you why.

The fans are who brought a tv series that was only on for a short time (3 years I think) to be a successful movie franchise from 1979 to 1991. I find that incredible, to say the least.

I have went on these sites and read comments back and forth on William Shatner being in/out of this project. By my count, seems more want him in than out. Many who want him in are still angry about his death in “Star Trek Generations” because many feel that it was not a proper send off of Kirk. I agree. Gene Roddenberry had already died prior to “Generations” and I don’t think he would have been pleased with what they did to his Kirk character. I wish Kirk’s involvement with Trek would have stopped with “Undiscovered Country”, which was a proper send off. But that’s not what happened.

I just want everyone to remember why so many love Trek. It’s not just the stories and characters created by Roddenberry. Its the people behind the characters: Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Nichols, Doohan, Takei,and Koenig that people also fell in love with and made the parts they played. Some have passed. But honoring these people and including them in ongoing adventures has always worked for Trek.

So, Mr. Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci, you have taken a big job, which you probably knew would not be easy. But understand, this might be the last time we see (given their ages) Nimoy and possibly Shatner in these roles. You didn’t ask to have to deal with what happened in “Generations”, but if you can find a way….I will be a fan or yours for life.

101. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

#99-

How did that person “allegedly” see it? Anthony! Someone!!

Answers!!!

(crap detector is reading positive)

102. Katie G. - January 15, 2008

Help!! I’ve been trying to download the Trek movied “Of Gods and Men” but it only downloads a few seconds every 5 or 10 minutes. I have slow dial-up because I cannot afford any more right now so am I doomed to never get this? This is my second agonizing attempt and it has frozen at 3 minutes 26 seconds. There are 26 minutes and 12 seconds to this first part. Can I do anything (besides paying through the nose for high-speed internet? What kinds are out there? I know NEXT TO NOTHING about this kind of technology.

Can any kind Star Trek soul enlighten me?

kg

103. Stef* - January 15, 2008

#99

I just stumbled over it some minutes ago and hoped to get some sort of verification or “fake” to it’s origins here.

???

104. Myrth - January 15, 2008

#102 Unfortunatly, something the size of this video will take forever and a day on dial up. There is really no way around there is a hard limit on the capabilities of dial up. Now that being said, there are a few things you can do apart from getting high speed, which has come down in price. First off you can see if a friend has high speed. He / she can down load the file and give it to you to watch on your computer. You could also go to an internet gaming facility or internet cafe and see if they allow downloads like this. Some do, and some don’t, but it might be worth a try. Some times they are more agreeable to this if you bring your won computer, but that depends on how portable your computer is. Also, if you have a wireless card and your computer is portable, many coffee shops and fast food resturants have some form of high speed wireless that is open for public access.

105. Myrth - January 15, 2008

#102 Oh also, if you live in an apartment building, it is often the case that they have one or two computers for use by renters that have some form of high speed. Couldn’t hurt to check.

106. Classic trek - January 15, 2008

post #100 GENE

i agre with most of your comments. they can make it happen.

i think wouldnt have been happy about some other trek stuff too. i wonder what he would make of his original chararcters being reborn as it were!! i juts feel that as trek went on it just got further and further away from what i saw as his vision for star trek. thats why im open minded and pleased that trek has finally come home again.

greg
UK

107. scott - January 15, 2008

There is hope that he could still be thrown in at the last minute!

108. Classic trek - January 15, 2008

sorry about posting twice but i made a couple of errors on the above post – ooppps!
it should have read….

post #100 gene
i agree with most of your comments

gene rodenberry would not have been happy about what happened to trek in later years in my opinion. i wonder what he would make of his original chararcters being reborn as it were!! i just feel that as trek went on it just got further and further away from what i saw as his vision for star trek. thats why im open minded and pleased that trek has finally come home again.
greg
UK

109. Classic trek - January 15, 2008

107 scott

i dearly hope your right. what a fantastic surprise that would be!!

thanks- you have given me hope!!!
cheers
greg
UK

110. Christopher - January 15, 2008

I’m okay with the fact that he is not in the movie (and I’m a big TOS fan). Because I believe in Leonard Nimoy’s philosophy: if a character does not have a purpose, then he/she should not be included in the story. So if they couldn’t find any purpose for bringing back the old Captain Kirk, then I believe it is for the best. Who knows, mabe they could include him in Star Trek 12.

111. Vulcan Soul - January 15, 2008

Shatner is a real rare animal – like the only 76 yo whining and clamoring attention whore on the planet… ;)

112. Captain Hackett - January 15, 2008

99

I am not sure about it but it sounds like real to me.

Anthony, please check it with your reliable sources.

113. Stanky McFibberich - January 15, 2008

Just to repeat what some others have said above, I don’t see his comments as complaining. He was asked a question and stated his opinion. Should he change his opinion just because he was asked again? I don’t see why he should. He is allowed to be disappointed and allowed to say so when asked about it. I also don’t see any lack of support for Nimoy coming out of his comments. Some people just seem to want to read that in there.
As for the dying in “Generations” thing keeping him out, that would just be a case of lack of imagination on the part of the producers.
It’s no secret what I think about the entire idea of doing this movie. Would I be more interested in it if Shatner were in it? Probably, but that still doesn’t make me a fan of the idea of having newcomers play the roles.
This is not a court of law and therefore I take the position of “guilty until proven innocent” on the part of the producers and their take on this movie.
People are always talking about ‘having an open mind’ when it comes to this. I’m sure when I see it, I will do just that, but that doesn’t make me want to get all gaga with positive expectations like some folks seem to do. If for some unforseen reason, I end up liking it, I will say so. I just don’t expect that to happen.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with for production design and style of filming. I can understand fully that they can’t go with the “plywood and paint” of the pilots and series, but those basic sets (the bridge, etc.) could be great just by using better materials, detail and technology without losing the basic design elements from the series. The same can be said for the Enterprise model. It should look the same, only with more detail…still sleek and smooth without a bunch of obvious military stuff on it. The mission of the Enterprise is exploration first and foremost, and the weaponry should be in the background. It’s not a battleship.
Even if they can do that, the main problem for me is still the actors. No matter how good they may end up to be, to me they will still not be Kirk, Spock, etc.
To me, a much more interesting premise would be to go with a different starship and crew. They are obviously banking on the familiar name and character recognition in hopes that will pull people in. I understand that the studio’s idea is to make money, period, but I hope if they screw up (make it some unrecognizable thing), people will not just overlook it because it has the name ‘Star Trek’ attached to it just so they can rake in the bucks and make more bad Star Trek in the future.
Am I eager for it to succeed? Hard to say yes on that. Do I want it to fail? That depends.

114. FYI: "First" is LAME. - January 15, 2008

That Shatner….what a creative dynamo.

The guy never stops.

It’s inspiring.

115. Greg2600 - January 15, 2008

107 scott, the writer’s strike is not ending anytime soon, even though the WGA members are losing money hand over foot. JJ nor Roberto nor Alex are allowed to write anything. Unless there is something already written, but Shatner is pretty adamant he was never offered anything.

110 Christopher, the point was to have him alongside Nimoy.

116. VOODOO - January 15, 2008

The world needs Shatner to return as Kirk.

117. I AM THX-1138 - January 15, 2008

#116
Precisely. Screw world peace.

118. The Chief - January 15, 2008

Good God, Almighty — this man has no shame. How conceited. Give it up, Shatner – just because you’re not in the movie – why can’t you just say, Buona Fortuna, God Bless, Wish you luck and see you later?

What a sad man he has become.

119. Vulcan Soul - January 15, 2008

^^”Man”? I think teen girl would be more fitting ;)

120. DJT - January 15, 2008

Movie talk aside, to me Bill Shatner will always be Captain James T. Kirk.

Rock on, Sir. Rock on.

121. A. - January 15, 2008

“41. sean – January 15, 2008
#31

I’m not a Shatner basher. I like William Shatner. I am, however, tired of hearing him complain about not being in the movie. ”

See, the problem is HE DIDN’T COMPLAIN!!! He expressed surprise which is not the same thing as complaining.
Bashers such as your self like to claim he did to “demonize” him. So yes, you are a basher.

QUESTION! Why is it the bashers are always trying to get the last word on Shatner, and lie about what he said?

122. A. - January 15, 2008

“34. Captain Hackett – January 15, 2008
The Shat made a stupid decision to have his famous character got killed off in the Generations movie; otherwise, he could be in the new Star Trek movie. ”

That’s like blaming Nimoy after ST II.
Him dying in ST 7 is irrelevant as everyone knows. Given this will likely involve time travel in some way , they can go back at any point INCLUDING before he was killed, and save him.

123. A. - January 15, 2008

“111. Vulcan Soul – January 15, 2008
Shatner is a real rare animal – like the only 76 yo whining and clamoring attention whore on the planet”

It’s interesting that bashers claim he is whining yet can provide no evidence of this.

124. steve623 - January 15, 2008

” in that moment I thought I might gain some clarity about the mystery—you know, the meaning of the universe suddenly illuminated, like in an orgasm—but it never came.”

The Zen of Shatner.

“… like in an orgasm – but it never came” is also a terrific line. And people say the man isn’t a writer.

125. A. - January 15, 2008

118. The Chief – January 15, 2008
“What a sad man he has become. ”

You mean a two time Emmy winner, a Golden Globe winner, and dozens of nominations?

I hope I’m “sad” one day.

126. Michael - January 15, 2008

#12 Neil C. –
“Unless even he doesn’t know he’s in it yet – but surely not?”

Possible.
Denny Crane – Mad Cow!

I definitely don’t see where he is complaining.
Only that he is stating a fact. It IS a stupid business decision.
If true.
I still think he is in it, and he is part of the smoke & mirrors.

127. dalek - January 15, 2008

#100 well said.

If these guys get Shatner and Kirk lives; I will not only be fans of theirs for life! In fact I’ll hero worship them!

Dalek’s pledge: If this happens I’ll attend the premiere night in London and kiss Mr Orci’s shoes!

At the moment, it’s a pretty safe bet that Mr Orci’s shoes and my lips will never make contact :(

128. Son of V'ger - January 15, 2008

There is NO other James T. Kirk other than William Shatner!

Bill, keep on speaking your mind———-I hear ya!

129. manrum - January 15, 2008

“—you know, the meaning of the universe suddenly illuminated, like in an orgasm”

Wow — so I have not experienced this kind!!!

–Manrum

130. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2008

I guess the Borg queen would have, what, a BORG-asm? :)

131. Katie G. - January 15, 2008

#104+5 Myrth

Sorry – took a long break from the computer because I was so frustrated.

Thanks for the suggestions!!!! Never thought of that. I am so out of the loop regarding technology. I really appreciate your help!!

Back to the topic at hand – I don’t care whether Bill Shatner is asked the same questions over and over. He could just say “I’ve said enough” or “I’ve made my point” but Noooooooooooooo. He keeps gleefully (so it seems) answering. Nimoy at least has the sense to go “guys, we’ve been over this before, enough”. Sorry, but I still think that Bill is not going to let go of this thing in the near future. And the morons keep asking him the same questions. Duh!! Anyway, I WOULD LOVE IT IF HE PROVED ME WRONG. It almost makes me want to refrain from seeing the movie out of frustration but I won’t bite my nose off to spite my face (for Bill Shatner or anyone else).

In this country we do have the right to free speech. I just wish he would talk about something else. There is so much more to talk about!!

Nuff said. I won’t repeat this lest I become a frustration to someone else.

kg

132. A. - January 15, 2008

131. Katie G. – January 15, 2008
“Back to the topic at hand – I don’t care whether Bill Shatner is asked the same questions over and over. He could just say “I’ve said enough” or “I’ve made my point”

No he can’t. He is asked by reporters the same thing. To say what you suggested would be rude-very rude and then the bashers would say “SEE HOW RUDE HE IS!!!?”

“Nimoy at least has the sense to go “guys, we’ve been over this before, enough”.”

No he hasn’t. Nimoy has never declined answering a question about the film-ever.

“In this country we do have the right to free speech. I just wish he would talk about something else.”

It seems then you are solely focusing on that question as he does talk about other things. In fact, most of the interviews ARE about other things. From Denny Crane, to the Emmy’s to his costars to Death, to his family to his days after trek when he was (apparently) poor to his parents to Montreal, etc.

133. Riverside - January 15, 2008

78. Ivory – January 15, 2008
“This film will not be half as fun without Shatner as it would be with him.”
…. maybe for you… maybe an open mind would help the cause?

“I don’t want to hear that Kirk is dead nonsense either. Every ST character has been dead at one point or another only to be brought back to life.”
….. True… and entirely overdone

If they really want Shatner this would find a way.
…It’s a conspiracy…(they don’t.. he wanted the whole movie to be about him and wanted too many $$$)

134. Riverside - January 15, 2008

This again?

Yawn

He isn’t in it and won’t be regardless how much the 5 or 6 of you gush.
He’s a TV actor, ego-driven and despite awards… not that good. He plays himself as Denny Crane.
He’s greedy. Yes he gives to charity… because he can. He hit his big paydays and I am sure demanded another for XI. That’s one reason he’s not in this. A nice payday for killing Kirk.
Trek isn’t the adventures of Captain Kirk..it’s the voyages of the starship Enterprise and her crew.
Lastly… you 6… Compassionate God (LOL), Ivory, Shatner lover, etc, did you ever think that some people bash purely because you drive them nuts with the constant rain of “shatner-gasms ” you create in so many other unrelated threads? No one hates him or wants to “silence” him (so dramatic), they just get tired of hearing about his very burp.

There..you have a whole new post to complain and tear apart.

135. Katie G. - January 15, 2008

#132 “A”

Well !

I did say I wouldn’t repeat this (meaning repeat MY complaining about HIS complaining) but I would like to CLARIFY the complaint for “A”.

Looks like the bashers are already bashing. They’re saying — “look how whiney he is” etc. I’mjust trying to say that he is only hurting himself by not letting this go. I adore the man. I’ve watched TOS over and over, starting in 1966. He and the others have brought so much enjoyment into my life… I just don’t want him to give the “bashers” more ammunition.

Um, regarding your comment that he cannot decline to discuss the matter — yes he CAN choose to NOT repeat himself. This is (as I said earlier) a free country and no one, even reporters, can FORCE you to answer (stupid) questions.

Bill doesn’t have to be rude. And it wouldn’t be rude to gently defer the question. What I was trying to say (yes, okay, maybe very poorly) is — He can very politely say “I’ve complained enough about not being in the film. Ask me something else” and go on to discuss other aspects of the new movie like the wonderful new talent being cast or how he can’t wait to see it or how he’s so happy that Leonard Nimoy got to be in it for continuities’ sake…

Regarding Nimoy — I wasn’t talking about his answering questions ABOUT THE MOVIE. I was talking about referrals to his “dear friend” not being in the movie (and constantly talking about the fact that he’s not in the movie)! In the interviews I’ve seen, THOSE are the questions that he usually elects to let pass. Thought that waspretty clearly expressed. Sorry that you misunderstood.

And okay, maybe I haven’t heard ALL of the Nimoy interviews but in the ones I have heard he has skirted the issue so I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that it was his “stand” on questions about Shatner not being in the movie.

And yes, you are correct — Shatner does talk about other things. I did not mean to imply that he didn’t. Again, my point is I WISH HE WOULDN’T GO ON AND ON ABOUT NOT BEING IN THE MOVIE. Like I said, when asked the plagued question “how do you feel about not being in the new Star Trek movie” he could, YES HE COULD, very politely change the subject or make a casual comment or joke like “oh well” or “like we say on Earth, ‘c’est la vie’ ” (something like he said to the Klingons in ST:III). I think that would earn him MUCH MORE RESPECT from the “Shat” bashers. Who is going to bash him for NOT repeatedly answering a question he’s been asked (and has answered) a hundred times.

Hope that clarifies things a little.

kg

136. trektacular - January 15, 2008

I wish Shatner would slim down a bit and quit lampooning himself. It’s hard to believe the guy was such an action icon in the past compared to how he is now.

137. A. - January 15, 2008

“Looks like the bashers are already bashing. They’re saying — “look how whiney he is” etc. I’mjust trying to say that he is only hurting himself by not letting this go. ”

Not let go!!?? HE HAS LET GO!! He’s ASKED the question. What is he suppose to say “I refuse to answer that question more than 10 times?” Imagine the outcry then?

” yes he CAN choose to NOT repeat himself. This is (as I said earlier) a free country and no one, even reporters, can FORCE you to answer (stupid) questions.”

Uhm, no he can’t-unless he wants to be perceived as remarkably rude and upset. Imagine if he said “I don’t want to answer that”? THEN FOR SURE PEOPLE WOULD say he was upset. He’s not, and has behaved and stated as much.

“He can very politely say “I’ve complained enough about not being in the film. Ask me something else” ”

The problem with that is he hasn’t complained. Not once. ANd to be honest your statement appears to be a cloaked bash. The bashers have yet to provide where he complained. He hasn’t. He expressed a very obvious opinion of why they wouldn’t put in an actor that would GURANTEE extras of millions, and that’s it. But he has not complained.

Regarding Nimoy — I wasn’t talking about his answering questions ABOUT THE MOVIE. I was talking about referrals to his “dear friend” not being in the movie (and constantly talking about the fact that he’s not in the movie)! In the interviews I’ve seen, THOSE are the questions that he usually elects to let pass. Thought that waspretty clearly expressed. Sorry that you misunderstood.”

I did understand completely. Sorry you misunderstood my answer. Nimoy has not refused to answer ANY question about the movie, including those questions involving Shatner. I thought I was pretty clear given I wrote “No he hasn’t. Nimoy has never declined answering a question about the film-ever” That includes why Shatner isn’t in the film which is related to the film. Sorry you misunderstood.

“And okay, maybe I haven’t heard ALL of the Nimoy interviews but in the ones I have heard he has skirted the issue so I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that it was his “stand” on questions about Shatner not being in the movie.”

Yes you did misunderstand that. No worries. But Given him and Shatner are two of the biggest names in Trek, and given ONE of those names is no longer attached, it makes PERFECT sense it would be the most asked question-and he understands that. I’ve seen him answer this multiple times.

“my point is I WISH HE WOULDN’T GO ON AND ON ABOUT NOT BEING IN THE MOVIE.”

Again, he doesn’t. He’s asked and answers the question in less than a minute. If he said “Oh well” epople would THINK he’s SKIRTING the issue out of being angry.

Hope that helps you understand that he has not complained at all, and has been politely answering questions when asked.

Remember WE as fans tend read many interviews (if not all), whereas reporters are just doing their job by asking obvious questions, and they are doing their job by answering them. And MANY interviews are done with the obvious questions asked over and over again. I guess one solution to that is actors to keep a list of all asked questions no matter how obvious and given them to the next reporter with instructions not to ask, as they have been asked already.
OR
Maybe the key for you, is to reduce reading ALL interviews with Nimoy or Shatner, to just one or two (at most) or reading this website (which is meant tp provide updates. Or do you think trekmovie.com should stop posting related updates)? Then it wouldn’t get on your nerves as it clearly has.

138. A. - January 15, 2008

“136. trektacular – January 15, 2008
I wish Shatner would slim down a bit and quit lampooning himself. It’s hard to believe the guy was such an action icon in the past compared to how he is now. ”

You mean more popular now than whe nhe did TOS? How did he lampoon himself? I’m still waiting for this to be shown.

139. Katie G. - January 15, 2008

#137 “A”

Whew.

I give up. I don’t want to incur the wrath of the rest of the readers of this column by keeping this discussion going. Obviously, in this case, resistance is futile. Believe what you’d like.

The “key” for me is to quit reading these comments.

#138

Love really IS blind…

kg

140. A. - January 16, 2008

Believe what I like? What an odd, out of context remark. Strange.
So you believe it’s unusual for different journalist to ask the same question of the same person, regarding a popular issue? It seems so predictable to me.

I think if you just think about it, it makes perfect sense. Its a normal question to ask, why is not one of the founding actors, who name is iconic both as the character and actor, are not in a new re imagination, when one of the other actors, is?
I don’t blame people for asking. It’s normal. But to expect him to stop answering is strange to me. IT assume all journalists have all the same readers. It’s preposterous.
I get asked when is my birthday every week. Should I stop answering stating “I answered that many times in previous years”? No as some people don’t know, just like some readers still don’t know about Shatner.

Chastising Shatner is akin to Chastising Princess William if he answers the question “what it is like growing up royalty?” Don’t you think he’s been asked that virtually everyday of his life? Yet he’s answers it multiple times. Is that bad of him?

141. A. - January 16, 2008

#138

Love really IS blind…

Yes, and you love to Bash Shatner regardless of what is reasonable.

It is silly to think he should stop answering that question? Try and imagine what you would be saying if he did refuse? I hate to think.

142. trektacular - January 16, 2008

Why does Shatner have so many cultists is a bigger question that needs to be asked.

143. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

Sorry, guys. It’s like a train wreck. I can’t look away… My eyes keep coming back.

Re: #141 A.

Try and imagine what I’d say? I’d say “WAY TO GO BILL!!!!!!!!!!!”

:D

kg

144. A. - January 16, 2008

143. Katie G
“Try and imagine what I’d say? I’d say “WAY TO GO BILL!!!!!!!!!!!””

Given all your complaints about Shatner, that is highly doubtful.

Again, refusing to answer a question, even obvious one, is media suicide as it would be remarkably rude. And simply wouldn’t make sense. He was asked and politely answered.
Every time I’m asked, I answer when my birthday is.
So next week when you see another Shatner interview, are you going to read it hoping that questions asked or answered, and if so complain that it was?
I ntoiced you’re not complaining about the journalists asking the same question, ever and over. Why is that? (please answer that).

145. Iowagirl - January 16, 2008

- But no matter how great we think we are, we’re nothing but the temples of Ozymandias—we’re ruins in the making. –

This man certainly has a life, and a very wise view of it, as well. People and art might benefit from a similar approach.

146. A. - January 16, 2008

“142. trektacular – January 16, 2008
Why does Shatner have so many cultists is a bigger question that needs to be asked. ”

lol. Another weak attempt at an insult. I’m just referring to the facts. He never complained. When asked for proof, no one can provide proof of him complained. They dislike him so they try and tell epople he complained. Yet when you go to where they refer, he wasn’t.
Then such bashers attack the person who proved them wrong.

147. A. - January 16, 2008

why do posts here disappear, then reappear? IT must cause double posts.

148. trektacular - January 16, 2008

A. You made your point, still curious about why you worship Bill.

149. Bono Luthor - January 16, 2008

I got Boston Legal series 2 and Star Trek Remastered for Christmas and am currently enjoying a few hours of Shatner every day.

This guy is a legend. As Kirk he makes original Trek work, holds it together, drives it and makes it believable.

In Boston Legal he is a comedy genius, but also displays the warmth and humanity of someone who has seen life in many shades.

Call me a cultist or whatever you like. I am a fan of this guy, he has always been there, entertaining me in some way or another my entire life. I like that.

I also happen to think that Bill’s record for consistant entertainment has been a lot better than Trek for roughly the last decade.

Maybe some Trek fans will just never forgive him for telling them to get a life. ; )

150. Mikey Doofer - January 16, 2008

Shouldn’t of let his character die in Generations, you made your bed, now lie in it Shatner!

151. ctiii - January 16, 2008

The hardcore fans are the ones who buy the merchandise, multiple copies of the various DVDs, who go to the conventions to play top dollar for the memorabilia, etc. So for those that say “F you” to the hardcore fans who want Shatner in the movie, realize that his absence from the film will definately cost the fanchise money. This film will probably still make back its budget, but I agree that it will definately cut a chunk of the profits by alienating some of the long time fans.

A someone said, there are many ways to have Shatner in the movie, either as Jim Kirk or even as one of his ancestors. Shatner wouldnt even have to have a live interaction scene in the movie…Spock could have a recording of him on a viewscreen (kind of like in the TOS episode when they thought he died and Spock/McCoy had to play that “final orders” recording”) or even a mini-Holo projector of him making some sort of speech (like Data had of Tash in TNG). If people like me who arent gettig paid hundreds of thousonds of dollars can think up something creative yet non-invasive to the already established plot of this film, why cant the actual writers (aside from the writers strike)?

P.S. Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane Denny Crane :-D

152. Cervantes - January 16, 2008

Yay!…ANOTHER Bill Shatner thread… :)

Just for the record, I agree with Stanky’s #113 post in all its’s points, as regards this upcoming Movie.

There is MANY a fine storyline that could have been concieved by this Movie’s writers and makers that incorporated a ‘revived’ Captain Kirk for the ever wonderful and willing William Shatner to play again in this sci-fi FANTASY, should they have wished to do so. Leonard will seem to be obviously missing something in this if they haven’t I feel…

153. Iowagirl - January 16, 2008

#113
– As for the dying in “Generations” thing keeping him out, that would just be a case of lack of imagination on the part of the producers. –

True.

#149
– ..am currently enjoying a few hours of Shatner every day. –

Carpe diem! ;-)

154. Shatner_Fan_2000 - January 16, 2008

#134

“He isn’t in it and won’t be regardless how much the 5 or 6 of you gush.”

Get real. Shatner has A LOT more than 6 fans. To believe otherwise one would have to be a complete moron. Are you? And Anthony wouldn’t have set up his blog to allow comments if he didn’t want them. We can “gush” all we want, Mr. Starfleet Corridor Monitor.

“He’s a TV actor, ego-driven and despite awards… not that good. He plays himself as Denny Crane.”

Well if that’s the case, Shatner is one of the most engaging men alive, because Denny Crane is one of the most entertaining tv characters in years. As for him being “not that good”, you’re delusional if you don’t think Shatner was a HUGE part of Trek’s success. He was the star of the show, for God’s sake. Fortunately, millions of viewers as well as those who hand out Emmys do not share your myopic view.

“He’s greedy. Yes he gives to charity… because he can.”

Have you had many personal dealings with the man? I didn’t think so.

“Trek isn’t the adventures of Captain Kirk..it’s the voyages of the starship Enterprise and her crew.”

And who was the main crewmember? You know, the top-billed one who usually had the weekly love interests and faced the most personal conflicts and always saved the day in the end? Right.

“Compassionate God (LOL), Ivory, Shatner lover, etc, did you ever think that some people bash purely because you drive them nuts with the constant rain of ‘shatner-gasms’ you create in so many other unrelated threads?”

To that I’d have no choice but to say, get a life. What aspect of Trek fandom we love best should be of no concern to you. Stick to your Voyager threads or whatever makes you happy. You won’t see us there needlessly getting all riled up over you liking what you do. And this IS a related thread!

“No one hates him or wants to ‘silence’ him (so dramatic), they just get tired of hearing about his very burp.”

Maybe you should start your own site then, instead of visiting one where the owner regularly posts Shatner updates? Such reports and their follow-up comments seem harmful to you.

“There..you have a whole new post to complain and tear apart.”

Done. Simple. Your post was nothing but the purest tripe, void of even one good point. “Shadows without substance”, as Spock would say.

Next.

155. Jupiter1701 - January 16, 2008

The only way I see the return of Shat working:

Old Spock goes to the past and fixes whatever needs to be fixed. When he comes back to his time, to his surprise there is Old Kirk. How did he get there, and how was history changed? We really don’t know, and the screen goes to the credits after seeing Old Kirk and Old Spock back together again.

The only problem is that Shat’s ego is too big to have a five second cameo. So that’s why it won’t happen.

156. Steve Hill - January 16, 2008

#151- Spock has a holo gram of Kirk at the start of the movie he plays it. Then Spock time travels to Younger Spock changes time and at the end of the movie Older Spock returns, surprise Kirk is alive in Older Spock’s time. This would give Shatner more time in the movie and a bigger part. About the same amount of time he was in “Generations”.

157. Toots Mcghee - January 16, 2008

I don’t care one way or the other, but most people I speak to who are not die hard fans want Shatner back.

As a matter of fact the only thing they know about this film is that bad publicity it is getting because Shatner is not yet involved.

I can’t believe that they would not include him.

158. Victor Hugo - January 16, 2008

…On Being Poor, Almost Dying..

heheh hey, you scared me out with these headlines, J.Jameson!

159. Gene - January 16, 2008

I have a theory that I would like to share:

1) That the writers and Abrams know that having Shatner in this movie make box office sense (regardless of how much sense some of you say Shatner’s inclusion in the movie makes given his death in Generations). Check my comments in #100.
2) Paramount has put a lot of money in this movie ($130 million I think), plus possible sequels. They have a lot of money riding on this movie’s success. No one, save Eric Bana (Hulk, Troy) has carried a movie on his/her own anywhere near the budget.
3) Star Trek was resurrected in 1979 in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, mostly by fan loyalty and fan demand.
4) Star Trek fans have been loyal and maintained the majority of the box office for all the sequels.
5) Abrams and the writers are proponents of and have honored the writer’s strike.

Conclusion: It is my belief, and I think well-founded, that Abrams and company know that Shatner makes commercial sense. I think they can’t say yes, until the writer’s strike is over. I think, once it is. They will say, once the strike was over, we wrote a part for Shatner.

160. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#144 “A”.

I believe I did (complain about the journalists) in my original posting #131.

” And the morons keep asking him the same questions. Duh!!”

If it will make you feel better, I will complain about the “journalists” who lack imagination or just say things to get him going so they have juicy articles to report and print. But this is getting tiring…

Look. The man has deep roots in Hollywood and is too powerful to be felled by refusing to answer stupid questions by the media or requesting that the media not beat that particular horse to death (like in this column). When his wife drowned he declined to talk about it for a while because it was too raw. Why not decline to answer stupid questions because he knows how irritating it is for the fans to read certain things over and over.

He is a brilliant as well as talented man. His track record proves it: Star Trek, T. J. Hooker, Tek Wars, Boston Legal not to mention the novels (or his music – well, let’s not go there) so surely he could come up with a witty way to say “lets talk about something else”. He could say “one little mistake…” (ST:IV) Everyone would laugh and move on. If not, it’s about time that someone told some of the “media” just how pitiful they are. He has the clout to do it.

Savvy?

Oh, and I promise I won’t ask you when your birthday is.

Just thought of something. If his career could survive his “singing”, it certainly could survive the “rudeness” of nicely asking the journalists to give it a rest and move on to other questions. It’s not like they’re repeatedly asking the guy when his birthday is. They’re asking about things that have already been WIDELY published/aired so the entire population of planet Earth has already heard his views on not being in the new movie.

kg

161. A. - January 16, 2008

“148. trektacular – January 16, 2008
A. You made your point, still curious about why you worship Bill. ”

Another insult. Why do you people resort to insutls and lies? OH, I know-you have no proof of your initial claim. Where do I remotely worship “Bill” (as you seem to know him)? You should find evidence of that it right beside evidence of him complaining-which is no where to be found.

I’m just arguing as a matter of FACT. Bashers like yourself say he complained, and then throw in another lie or two, because you hate him. You’ll deny that, but you evidence of lying about him complaining, says it all.
THen when someone points out the fact he didn’t complain, you accuse them of “Bill Worshipping”.

If you hate Bill so much (as evidenced of you lying) why do you read articles about him?

162. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#148 trektacular

Omigosh — it’s his daughter!! :-D

Some people forget that we are all entitled to our opinion. You won’t see me bashing those who adore him and worship the ground he walks on. Don’t care whether they do or not. I like the guy. I’m just not gaga over him. Hope the “admins” close this thread down…

kg

163. A. - January 16, 2008

I noticed all the bashers ignore questions asked of them. I chalk that up (for now) to not seeing them among the many other posts.
So here it is again;
Since you HATE shatner so much, why do yo read his interviews? You know it will only upset you.

164. A. - January 16, 2008

“162. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
#148 trektacular

“Omigosh — it’s his daughter!! “

Where? Oh, I see. Another manipulative tactic.

“Some people forget that we are all entitled to our opinion.”
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And it is fact Shatner did not complain. You made that up

“You won’t see me bashing those who adore him and worship the ground he walks on. Don’t care whether they do or not. I like the guy. I’m just not gaga over him. Hope the “admins” close this thread down…””

Actually you did bash me, above by referring to me as his daughter. Then you try and say anyone arguing a matter of fact adores Shatner. Another manipulative tactic. Yet all they are doing is pointing out FACTS!!
I guess if I argue with holocaust deniers, I love Jews?

The Thread would die if those who are lying just admit the facts-that he did not complain.

165. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 16, 2008

Whoa, whoa. A. Calm down. I don’t hate Shatner. I read his interviews mainly out of habit. And I’m perfectly fine with him not being in the movie. They got Nimoy in a major role; that signals to me that the Abrams Five have paid their dues to Trek’s history. All the best to Bill. I also wish, as Katie G. suggested, that the Shat would start gently deferring these sorts of questions. It seems to me that he’s said his piece, and it is approaching rudeness. Just… let it go, man.

Trektacular is, of course, provoking you because it is amusing. This is an ancient and honored internet tradition, and I can’t say I disagree with his decision. You are, in fact, provoked, and I chortle fondly at the passion of your replies. First rule of the Internet: don’t get passionate.

P.S. I’d like to call it right now: in less than three months, the Shatner-in-XI debate will fall victim to Godwin’s Law.

166. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 16, 2008

OMG… 164 wasn’t up yet when I posted. Turns out I didn’t need three months… more like three seconds.

Who called the Godwin’s Law? The Heaney! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! *does a funky dance*

Wow… I just made my day. Thank you, A.

167. A. - January 16, 2008

“165. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 16, 2008
Whoa, whoa. A. Calm down. I don’t hate Shatner. I read his interviews mainly out of habit. And I’m perfectly fine with him not being in the movie. They got Nimoy in a major role; that signals to me that the Abrams Five have paid their dues to Trek’s history. All the best to Bill. I also wish, as Katie G. suggested, that the Shat would start gently deferring these sorts of questions. It seems to me that he’s said his piece, and it is approaching rudeness. Just… let it go, man.”

Once again, put downs. It’s easy not to get upset if you stick with the facts. And the fact is your precious Shatner did not complain. Simple as that. I know it upsets you that he didn’t. But he didn’t. Get over it and move on.

168. A. - January 16, 2008

“166. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 16, 2008
OMG… 164 wasn’t up yet when I posted. Turns out I didn’t need three months… more like three seconds.

Who called the Godwin’s Law? The Heaney! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! *does a funky dance*

Wow… I just made my day. Thank you, A. ”

Don’t thank me, Thank your hero, Shatner. He didn’t complain. The sooner you get over that and move on, the better for you. Of course you probably like this banter, better.

So I ask (for the fourth time?) Can someone post this alleged complaint?

169. A. - January 16, 2008

“Who called the Godwin’s Law”

Notice the question is evaded, which PROVES how wrong you and him are.

THe sooner you stop reading your heros interviews, the better. It won’t upset you and the others as much.

170. Shaun - January 16, 2008

Umm… To #15, 150, and anyone else who wants to keep bringing up how Kirk died. One word: SPOCK. See, he died once too. Seems to me bringing Kirk back wouldn’t be too hard. Hell, Shatner & the Reeves-Stevenses even did it in his Trek novels! So that argument’s moot.

I’m not optimisitc about this movie at all, and really just about the only thing that could improve it would be Shatner’s being in it. Maybe Kirk can be somehow revived, go back in time to meet his younger self, and he smack Pine/Kirk around. Tell him he needs to toughen up a bit.

Sorry, I’m not normally one for getting off on violence. I just think Pine looks like a total mama’s boy, and I’m not buying him as James T. Kirk. It also sounds like this movie is doing some revisionist history, and I simply don’t like it. I’d give Nimoy the benefit of the doubt, but not one casting move (except Quinto, perhaps) has looked good to me.

My wife is willing to give the movie a chance, so she’ll go see it first. If she says it’s one of the best Trek movie or shows ever, right up there with ST II, ST IV, and the best episodes of DS9, I’ll see it. If she’s not that enthused, or says it was merely “OK,” I’ll pass.

171. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

FWIW, Shatner was fantastic in “Boston Legal” last night. Really good episode.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

172. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

Re: 166. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 16, 2008

Thanks, for your support James. I’ve got a question regarding your comment:

“Who called the Godwin’s Law? The Heaney! ”

I don’t know what that is.

kg

173. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#164 “A”.

Okay, you got me there. The “daughter” joke was not necessary. My sense of humour is twisted at times. I was being a smart-ass again. I apologize.

But

I haven’t called anyone a liar as you have. And this time I have written proof to back my statement up:

“…if those who are lying just admit the facts…”
“…You made that up.”
“…If you hate Bill so much (as evidenced of you lying) …”
“…evidence of lying about him complaining…”

Second, this comment:

“I guess if I argue with holocaust deniers, I love Jews?”

is inflammatory and totally inappropriate and I won’t validate it with a response. How can you compare that horrific incident with the “suffering” of an actor who has a few critics? Stick to “Star Trek”. Besides, I guarantee you that Shatner couldn’t care less about those who do not like him. He’s laughing all the way to the bank! Why do you insist on getting so angry?

Again, just because someone has a different opinion than you do, you do not attack them. Even if you believe they are wrong or misguided. You calmly state your opinion and try to show them what you think.

If I had the computer “know-how” to go back and copy all the articles I’ve read that quote Bill’s lament so I could show you, I would. But I don’t know how. However, here is the posting from yesterday which is still up.

“Details: So did you want to take another crack at Star Trek in the new JJ Abrams film version?

Shatner: He talked to me a few times this past year, but they shot in November and Leonard [Nimoy] is in it and I’m not. I’m disappointed. I’m not outraged, but I think it’s a stupid business decision, a stupid box-office decision. Here I am, still alive, still popular, on a hit show. It makes sense to put me in the thing. If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.”

So, how long has it been since this news first aired? I wish someone else would find all these interviews for me. Then again, once produced, you would say:

“HE DIDN’T COMPLAIN!!! He expressed surprise which is not the same thing as complaining.”

Semantics.

He’s been “expressing surprise” since the first interview after he found out he wasn’t invited to be in it.

Okay, let’s change “complaining” to “expressing surprise” and I’ll rephrase my statement.

“I wish Bill would quit ‘expressing surprise’ about not being cast in the movie.”

And I do like him. I wouldn’t be on the Star Trek website if I didn’t. Please do not call me a liar. I wouldn’t do that to you.

kg

174. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

I, for one, am sick of hearing Bill complain about how leaving him out of the project was a bad business decision. I think STV was a bad business decision! For him, if he wanted to have the option of appearing in another Star Trek film, doing Generations was a bad business decision!

#150–The entire premise of STIII was the “resurrection” of Spock. For a general audience to buy bringing James Kirk “back to life”, it would require no less. That is not the movie that Abrams and co. want to make. Simply making the reversal of Kirk’s death a subplot would make a messy film. I hated Kirk’s death, as much as I hated Sybok and the rest of STV, but we are stuck with it. Abrams vision is about returning Star Trek to the TOS era or sometime before. It is his art to create. Why should he be expected to sacrifice the integrity of his art just to satisfy a corny and bitter old man who doesn’t seem to value his own dignity enough to just wish them well and concentrate on his own career? I’m also not sure yet how you get the impression that there will be revisionist history. It may be that the film explores several time periods at one point or another. If that is the case, there is no reason to believe that Star Trek history will be revised.
I’m with your wife. I will give it every opprotunity to succeed or fail in my own eyes. Hey, at least your wife likes Star Trek. My wife rolls her eyes. I had to buy her a TIVO box just for the bedroom so she has something to watch when I get the itch. For some reason, it’s fine for her to enjoy Star Wars, the Alien movies, etc., yet I’m a total nerd for digging Trek. My kids have come around, though. They used to laugh at the cheap props and corny hairdos. My opinion about what this movie needs to be successful is partly based on them, because they will determine how much money it makes. I just want to see Star trek come out of this funk and thrive again. Bill Shatner, unfortunately, won’t affect that one way or another…

175. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#32–You make a pretty good point. This is more about Bill’s ego than him actually wanting to reprise his role for artistic reasons.

I didn’t like where he took the character in the later films anyway. At some point, he stopped being William Shatner as James T. Kirk and started being James Kirk as William Shatner. He really, towards the end, turned the character and the original crew film series into more of a joke than anything else. He was great as Kirk from the 60’s right up until STV. It’s time for him to wish the new guys well and move on with some of his dignity intact.

176. A. - January 16, 2008

174. Closettrekker – January 16, 2008
“I, for one, am sick of hearing Bill complain about how leaving him out of the project ”

Once again ,someone claiming he complained. WHERE DID HE COMPLAIN?!! HE didn’t.

177. A. - January 16, 2008

#164 “A”.

Okay, you got me there. The “daughter” joke was not necessary. My sense of humour is twisted at times. I was being a smart-ass again. I apologize.

Good start. Now admit Bill did not complain and that you lied about it. Unless of course you can show me an interview where he DID complain.

“I haven’t called anyone a liar as you have. And this time I have written proof to back my statement up:”

But you did lie. Assuming you are referring to all the SHatner interviews posted here, you said he complained. He didn’t. You just purposely took his que4stiohn as that, to demonize him.

““I guess if I argue with holocaust deniers, I love Jews?”

is inflammatory and totally inappropriate and I won’t validate it with a response”

Well you just did validate it, and you avoided the question. Further more, how is it inflammatory? I DO think the holocaust occurred. It is a fact!! And I have argued with those that claim it didn’t. And I can tell you have as an atheist I love Jews no more than Christians.

So answer the question: If I debate a holocaust denier, does that mean I love Jews? All I am doing here is pointing out Shatner did not complain yet you say that means I LOVE HIM. I don’t. It’s literally a matter of facts.

“Again, just because someone has a different opinion than you do, you do not attack them. Even if you believe they are wrong or misguided. You calmly state your opinion and try to show them what you think.”

Which is what WS did, yet you attacked him when you lied about him complaining. And I am very calm and have continuously, and will continue, to prove my point.

““HE DIDN’T COMPLAIN!!! He expressed surprise which is not the same thing as complaining.”

Semantics.

He’s been “expressing surprise” since the first interview after he found out he wasn’t invited to be in it.”

No it is not semantics.
And he did express surprise, yes. Are you trying to tell me you are weren’t surprised they included Nimoy and Not Shatner? Are you trying to tell me you expected that? No, of course not.

The average person and avid fan are surprised. Just admit it is surprising and you soon see it is a stupid decision. How that escapes you is not logical. Especially given indications were they almost did.

178. A. - January 16, 2008

Those who are “sick” of Shatner’s comments, I’ve got a simple solution-Stop reading them. I know I did as It’s boring. But he did not complain.

179. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#176– I said he complained that leaving him out of the movie was a “stupid business decision”, a “stupid box-office decision, and a “silly oversight”. That, quite obviously to me, is a complaint about the film’s lack of Shat. Expressing disappointment is also a form of complaint. He did say he was “disappointed”, on top of calling it a stupid (and in another interview ,”bad”) business decision, etc.. I guess for you to accept that term, he would have to preface his statement with something like, “Here’s my complaint…” I’m not sure why you are quibbling about that. If it will make you feel better, just substitue the word “complain” with what, in your mind, is the appropriate term. You have my blessing, as long as it gets the point across. I’m a former Marine, a husband, a father, a history major, a TOS Star Trek fan, a Cowboys season ticket holder, and even a business owner, but never an English teacher. I do stick by my statement, though, even if it bothers you (although that’s not my intention).

180. Edge - January 16, 2008

Ain’t no doubt in my mind that Shatner will be in the new movie.
This is one well kept secret. And both JJ and Shatner are playing this to the hilt.

181. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#177–I’m afraid I cannot leave this alone without defending Katie G.’s integrity. It’s not in my nature to do so. I cannot justify your personal attack on her. You called her a liar simply because your interpretation of someone else’s comments are different from hers. Even if you really believe that her interpretation was wrong, it does not make her a liar. That is over the top and uncalled for. I think you owe her an apology for that. Her interpretation is an opinion.

You also claim that Bill simply expressed surprise( I’m not surprised, since his character is dead and bringing him back would be rather repetitive, even for Trek) and nothing else. He also expressed disappointment. Being surprised, in itself, is not a complaint. However, when you combine that with saying “I’m disappointed”, and calling the director’s choice to exclude a Shatner ressurection “a stupid business decision”, “a stupid box office decision”, and a “silly oversight”—then, in my mind, you are complaining(if nothing else, about the casting decisions). Do you call me a liar as well? Are you questioning my integrity for saying so? We’ll see what kind of integrity you have when you either retract your statement and apologize to her, or you do not.

182. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#156– the only problem is, that would destroy the current timeline. Too much time has passed.There would be too much at stake. It is one thing for Spock to say, travel back in time to prevent someone else from doing harm, but to actively alter history? Who knows how James Kirk being alive could change the outcome of say, the Borg invasion, the Dominion War, etc. ? He would not have to be directly involved. Even Kirk simply interacting with someone else could trigger a change in the timeline that affected more than just he and Spock. I cannot see Spock choosing such a dangerous path on behalf of the entire quadrant and beyond. Face it, unless he plays another character (or MAYBE Kirk in a flashback) , The Shat’s not in the film, nor should he be.

That would be a “stupid business decision”. LOL

183. A. - January 16, 2008

“181. Closettrekker – January 16, 2008
#177–I’m afraid I cannot leave this alone without defending Katie G.’s integrity. It’s not in my nature to do so. I cannot justify your personal attack on her. You called her a liar simply because your interpretation of someone else’s comments are different from hers. Even if you really believe that her interpretation was wrong, it does not make her a liar. That is over the top and uncalled for. I think you owe her an apology for that. Her interpretation is an opinion. ”

There is no room for interpretation based on the interviews posted here. If you can show me an interview (two more more since she states she is “tired” of it) where Shatner does indeed complain, then I will apologize.
But based on the interviews posted here, there is no room for interpretation.
Bashers tend to lie about what he said. Thus why they said he complained, when he didn’t. So again, if you can show me an interview where he DOES complain, then I will apologize.

“You also claim that Bill simply expressed surprise( I’m not surprised, since his character is dead and bringing him back would be rather repetitive, even for Trek) ”

You’re surprised? Really? You didn’t know the time travel aspect of many trek episodes? Well, that is VERY surprising you didn’t know that. Almost Shocking. Time travel is a common topic in Sci Fi. But don’t take my word for it. Watch for yourself.
Bring back KIrk would be supremely easy. But they haven’t and that is fine. Surprising given they are using Nimoy, though.

“However, when you combine that with saying “I’m disappointed”, and calling the director’s choice to exclude a Shatner ressurection “a stupid business decision”, “a stupid box office decision”, and a “silly oversight”—then, in my mind, you are complaining(if nothing else, about the casting decisions). Do you call me a liar as well? Are you questioning my integrity for saying so? We’ll see what kind of integrity you have when you either retract your statement and apologize to her, or you do not. ”

I do not, of course. UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME AN INTERVIEW WHERE HE COMPLAINS. I’ve asked this multiple times now.
Yes, I do question your integrity as he never complained. You want epople to believe that, thus why you use that term. But when you read the interview(s) he never complained. So yes, you are lying and a liar. You asked.

184. A. - January 16, 2008

182. Closettrekker – January 16, 2008
….
That would be a “stupid business decision”. LOL ”

So STOP YOU’RE COMPLAINING (according to you).

185. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#140–The difference is, Prince William is intelligent and well-advised enough to know what comments to keep to himself and what kind of vanilla answers to give when that’s what is called for.. If he disagreed with the Prime Minister’s policies, do you think he would say so? Of course not. Hey, it’s your analogy. Bill should be a team player (he owes Star Trek, not the other way around) and just wish them success on the new project. He does not have enough class or dignity to keep the disparaging remarks to himself. When TNG first came out, there were rumors that Bill was very upset. I did not give them much thought then, but now, I would have to say that I am much more inclined to believe it. No matter how big Nimoy claims this film is, it’s nowhere near the size of Shatner’s ego.

186. A. - January 16, 2008

“#176– I said he complained that leaving him out of the movie was a “stupid business decision”, a “stupid box-office decision, and a “silly oversight”. That, quite obviously to me, is a complaint about the film’s lack of Shat. Expressing disappointment is also a form of complaint.”

No. Complaining is not he same thing as disappointment. You misunderstand the term(s). For instance, I’m disappointed you’re not agreeing with me. But that is not a complaint. That is a fact. Complaining is a form of protest. No where do I see him protesting, nor am I protesting against you.

“I guess for you to accept that term, he would have to preface his statement with something like, “Here’s my complaint…” I’m not sure why you are quibbling about that. If it will make you feel better, just substitue the word “complain” with what, in your mind, is the appropriate term.”

The term is NOT complain, no more than the term cabbage is applicable. The fact you dislike him, makes you want to paint him in a bad light.
Remember Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. The fact is, he did not complain anymore than Nimoy is complaining about Shatner’s comments.

And it is a stupid decision, by the way. I find it difficult to believe you honeslyt think this movie will pull in more money without Shatner, than with it.

“You have my blessing, as long as it gets the point across. I’m a former Marine,”
LOL.
“a husband, a father, a history major, a TOS Star Trek fan, a Cowboys season ticket holder, and even a business owner, but never an English teacher. I do stick by my statement, though, even if it bothers you (although that’s not my intention).”

Doesn’t bother me at all. Free country-even to lie sometimes. Float your boat.

187. A. - January 16, 2008

185. Closettrekker – January 16, 2008
“#140–The difference is, Prince William is intelligent and well-advised enough to know what comments to keep to himself and what kind of vanilla answers to give when that’s what is called for.. “
So again, you feel he should decline tto answer that question when he’s been asked it many many times
“If he disagreed with the Prime Minister’s policies, do you think he would say so?”
He isn’t asked that time after time.
“Of course not. Hey, it’s your analogy. Bill should be a team player (he owes Star Trek, not the other way around) and just wish them success on the new project.”
And has many times, both thanks Star Trek and expressed his confidence in the new film The problem is your selective memory
He does not have enough class or dignity to keep the disparaging remarks to himself. “
He has, multiple times. But your clear hatred for Shatner is causing you selective memory (again).
“When TNG first came out, there were rumors that Bill was very upset. I did not give them much thought then, but now, I would have to say that I am much more inclined to believe it. No matter how big Nimoy claims this film is, it’s nowhere near the size of Shatner’s ego.”
Again, you’re blinded by your hatred. Do you have an ulcer? And what does his ego have to do with what is a stupid business decision (and that is fact-fewer people will see this as a result of Shatners omission)

188. A. - January 16, 2008

A complaint is an active protest. HE WAS ASKED and he politely answered. Then some of you complain (as you initiate the protest) that he shouldn’t answer. Can you hear yourselves?

Why do you read his interviews?

189. Closettrekker - January 16, 2008

#183–He complained in the interview posted here. It is there for all to see. Even the most avid Shatner fans (these debates have gone on for months here) do not disagree. He is complaining about Abrams’ decision-making, period. He even attacks it by calling it stupid in three different ways. There are things much milder than that which are construed as complaints. Beyond that, he flat-out says he is disappointed. That is also a complaint. What planet are you from?

#184–The difference is, I know I am complaining about Bill’s comments(even though that particular last line was a joke)!!! And I have made no effort to hide that fact. When I say he lacks class and doesn’t care enough about his dignity, it is a complaint about how he has chosen to handle the situation. You will not offend me by calling it such, as I am not such a sensitive guy (you apparently are–assumption on your gender I’ll admit).

You are either ashamed to admit you were incorrect and over-the-top, too proud to apologize to that lady, or you just do not understand the modern use of the English language. Any way you slice it, it is our interpretation of Bill’s statement that leads us to logically conclude that he is complaining about the decision to leave him out. Now, I’m on my way out of my store and headed for home. Look up the word “complain”. You will probably see the term “discontent”, as I did. That is also applicable when describing Bill’s feelings about being excluded, while Nimoy is a part of the project. You cannot be “content” and “disappointed” about the same subject at the same time. You can be “disappointed”, yet “resigned”–but not “content”. There is no way you can refute that point, no matter how much you wish to be correct.

I’ll be around again in a couple of days, maybe tomorrow if I get a chance in my hotel.

190. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

Re: #179 Closettrekker

Hmmm. You’ve given me an idea.

kg

191. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

Okay. Maybe this will help. Decided to look up the word “complain” in the dictionary.

These definitions were taken from Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary.

Complain: to express grief, pain or discontent; to make a formal accusation or charge.

And I went a little further:

Complaint: an expression of grief, pain or dissatisfaction.

Please don’t say they’re lying or they’re bashing Shatner.

Look — I love my husband. However, he sometimes does stupid things that I don’t like. My expressing frustration at this doesn’t mean I hate him or that I am a husband-basher. He, in turn, loves me (whether that seems possible or not) but has also expressed his frustration at some of the dumb things I’ve done. We discuss it and move on, still very happily married.

Point: you CAN like a person while not liking something they DO. At least I can. And from the postings here, a lot of people like William Shatner, they just don’t like some of the things he’s said. Please don’t lump us into the same category as those who cannot stand him.

And, in reply to your comment below:

“…Well you just did validate it, and you avoided the question. Further more, how is it inflammatory? I DO think the holocaust occurred. It is a fact!! And I have argued with those that claim it didn’t. And I can tell you have as an atheist I love Jews no more than Christians.”

(What?!?!?)

Continuing: — “So answer the question: If I debate a holocaust denier, does that mean I love Jews? All I am doing here is pointing out Shatner did not complain yet you say that means I LOVE HIM. I don’t. It’s literally a matter of facts.”

The answer is: I see your point but surely you can see MY POINT in the danger of opening up this subject (“the Holocaust: Fact or Fiction”). Use another example and I’ll answer. And, I did not say you loved Bill because you insist he didn’t complain. Never said that. Anywhere. I said “Love really is blind” when you asked “trektacular” how Bill was lampooning himself right after he said Bill needed to slim down (i.e. lose weight). It sounded like you couldn’t see that Bill doesn’l look like he did in 1966. He has aged and gained a ton of weight (like many of us). He’s, what, going to be 77 in March? I’m just surprised that you didn’t know what “trektacular” meant when he said that.

So… If you don’t trust my facts about the meaning of the word “complaint”, please feel free to look it up for yourself.

And actually, I wasn’t surprised that Shatner wasn’t in it when I first heard the news. Kirk died while helping Picard save the people from the energy ribbon when Picard was still Captain of the Enterprise (just after finishing his seventh year in command or thereabouts). How could they put Kirk in this movie, even in a “reminiscing part” when he is obviously older and heavier than at the point of his death? Didn’t surprise me at all. Sorry. (Are you going to call me a liar again?)

kg

192. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#181 Closettrekker:

Thank you.

kg

193. A. - January 16, 2008

#183–He complained in the interview posted here. It is there for all to see.

OK, so back to square 1-ANSWEERING A QUESTION is not a complaint.

“He is complaining about Abrams’ decision-making, period. He even attacks it by calling it stupid in three different ways. There are things much milder than that which are construed as complaints. “

THAT is the prolem. YOU (and your ilk) are construing to demonize him

“Beyond that, he flat-out says he is disappointed. That is also a complaint. What planet are you from?”
BEING DIOSSAPIOJNTING IS COMPLAINGING!!! LOL. ROTFLMAO!! LOL. So I guess YOU are complaining about me!!
And I am from Earth, clearly you are from “planet Hate Shatner”
And no, there is no consensus among Shatner fans (of which I am not one, by the way. I’m just stating the fact he did not complain)

“You are either ashamed to admit you were incorrect and over-the-top, too proud to apologize to that lady, or you just do not understand the modern use of the English language.”

Neither! I’ve asked for prrof and the only evidence you’ve offered ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS YOU! AS he was asked and he answered. THAT IS NOT COMPLAINING!!! Complaining is initiating some sort of protest. If shatner had VOLUNTEERED “Damn it, they OWE it to me to put me in the film” then THAT Would be a complaint. But simply answering a question abiout why, is not complaining. But you now all this. But you ignore it so as to demonize him, thus the lying.

“Any way you slice it, it is our interpretation of Bill’s statement that leads us to logically conclude that he is complaining about the decision to leave him out.”

The problem is, it is NOT logical. In fact it’s highly illogical to assume if asked, to view a critical response, AS A COMPLAINT!!! When asked what I think of the movie ST 5, I say it is lame. THAT IS NOT COMPLAINING no matter how you slice it.

“You cannot be “content” and “disappointed” about the same subject at the same time. You can be “disappointed”, yet “resigned”–but not “content”. There is no way you can refute that point, no matter how much you wish to be correct.”
God, you should write for a the onion as your comments are so funny. I CAN and WILL refute your comments as you are wrong, wrong wrong.
Complaining is starting a protest of SOME sort. HE didn’t. You know this but too proud to admit you are wrong, fueled by your hatred for him

194. Harry Ballz - January 16, 2008

C’mon, everybody………..GROUP HUG!! :) :) :)

195. A. - January 16, 2008

191. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
“Okay. Maybe this will help. Decided to look up the word “complain” in the dictionary.
These definitions were taken from Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary.
Complain: to express grief, pain or discontent; to make a formal accusation or charge.”

And where do you see that? Any formal? WHERE DID HE INITIATE A COMPLAINT? HE didn’t. He was asked, and expressed a (FVERY OBVIOUS) opinion.
“And I went a little further:
Complaint: an expression of grief, pain or dissatisfaction.
Please don’t say they’re lying or they’re bashing Shatner. “
Your example is PROVING MY POINT!!! HE WAS ASKED!!!! What part of that do you not understand?
“Look — I love my husband. However, he sometimes does stupid things that I don’t like. My expressing frustration at this doesn’t mean I hate him or that I am a husband-basher. He, in turn, loves me (whether that seems possible or not) but has also expressed his frustration at some of the dumb things I’ve done. We discuss it and move on, still very happily married”
So? See HERE you ARE COMPLAINING about your hubby, as NO ONE ASKED. Since you’re VOUNTEERING IT (unlike Shatner), YOU ARE COMPLAINING about your husband. And if it got bad, you would divorce him, right? So then Divorce Shatner since you feel he is always complaining (which he isn’t). Your solution for him to REFUSE to answer is retarded.
“Point: you CAN like a person while not liking something they DO. At least I can. And from the postings here, a lot of people like William Shatner, they just don’t like some of the things he’s said. Please don’t lump us into the same category as those who cannot stand him. “
You’re SAYING you like him contradicts your behavior. And yes you can like someone but dislike what they do. But that is not what we’re discussing here. YOU view and cultism of ANYTHING as complaining. But it isn’t the case. If I’m asked what I think of oranges, and I say I think they are too sweet-THAT IS NOT COMPLAINING!!! SO when he was asked why he isn’t in the movie, him stating it is a stupid business decision IS NOT COMPLAINING. But you WANT IT TO BE as you dislike him (at the very least).

And, in reply to your comment below:
“…Well you just did validate it, and you avoided the question. Furthermore, how is it inflammatory? I DO think the holocaust occurred. It is a fact!! And I have argued with those that claim it didn’t. And I can tell you have as an atheist I love Jews no more than Christians.”
(What?!?!?)”
Do you really not understand the point? IT was suggested I worship Shatner, which I don’t. I’m merely addressing the facts-that he did not complain. So when I state the fact he did not complain, I’m accused of worshipping him. I don’t.
“Continuing: — “So answer the question: If I debate a holocaust denier, does that mean I love Jews? All I am doing here is pointing out Shatner did not complain yet you say that means I LOVE HIM. I don’t. It’s literally a matter of facts.”
“The answer is: I see your point”
Finally
“but surely you can see MY POINT in the danger of opening up this subject (”the Holocaust: Fact or Fiction”).”
No danger, except for those who like to change issue from the example to “he hates jews (which you did not do)
“ Use another example and I’ll answer. And, I did not say you loved Bill because you insist he didn’t complain. Never said that. Anywhere. I said “Love really is blind” “
Suggesting I love Bill. Otherwise what did you mean?
“when you asked “trektacular” how Bill was lampooning himself right after he said Bill needed to slim down (i.e. lose weight). It sounded like you couldn’t see that Bill doesn’l look like he did in 1966”
You’re confusing posters. I’ve never stated Bill looks the same as in ’66 (nor did I read that but is irrelevant to the issue)
“. He has aged and gained a to”n of weight (like many of us). He’s, what, going to be 77 in March? I’m just surprised that you didn’t know what “trektacular” meant when he said that.”
Which is non-applicable?
“So… If you don’t trust my facts about the meaning of the word “complaint”, please feel free to look it up for yourself.”
No need to. Your definition PROVED my point that he did not complain. HE WAS ASKED and answered.
“And actually, I wasn’t surprised that Shatner wasn’t in it when I first heard the news. Kirk died while helping Picard save the people from the energy ribbon when Picard was still Captain of the Enterprise (just after finishing his seventh year in command or thereabouts). How could they put Kirk in this movie, even in a “reminiscing part” when he is obviously older and heavier than at the point of his death? Didn’t surprise me at all. Sorry. (Are you going to call me a liar again?)”
Since you asked Yes, I am thinking you are lying. I guess that is a complaint since you asked? It’s very difficult for me to believe you don’t know about Time Travel, etc in Sci Fi.. It’s been a constant.
I’m not upset he’s not in the film. Just means I’ll wait to rent it as I’m not as curious But if he was in it, I’d be more curious. That is Shatner’s point. Fewer people will rush out to see it as a result of his omission. His is guaranteed several million in revenue. And THAT IS a STUPID business decision ($2 rental vs. $15 admin charge). It’s not a complaint if asked for an opinion. Otherwise ALL negative opinions or criticisms are complaints? Of course not
Funny, my cooking (apparently) sucks. I know this as I ask people when I prepare meal for them; they tell me it is not very good. THAT IS NOT COMPLAINING. IF they volunteered WITHOUT asking, that would be. But that is not the case here with Shatner. He was asked. Sorry that bothers you and you misunderstand the definition of “complain” (even with the dictionary)

196. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

Captain, sensors indicate impending thread implosion.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

197. A. - January 16, 2008

“196. The Vulcanista – January 16, 2008
Captain, sensors indicate impending thread implosion”

LOL. Not before they try and get the last word, I’m sure. “RAISE SHIELD!!”

198. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

A.
“Complaint” has more meanings than just to initiate a protest. Katie G even provided you with one. The word “complaint” IS being used properly in this context.

Still not convinced? Dictionary.com is your friend:

http://tinyurl.com/ypo8dc

And, yes, you owe her and Closettrekker apologies.

Peace. Live long and prosper.

199. A. - January 16, 2008

“198. The Vulcanista – January 16, 2008
A.
“Complaint” has more meanings than just to initiate a protest. Katie G even provided you with one. The word “complaint” IS being used properly in this context.

Still not convinced? Dictionary.com is your friend:

http://tinyurl.com/ypo8dc

And, yes, you owe her and Closettrekker apologies.”

OK I belive you that obvioulsy do not understand the term “Complaint”. You even provided a dictionary which PROVED me right. But I’m going to decide that you are not lying, but in fact mildy retarded. so I do apologixze for that.
But the facts is, he did not complain. He was asked a question to which he gave an honest answer. That is not a complaint in any shape, way or form. You cannot aske a question, expect an honest (and correct) answer, then call it a complaint if you do not like that answer.

For your refernce:
http://www.answers.com/topic/complaint?cat=biz-fin

An expression of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
A cause or reason for complaining; a grievance.

A bodily disorder or disease; a malady or ailment.
The symptom or distress about which a patient seeks medical assistance.
Law.
The presentation by the plaintiff in a civil action, setting forth the claim on which relief is sought.
A formal charge, made under oath, of the commission of a crime or other such offense.

As you can see, Shatner’s comments fall under NONE of these since HE WAS ASKED!!!!!!!

Now, I await your apologies for being wrong and causing it to go this far.

200. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 16, 2008

#172 Katie G: Thank you, Katie.

Godwin’s Law is a well-known law of the Internet that has been around since the Usenet days. It was refined by and named for Mike Godwin in 1990. The Law states:

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

The first corollary of Godwin’s Law has never been authoritatively stated, but it is generally accepted as this:

“The person who makes the first comparison to the Nazis and Hitler automatically loses any ongoing debate, and the thread is over.”

The relevance of the comparison to the subject matter makes no difference; the loss is automatic, immediate, and total, even if the debate is about something like genocide in Armenia and mentioning Hitler might make some sense. Mentioning it in a thread about William Shatner’s griping is perhaps the greatest example of Godwin’s Law in action that I have recently witnessed.

Further information is available on Wikipedia, the Usenet Jargon file, and, of course, Google. XKCD did a funny sendup of the law a few years ago: http://xkcd.com/261/. There are, of course, many other corollaries, such as the one that states that the absurdity of the comparison plays a role in determining how much the person who made the comparison deserves to be shunned, but these are not well-codified.

This thread is over. A. had some points, but by mentioning the Holocaust, he automatically lost the argument. Furthermore, because he mentioned it in such an unrelated topic, he is to be shunned and ignored. I do have several further thoughts on the matter, but I am bound by my respect for Kibo and the Backbone Cabal (TinC) to speak no further and commence the shunning of A., who will hopefully learn his lesson and never compare anything to the Holocaust on the Internet ever again.

It is the Law of the Internet. I dare not defy it.

201. Adam Castle - January 16, 2008

I have no doubt that I’ll end up enjoying the movie to some degree no matter what happens….but it just won’t be the same without William Shatner as Kirk. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. :-(

202. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

We’re going in circles here.

I see the line of logic but it’s faulty. (Crap, I sound like Mr. Spock.)

The word “complain” has more than one meaning. However, you can’t use the ones that don’t apply to negate the ones that do apply!

Sorry – negate = to deny the truth of something, or prove something to be false; to declare officially that something is invalid or ineffective, or make something invalid or ineffective.

Wait! AHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I see what the problem is now.

“A” keeps saying Bill was NOT complaining because HE WAS ASKED about it. Apparently that nullifies the meaning of the word COMPLAINT. If you’re asked your opinion, and you complain, it’s not complaining because someone solicited the information.

So, following that logic, if I’m asked something and I lie, it’s not a lie because someone solicited the information. Wow.

Whether someone asked Shatner the question or whether he volunteered the info DOES NOT CHANGE THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF THE WORD COMPLAINT.

Exactly what question prompted his “expression of discontent”? This one:

“Details: So did you want to take another crack at Star Trek in the new JJ Abrams film version?”

There is no prompting for him to respond to, to express his malcontent. It asked whether he wanted to be involved with Star Trek again through this film. All he had to answer was “yes” or “no” but he very quickly went into saying that Leonard was in the film “but I am not” etc. SHATNER CHOSE TO BRING THAT UP. The journalist didn’t ask him about that. Bill made it about that. He was complaining.

Taken from Bill’s answer to the question, he said:

“I’m disappointed. I’m not outraged, but I think it’s a stupid business decision, a stupid box-office decision. Here I am, still alive, still popular, on a hit show. It makes sense to put me in the thing. If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.”

Complaint: an expression of grief, pain or DISSATISFACTION.

Did Bill express discontent? Yes. Was Bill dissatisfied with what J.J. Abrams did? Yes. Did he express it? Yes. Hence…

Also I looked up the reference you provided

http://www.answers.com/topic/complaint?cat=biz-fin

and found under the word “complain” the following:

(kəm-plān’) To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

Hmmm. Does anyone think that Bill was dissatisfied or resentful of the decision to not cast him in the film?

complain – verb

To express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: grouch, grump, whine.

Informal: crab, gripe, grouse, kick.
Slang: beef, bellyache, bitch.

Definition: grumble about.

And in Microsoft Word:Words > MS Word Tutor “complain”

IN BRIEF: To whine or find fault with something or someone.
Complain – to express discontent or unhappiness about a situation.

Nowhere does it say “this is what ‘complain’ means (unless you are asked your opinion)…”

My goodness. Just because he didn’t get nasty doesn’t mean it was not a complaint.

By the way, in #199 did you imply that The Vulcanista was “mildly retarded” because she disagreed with y ou? That’s unbelieveable. You’ve been confronted about calling others liars but rather than apologize for the harsh term you’ve changed your wording. Now, if we don’t agree with you, we’re retarded. That’s not very charitable. Did you think anyone would find that less insulting?

kg

203. Xai - January 16, 2008

199. A. – January 16, 2008

“But I’m going to decide that you are not lying, but in fact mildy retarded. so I do apologixze for that.”

You are kidding.
Why are you insulting her? Because she disagreed? Whatever the argument on here, that was uncalled for.

And my statement IS a complaint.

204. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#194

Harry, you remind me of Dr. Gregory House. That sounds like something he would say if his team were bickering.

Good one!

kg

205. A. - January 16, 2008

“200. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 16, 2008

“The person who makes the first comparison to the Nazis and Hitler automatically loses any ongoing debate, and the thread is over.”

You seem to misunderstand Godwin’s Law, as no one was compared to Hitler or the Nazi. You need to learn a little before you post.

“The relevance of the comparison to the subject matter makes no difference; the loss is automatic, immediate, and total, even if the debate is about something like genocide in Armenia and mentioning Hitler might make some sense. ”

Looks like another debate about to begin as I disagree with this too. Why would some topics be off limits, when making comparisons? Unless of course it PROVES you wrong, when push comes to shove. But of course was outlined Godwin’s Law is not applicable here as comparisons to Nazi’s or Hitler were not made.

“Mentioning it in a thread about William Shatner’s griping is perhaps the greatest example of Godwin’s Law in action that I have recently witnessed.”

Again, you misunderstand this law.-No comparison to Hitler or the Nazi was made. Show were it was made?
I suspect you’re referring to the analogy of defending the facts!! Of which I did, when they accused me of worshipping Shatner, to me worshipping Jews when I defend the fact the holocaust occurred.
It seems you misunderstand

“Further information is available on Wikipedia, the Usenet Jargon file, and, of course, Google. XKCD did a funny sendup of the law a few years ago: http://xkcd.com/261/. There are, of course, many other corollaries, such as the one that states that the absurdity of the comparison plays a role in determining how much the person who made the comparison deserves to be shunned, but these are not well-codified. ”

Be my guest. Shun me. It only reinforces my point, and show you FEAR just how right I am.

“This thread is over. A. had some points, but by mentioning the Holocaust, he automatically lost the argument.”

No, but you applying Godwins law when not applicable, YOU lost. You made no points, just as Holocaust deniers make little sense. But ignore me if it pleases you. But it only reinforces my point, that you were wrong (ten fold)

“but I am bound by my respect for Kibo and the Backbone Cabal (TinC) to speak no further and commence the shunning of A., who will hopefully learn his lesson and never compare anything to the Holocaust on the Internet ever again.

It is the Law of the Internet. I dare not defy it. ”

What a buffoon. This law does not apply to holocaust DENIERS. LOL. I must say I got a terrific chuckle out of a desperate attempt to equate to it. LOL. Try again, bucko!!
And even if it did, to suggest some topics are off limits for comparisons, is truly desperate. So since I won the Shatner one, let the second debate begin.

206. A. - January 16, 2008

203. Xai – January 16, 2008
199. A. – January 16, 2008

“But I’m going to decide that you are not lying, but in fact mildy retarded. so I do apologixze for that.”

“You are kidding.
Why are you insulting her? Because she disagreed? Whatever the argument on here, that was uncalled for.”

Oh, like many things here, are uncalled for. Calling Shatner’s answer to a question, a complaint, is uncalled for.
You cearly haven’t read the thread.

207. A. - January 16, 2008

204. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
#194

“Harry, you remind me of Dr. Gregory House. That sounds like something he would say if his team were bickering.

Good one!”

If only it was applicable. Godwin’s law isn’t. But of course you ll INSIST it does as it demonizes me. By the way, YOU ACKNOWLDGED MY POINT so clearly you do not even agree that this is Godwin’s law.

208. A. - January 16, 2008

201. Adam Castle – January 16, 2008
“I have no doubt that I’ll end up enjoying the movie to some degree no matter what happens….but it just won’t be the same without William Shatner as Kirk. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves”

Correct Adam,
Shatner’s point all along, when he was ASKED the question.

209. Xai - January 16, 2008

206. A. – January 16, 2008

“Oh, like many things here, are uncalled for. Calling Shatner’s answer to a question, a complaint, is uncalled for.
You cearly haven’t read the thread.”

I most certainly have and it doesn’t matter. You owe Vulcanista an apology. Shall we ask Anthony?

210. Xai - January 16, 2008

what? No snappy answer?

211. A. - January 16, 2008

202. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
“We’re going in circles here.”
Actually, only you are.
“I see the line of logic but it’s faulty. (Crap, I sound like Mr. Spock.) “
Godwin’s law? Yes it is quite faulty. But it is not applicable here anyway.
The word “complain” has more than one meaning. However, you can’t use the ones that don’t apply to negate the ones that do apply!
Sorry – negate = to deny the truth of something, or prove something to be false; to declare officially that something is invalid or ineffective, or make something invalid or ineffective.
Wait! AHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I see what the problem is now.
“A” keeps saying Bill was NOT complaining because HE WAS ASKED about it. Apparently that nullifies the meaning of the word COMPLAINT. If you’re asked your opinion, and you complain, it’s not complaining because someone solicited the information.”
Getting close, but it really is not that complicated. If someone asks me about their cooking which I dod not like, and I say so, that is not complaining.
“So, following that logic, if I’m asked something and I lie, it’s not a lie because someone solicited the information. Wow.”
Completely and utterly nonsensical. A lie is knowingly saying one thing, which is untrue.IN this case I believed you were lying as I felt you KNEW Shatner was not complaining, but rather questioning a decision. THAT is unequivacly, not a complaint. (and for the record, he is right-it is an unwise decision)
“Whether someone asked Shatner the question or whether he volunteered the info DOES NOT CHANGE THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF THE WORD COMPLAINT.”

Correct. Thank you for providing it, proving my point.
Exactly what question prompted his “expression of discontent”? This one:
“Details: So did you want to take another crack at Star Trek in the new JJ Abrams film version?”
There is no prompting for him to respond to, to express his malcontent. It asked whether he wanted to be involved with Star Trek again through this film. All he had to answer was “yes” or “no” but he very quickly went into saying that Leonard was in the film “but I am not” etc. SHATNER CHOSE TO BRING THAT UP. The journalist didn’t ask him about that. Bill made it about that. He was complaining.”
No, journalists are NOT there for yes or no answers. THEY WANT Yoyu to elaborate, so he did. Part of Bills job when doing interviews.
Taken from Bill’s answer to the question, he said:
“I’m disappointed. I’m not outraged, but I think it’s a stupid business decision, a stupid box-office decision. Here I am, still alive, still popular, on a hit show. It makes sense to put me in the thing. If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.”
Where is the complaint?
“Complaint: an expression of grief, pain or DISSATISFACTION.”
Therefore if you dislike your Mom’s cooking, and she asks how is it, you’re complaining? Then again you misunderstand the term, which is odd since it is very common term.
“Did Bill express discontent? Yes. Was Bill dissatisfied with what J.J. Abrams did? Yes. Did he express it? Yes. Hence…”
No, he expressed disappointment and curiosity and an opinion. Far different from a complaint. But you know this.
“Also I looked up the reference you provided
http://www.answers.com/topic/complaint?cat=biz-fin
and found under the word “complain” the following:
(kəm-plān’) To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment. “
Ooookay, and how did Bill do this with what has been posted on this site?
You seem to be ignoring (for quite a long time now) his line “If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.”
Complaining does not involved the term “that is fine”
“Hmmm. Does anyone think that Bill was dissatisfied or resentful of the decision to not cast him in the film?”
No, I think he is puzzled as any reasonable person would be.
“complain – verb
To express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: grouch, grump, whine.
Informal: crab, gripe, grouse, kick.
Slang: beef, bellyache, bitch.
Definition: grumble about.
And in Microsoft Word:Words > MS Word Tutor “complain” “

OK, and How did Bill do this? Please show us an interview where he says “it is not fine”. So far he has been quoted as saying “If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.” Doesn’t sound like complaining to me.
“IN BRIEF: To whine or find fault with something or someone.
Complain – to express discontent or unhappiness about a situation.”

And he hasn’t. In fact he said “If they don’t, that’s fine. I just think it’s a silly oversight.”
Why do you want to ignore that fact?
“Nowhere does it say “this is what ‘complain’ means (unless you are asked your opinion)…”
“My goodness. Just because he didn’t get nasty doesn’t mean it was not a complaint.”
And if someone says “its fine” but curious as to why, that is no complaint. ESPECIALLY when asked.;
“By the way, in #199 did you imply that The Vulcanista was “mildly retarded” because she disagreed with you? That’s unbelieveable. You’ve been confronted about calling others liars but rather than apologize for the harsh term you’ve changed your wording. Now, if we don’t agree with you, we’re retarded. That’s not very charitable. Did you think anyone would find that less insulting?”
The insults started long before I got involved. But I got sick of them being hurled at me.
Oh, and you’re not retarded for disagreeing with me. You’re retarded for not understanding Shatner’s comment in context. It’s the only reasonable explanation.

But I will say thank you for acknowledging my point about Holocaust deniers, and for acknowledging Wowbagger was wrong in thinking it applied here.

212. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

#209

:) {{{Xai}}}

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

213. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

207. A. – January 16, 2008

All Harry said was “group hug”!

194. Harry Ballz – January 16, 2008
C’mon, everybody………..GROUP HUG!! :) :) :)

What’s “group hug” got to do with Godwin’s Law?

kg

214. A. - January 16, 2008

209. Xai – January 16, 2008
“I most certainly have and it doesn’t matter. You owe Vulcanista an apology. Shall we ask Anthony? ”
You could ask Shatner, and my comment still stands. I guess you don’t like what you and your colleague dish out, eh? Then maybe you shouldn’t be dishing it out. Besides, it only makes sense? As Shatner’s comments couldn’t be possibly contrued as complaining, unless you were DESPERATE for it to be that way.

what? No snappy answer?

So now I’m not quick enough for you, so you resort to further negative comments?

215. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

To:

James Heany – Wowbagger
The Vulcanista
Closettrekker
trektacular
Xai

So sorry that I got you involved in this thing. What say we let it end here?

kg

216. The Vulcanista - January 16, 2008

A, you ever kiss a girl? You should try it. It’s better than Star Trek!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

217. A. - January 16, 2008

215. Katie G.
“To:

James Heany – Wowbagger
The Vulcanista
Closettrekker
trektacular
Xai

So sorry that I got you involved in this thing. What say we let it end here?”
YOU GOT THEM INVOLVED!!! I assumed they jumped of thier own accord. This is truly surprising and shocking you would try and recruit allies.
But at least you came clean so your apology should be directed towards me.

218. Xai - January 16, 2008

214. A. – January 16, 2008

The only thing I did was suggest that you apologize… twice. I’ve not been in on your discussion beyond that.
There’s your answer.

219. A. - January 16, 2008

The ONLY possible way of this to happen is for people with a hatred for Shatner, to do this (admit it, or not). If you truly didn’t care you would not insist like this for ages that he complained. So regardless of what you claim YOU DO HATE HIM. I on the other hand don’t. I’m almost indifferent in whether he is in the film or not. I’ll see the film regardless, just not as curious without the man most associated with, omitted. So renting it is fine with me. What does bug me though is the people that get joy out of demonizing him at every chance they can, such as what has been happening here.
He didn’t complain, but because you hate him, you want to INSIST he did.

220. Xai - January 16, 2008

215. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
No apology needed. If it wasn’t you, it would have been someone else.

217. A. – January 16, 2008

“YOU GOT THEM INVOLVED!!! I assumed they jumped of thier own accord. This is truly surprising and shocking you would try and recruit allies.
But at least you came clean so your apology should be directed towards me.”

I got in when you started throwing uncalled for insults. No one prompted me.

221. Xai - January 16, 2008

While not accurate, you expressed your opinion. It’s done.

222. A. - January 16, 2008

218. Xai – January 16, 2008

The only thing I did was suggest that you apologize… twice. I’ve not been in on your discussion beyond that.
There’s your answer. ”

Not so. Is your memory so short or are you lying here, too?
You wrote in #210
“what? No snappy answer? ”
So that is beyond what you just claimed.

223. A. - January 16, 2008

221. Xai – January 16, 2008
“While not accurate, you expressed your opinion. It’s done. ”

Actually my opinion is based on facts. Yours and the others are based n your dislike of Shatner.
As for done, it appears not but that remains to be seen.

224. Xai - January 16, 2008

yes it is…. You have been answering quickly and there was a time gap this time. Your point?

225. Xai - January 16, 2008

I’ve not commented on Shatner on this thread. My complaint was and still is with your insults to Vulcanista and Katie.
You were discussing a TV star and during the discussion referred to them as retarded. That’s is a highly unwarranted insult and if you feel others insulted you… why not take the high road and not sink to that level or below it.

226. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#217 “A”

No, no, no… You are so determined to make me the villain.

The expression

“so sorry that I got you involved in this thing”

means that I was sorry that I didn’t nip this discussion in the bud before they felt they had to step in and assist out of pity for me thereby incurring your wrath.

I’ve never been in contact with these people before and I’m sure they want nothing to do with this discussion any longer.

Good-bye.

kg

227. A. - January 16, 2008

224. Xai – January 16, 2008
“yes it is…. You have been answering quickly and there was a time gap this time. Your point? ”

Well clearly it is not as we keep posting. That is not done, And why is the gap of time important? Maybe I needed to cook, go to the bathroom, watch the simpsons. What does it matter? What is your point?

228. A. - January 16, 2008

225. Xai – January 16, 2008
“I’ve not commented on Shatner on this thread. My complaint was and still is with your insults to Vulcanista and Katie.
You were discussing a TV star and during the discussion referred to them as retarded. That’s is a highly unwarranted insult and if you feel others insulted you… why not take the high road and not sink to that level or below it. ”

As I sank to thier level I admit it. WHy don’t you give your little Kir-esque speech to them?

229. Anthony Pascale - January 16, 2008

OK I am not sure what is going on here, but clearly some people are getting bent out of shape. I havent read everything but for now A. gets a warning for flaming

comments to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

I suggest everyone take a deep breath and relax

230. A. - January 16, 2008

#217 “A”
“No, no, no… You are so determined to make me the villain.

The expression

“so sorry that I got you involved in this thing”

means that I was sorry that I didn’t nip this discussion in the bud before they felt they had to step in and assist out of pity for me thereby incurring your wrath.

I’ve never been in contact with these people before and I’m sure they want nothing to do with this discussion any longer.”

OH, OK. THen you DIDN’T get them involved as you said. THEY GOT THEMSELVES INVOLVED!! If so then you’ve no need to apologize.

As for them not participating any longer, I highly doubt it will end, here.

231. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#220 Xai

Don’t let “A” bait you. It’s useless. Quit before it gets even more nasty. He/she just called you a liar.

Either this is someone playing us (pretending to be a trekkie and making inflammatory comments to see us dance), or they are a very troubled individual that needs our forgiveness. Let it go, guys. I will.

kg

232. Xai - January 16, 2008

I’ve had my fill of A for the night. I won’t be baited further.

233. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 16, 2008

#215: No apologies are required. It’s been terrifically amusing to watch A. gradually unhinge into a pile of insults, arguments that apply to statements I didn’t make, and general buffoonery. In fact, I linked a friend to it.

It is sad that the wisdom of the Internet Elders was not accepted by A., but perhaps one day he will become enlightened. For now, I’m happy to call it a day.

234. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 16, 2008

Oh. Anthony Hath Spoken whilst I was typing, which makes my words more or less irrelevant. Night, all.

235. Xai - January 16, 2008

231. Katie G. – January 16, 2008

Understood. Good night

236. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#235 Xai

As The Vulcanista loves to say,

Peace. Live long and prosper.

kg

237. A. - January 16, 2008

232. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
#220 Xai

“Don’t let “A” bait you. It’s useless. Quit before it gets even more nasty. He/she just called you a liar.”

Uhm, not. Not quite. THis how flames start. I asked the question “Not so. Is your memory so short or are you lying here, too?” when he suggested he did nothing more than ‘The only thing I did was suggest that you apologize… twice. I’ve not been in on your discussion beyond that.’
which was in fact, incorrect. Since it ihappened only moments ago, his statement was very questionable.

“Either this is someone playing us (pretending to be a trekkie and making inflammatory comments to see us dance), or they are a very troubled individual that needs our forgiveness. Let it go, guys. I will.”

AH, I see, so calling me troubled isn’t flaming? Task task task See how desperate you’ve become. It’s sad. Really really sad.

238. A. - January 16, 2008

233. Xai – January 16, 2008
“I’ve had my fill of A for the night. I won’t be baited further. ”

For real this time, or like previous times?

239. A. - January 16, 2008

236. Xai – January 16, 2008
“231. Katie G. – January 16, 2008

Understood. Good night ”

Which was my post so thank you for finally acknowledging you understood (finally. Geeez).

240. A. - January 16, 2008

237. Katie G. – January 16, 2008
“#235 Xai
As The Vulcanista loves to say,
Peace. Live long and prosper.”

But just to your allies, right? Well unlike you, I still wish you Peace. Live long and prosper.”
It’s a shame you cannot emulate such behavior.

241. Steve Hill - January 16, 2008

#182- That’s what Picard did bring Kirk to his time to change the end of “Generations”. Older Spock could tell Younger Spock & Younger Kirk all about “Generations” so Kirk is not killed. The timeline is changed any way with Kirk being with Picard in his time.

242. A. - January 16, 2008

242. Steve Hill – January 16, 2008
“#182- That’s what Picard did bring Kirk to his time to change the end of “Generations”. Older Spock could tell Younger Spock & Younger Kirk all about “Generations” so Kirk is not killed. The timeline is changed any way with Kirk being with Picard in his time. ”

I’m not fully understanding why some perceive time as an issue in Trek. They can do anything the want, regardless of when Kirk was “killed”. The fact Shatner is older now than when Generations was shoot, is meaningless.

243. Katie G. - January 16, 2008

#241 A

Forgive me. It was wrong of me to exclude you. Have a good night, “A”.

kg

244. Steve Hill - January 17, 2008

#242- At the start of the movie Older Spock is living after “Nemesis” so when he returns from time travel to his time again at the end of the movie Kirk is older, the amount of time as pasted from “Generations” to “Nemesis” now for both Kirk and Shatner to have gotten older from the last time we saw Kirk in”Generations”. The movie isn’t about Kirk from “Generations” to “Nemesis” it’s about Younger Kirk & Spocks and fixing the past and the surprise ending of Older Kirk being alive after Older Spock gets back to his time.

245. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

#242–I have to point out a difference. Picard brought Kirk to his time without any knowledge of a future timeline that could be disturbed. If Spock were to go back and “change history”, it could very well alter events that had taken place before he travelled back. As I said before, that would be too much risk for a man like Spock to take, when the consequences could be catastrophic for many more than just him. I just do not feel that would be very “Spock-like”. When Kirk and co. brought back Spock, they did not have to travel in time to do it.
#211-Bill expressed “dissatisfaction” when he said he was “disappointed”. So, by your own definition, he complained. Nowhere in that definition does it say it had to be initiated by him. In answering that question, his response expressed dissatisfaction.

I am satisfied that my integrity, and that of the others, is intact. None of us are liars–nor are we Shatner haters. We can be upset with someone without hating them. I grew up in awe of Capt. Kirk, and he was Capt. Kirk for such a long time. I only wish he would take a higher road and just wish them success, without calling their decisions stupid, etc. And now, I am off to New York for a meeting…Peace and Long Life.

246. Toots Mcghee - January 17, 2008

This movie won’t be the same without Shatner.

247. Xai - January 17, 2008

245. Closettrekker – January 17, 2008

well said

248. A. - January 17, 2008

“#211-Bill expressed “dissatisfaction” when he said he was “disappointed”. So, by your own definition, he complained. Nowhere in that definition does it say it had to be initiated by him. In answering that question, his response expressed dissatisfaction. ”

Which is NOT the same thing as complaining. Remember HE WAS ASKED!!! I’ll bring up the same examples again. My cooking suck. But no has told me that until I brought it up. So they are complaining? OF course not, and neither was WS>

“I am satisfied that my integrity, and that of the others, is intact. None of us are liars–nor are we Shatner haters. We can be upset with someone without hating them”

EXACTLY!!! PERFECT example. Thank you for bringing it up. Just as someone can be dissatisfied without COMPLAINING. MY cooking for example. They are dissatisfied with my cooking but do not complain about. HE did not complain when he expressed the fact it is a stupid business decision. I mean think about it for 1 minute-THE MAN IS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF STAR TREK and EXTEMELY popular today. IT makes no sense, and that was his point all along. He is correct.
And sorry but I think anyone insisting that he complained when he in fact did not has one motive-his hatred for the man. That’s fine, I don’t care if you hate him. I’m indifferent about him, but can’t stand distortion of facts. He did not complain.
UNLESS you feel my freinds are complaining about my cooking. Do you? IF so you misunderstand the term “complain.”

249. Xai - January 17, 2008

A, it’s a new day. Let’s move on.

250. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#245 Closettrekker

Well, it could be interesting. They “bend” the rules all the time. Look at Admiral Janeway going back and saying “to hell with everyone else — I only care about my crew”. Also, the writers had Sarek say something like “when it comes to my son, I am uncertain of my logic” or something like that. Can’t remember exactly. So it’s too bad they’re not going on that premise. Even Data said “to hell with orders” but I guess that’s a lot different than changing the timeline and millions of lives. Listen to me — I sound like a philosopher. Sheesh. It would have been interesting to have Bill and Leonard back together but I think it might have been tough on J. J. Abrams as Bill is such a huge presence (no pun intended); he might try to take the thing over. Then again, he may surprise everyone. I miss Kirk, but I’m pysched that there’s another Star Trek coming out.

And, forgive me if this question has been posed before (I am fairly new to this website) but they made movies with the cast of TNG, why don’t they make movies with the actors from DS9 or Voyager? Surely there are enough of us fans to make it worth their while (financially speaking). Has that ever been a discussion that was made public? Maybe they were asked and not enough responded favourably. Besides, Jadzia is dead. That’s a bummer right there. Terry wanted out because she got the part of Reggie in “Becker” with Ted Danson et al. Or she wanted out before she got the part. Anyway, I thought she was one of the best characters. So sad she’s gone. Just like Kirk. Who’s idea was it anyway, to have him die? Maybe someone figured it would be a fitting, heroic end for the “legend”. Guess Bill didn’t imagine that they could do any more movies until this one. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Oh well. I have my DVDs of TOS. They’ll keep me going. I don’t buy the novels. Love reading, but in the case of Star Trek, I like it up on the screen. Maybe I’ll borrow a friend’s books and check it out. Might be missing out on something.

kg

251. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#241

Ooh, Steve, that could work! Just like an adult Alexander (son of Worf) came back to try to prevent his father’s death in the future. But then there’s that pesky old question if adult Alexander kills child Alexander how can he grow up to go back in time to do the deed? Sorry — got off topic. That could work here. Excellent idea!

kg

252. A. - January 17, 2008

249. Xai – January 17, 2008
“A, it’s a new day. Let’s move on. ”

Xai, your remarks should be directed towards Closettrekker (245).

253. Toots Mcghee - January 17, 2008

Katie G #250

They didn’t make Ds9 or Voyager films because nobody watched those for free at home. Forget about trying to have people pay to see those characters on the big screen.

TOS is by far the most well known brand name of the series and stands the best chance of being a commercial success.

I disagree with your statement about Shatner. Why wouldn’t you want a big presence in this film? It is a huge mistake not to include him.

Lets hope J.J. does surprise everyone and include Shatner in a cameo role.

254. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#253

T.M. I only meant that J. J. Abrams might not want him there. Shatner may have his own ideas about how to do the film and what to put in it and if they differ, it would be a little tense, to say the least. Personally, I would love to see Kirk again but was just expressing (my opinion) that it may be difficult for Abrams and that’s why he didn’t get the invite.

Sorry – didn’t mean to mislead you.

kg

255. Xai - January 17, 2008

252. A. – January 17, 2008
249. Xai – January 17, 2008
“A, it’s a new day. Let’s move on. ”

“Xai, your remarks should be directed towards Closettrekker (245). ”

I know to whom I aimed my remarks at.
I also see all the remarks you made to or about me after I left last night.
I thought maybe a new day would see clearer heads, but I now see that you don’t really want to discuss things unless people agree with your thought process and then insult them when they don’t.

Good day.

256. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

91. JS1701 – January 15, 2008

Just saw your posting. It’s hilarious!! (Sorry to be so late. Just wanted you to know that I appreciated the humour. Excellent!)

“First and First!!! What is First?!?!”

(In case there are a tiny few who don’t know why it’s so funny, watch the TOS Episode “Spock’s Brain”. At least I believe that is the title of it.)

kg

257. A. - January 17, 2008

252. A. – January 17, 2008
249. Xai – January 17, 2008
“A, it’s a new day. Let’s move on. ”

“Xai, your remarks should be directed towards Closettrekker (245). ”

“I know to whom I aimed my remarks at.”

If your intent was to offer advice to “let it go” you would have directed them towards the person who started it, again today. But no, By directing your comments solely towards me, is antagonizing. So let it begin again. It seems both you and Closettrekker want that.

“I also see all the remarks you made to or about me after I left last night.
I thought maybe a new day would see clearer heads, but I now see that you don’t really want to discuss things unless people agree with your thought process and then insult them when they don’t.”

Nonsense, and you know it. I can debate whether HE should or should not be in the film and respect anothers opinion as it is subjective. But the bashers take their opinion to another level, and literally change facts, and THAT is why you and them say he is complaining. He didn’t. THEN you suggest he shoud NOT answer the question. CAn you hear yourselves?

Good day. ”

Now if you REALLY meant it when you said ““A, it’s a new day. Let’s move on” you won’t address this topic. But I KNOW that was not your intent as you SOLEY directed it me, and not the person who started it up today. and you will indeed respond with inflammatory rhetoric (IE you don’t respect other’s opinions, etc…)

258. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Don’t do it, Xai.

kg

259. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

#258–Hi, Katie G. I just wanted to say that I did like DS9 as a series, and if they made a movie, I would go see it. I think the focus will be to take it in reverse, though. While I liked DS9, I think the TOS era was definitely the best. As far as the TNG spinoffs, though, it was the best of the two. We may expect to see some Kurzon Dax in future incarnations. I have always expected Trek to explore the period between STVI and TNG. There is 78 years of adventures there waiting for us. Kurzon has been a character of interest in the novels, particularly in the “Lost Era” series. He was Jadzia’s favorite, I think, and maybe the most colorful of the previous Dax hosts. Before that time, however, I would like to see USS Excelsior under Sulu’s command. There is some potential there, and Takei is young enough to reprise his role.

260. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#259 Closettrekker

Funny you should mention the novels. My friend and I were just talking about all the potential for movies. Shatner could even write his own story about how time was changed and he survived if anyone would come along on the project with him (and unless, of course, there is a copyright problem…). If he went on a training regimen and lost some weight so he would look more like he did when he “died” it could work. I would go see the movie. Heck, I love anything Star Trek.

But there are so MANY ideas there (in the novels), my friend and I were wondering why no one had made any movies. Yes, it would be interesting to see what they would do with Sulu and the Exselsior (although I admit he is not my favourite TOS character).

I want to give Abrams a chance and see if this younger version of some of TOS crew flies. Should be interesting.

Hope your trip to New York is profitable.

kg

261. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Ooops. Sorry Trekkers.

E X C E L S I O R.

kg :)

262. A. - January 17, 2008

If he went on a training regimen and lost some weight so he would look more like he did when he “died” it could work.

Shatner is about the same weight, isn’t he? Looks it to me.
Funny, at the gym we were talking about how losing weight actually ages people in that, being over weight smooths out wrinkles so generally over weight people look younger than slim fit people (ironically enough). That is primarily why Shatner looks good (besides make up). He’s fairly over weight.

263. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

#260—Old clients, always profitable. Our initial meeting was great, though, thanks. Back in the hotel now. He’s not my favorite character, either. I like the big 3–Kirk, Spock, Bones.

264. Closettrekker - January 17, 2008

#261–Have you seen the new (old) Enterprise yet? About what I expected, but I’ll admit to getting a chill down my spine at first glance. December can’t get here fast enough…

265. A. - January 17, 2008

FYI, James Heany brought up Godwin’s law. Although completely unapplicable here, it appears he got somethings wrong.

It made me chuckle as he got wrong both ways

Anyone, one thing he got wrong was as follows
He wrote in post #200 “The relevance of the comparison to the subject matter makes no difference; ”

When in fact it is the opposite:

“The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE SUCH A COMPARISON OR REFERENCE MAY SOMETIMES BE APPROPRIATE, ”

But anyway, he was trying to mislead you all as to it’s “use”. Although irrelevant here, you may want to use theis “law” when someone makes a comparison to Nazi’s or Hitler.
Thanks James for Making my day two days in a row.

266. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#265 + #264 Closettrekker

Yes, I agree. Sulu had his moments but I’m not sure he could carry a whole film. However, I could be wrong!

I LOVE the original three: Kirk, Spock, Bones. I loved the way they wrote Spock and Bones to play off each other while Kirk stood back and watched. When Spock and Bones did have some touching moments it was all the more powerful because of the “animosity” between them — a little like Neelix and Tuvok. Although at the beginning I definitely would have helped Tuvok strangle Neelix (figuratively speaking, of course). To prove my point, when Neelix left Voyager to remain with the Talaxians they found, Tuvok’s attempt at showing Neelix he would loosen up and “dance” was surprisingly emotional. (Darn these emotions.)

Come to think of it, Bones got on my nerves a few times. Guess I am more like Spock — I don’t like all the emotional crap. There were so many time that Bones was in the knee-jerk response mode (being a doctor he should have known about that) and wanted to rush headlong into a situation without thinking things through. However, that could just be called “passion”. I loved when Spock said that he would like to see what would happen to a computer if they put McCoy’s engrams or thoughts (can’t remember exactly) into it. He seemed almost amused at the thought of seeing the chaotic results. Kirk just laughs. Loved those guys. Good thing we have the DVDs etc.

Yes, I noticed the reference to the new Enterprise and I keep forgetting to look it up. Got other stuff going on here and got sidetracked. (Hah! Life keeps getting in the way of my enjoyment of Star Trek.) :)

Never used to want the time to pass so quickly, but I agree. Too bad we couldn’t travel forward in time to the opening. Better still, a little after the opening so the crowds don’t crush us. However, there is something to be said about being in a crowd of people that are cheering for the same reason.

This is getting too long. Will let you know what I think of the new Enterprise.

kg

267. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Don’t know when I’ll talk to everyone again. This “thread” or column of postings will soon disappear from my “Dell Start Page”. I customized it to include Star Trek news but it only offered 9 items and this one is near the bottom now. Don’t know how to access this any other way (unless, of course, I just go to trekmovie.com …).

Hope we’ll meet again on another posting!

kg

268. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

#264 Closettrekker

Finally saw the “new” Enterprise. Wow! I’m impressed! Looks great! I love it! Didn’t see this in the original series (i.e. the history of the ship). It just started with them on it. After all, we came in after Pike was replaced by Kirk. This is exciting! When you enlarge the screen you can see more details. Love it!! Love it!!

I’m okay. Whew.

Regarding the “new look” of the NCC 1701 –

They sort of did the same thing to the Jupiter 2 (is that the right name?) of the series “Lost In Space”. In the 90’s remake it did look identical; then as it took off, it lost the outer part like our old rockets did (stage 1, stage 2 etc.) Actually, the new one looked a lot different than the 1960’s TV show one. I didn’t mind but the purists might. Same with the “new” Enterprise. I’ll take it any ol’ way.

At least this one is pretty close.

(I’M SO EXCITED!!)

kg

269. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 17, 2008

Ah, Katie, we need a forum. Otherwise, I’ll see you around the site.

Personally, I would love–absolutely love–a DS9 movie. Voyager… I don’t know. I don’t know where their story could go without grafting on an artificial plot (like in the Homecoming duology or the VVS8/VVS9 project [two series I enjoyed despite their artificiality]). After all, Voyager’s series premise was fulfilled. Given that, I love the characters and it’d be great to see them again–I just don’t see as much potential for that as I do in a Niner movie. That said… I doubt we’ll ever see either. The money isn’t there. And so I turn to fan fiction and the novels.

As for Kirk, I don’t think there’d be anything wrong with having Bill Shatner in the movie. In fact, I think he’d be great; frankly, he’s attractive, popular, and plays a character who is a personal hero to millions of people, including me. (And I mean “attractive” in a very… broad… sense. Pun intended. :P) I think that the Abrams Five would -love- to get him into the film, because they’d be crazy not to (it -would- be good for business), but the simple fact is that the most important thing in Star Trek is the story–its themes, how it flows, how it feels when you leave the theater. I would be concerned that shoehorning Shatner into the script would damage it.

Take, for example, Star Trek II, which, while not the highest-grossing, is generally accepted as one of the best and quite possibly the best Trek movies. If you watch that movie carefully, you’ll notice something very unusual: there is not a single wasted moment anywhere in the script. Every single line advances one of a half-dozen plot threads; every scene contributes to the movie’s overall theme, which turns out to be very powerful. The movie ranges over a lot of territory and does a tremendous number of things, yes, and that is half its power, but the other half comes from the laser-sharp *focus* the movie has from moment to moment.

Now, let’s say you have the Star Trek II script in front of you in 1982, and Robert De Niro, fresh off his Oscar, drops by, reveals he is a huge Trekkie, and asks to make a cameo in the new movie. You have a flawless masterpiece of writing. How the crap are you going to put a new guy into the movie–even if you write him just one new line, it’s disruptive. I’d tell De Niro to wait for TSFS and we’ll try to figure it out before I write the script.

Now, with Shatner, it’s even worse. At least you could cast De Niro as a redshirt. Distracting, disruptive, and wasteful of a moment of beautiful narrative flow, but the damage would at least be minimal. You add in Shatner to Trek XI, you are automatically adding in a new plot point involving J.T. Kirk. That’s big stuff. You’re looking at at *least* three sentences, in a best-case scenario, and audience brain processing time that *should* be dedicated to the main plot and the thematic insights that stem from it. It’s dangerous to lose your focus like that. It could well wreck what was otherwise a filmmaking tour de force. (Nemesis could have learned much from this principle, rather than just throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the script.) If you don’t feel you can safely write that into the script, you don’t it, period, and so I’m trusting Orci and Kurtzman’s judgement on this one. I’d love to see Kirk in the movie, but, if they’re willing to pass up the opportunity to have Shatner and all the accompanying fanfare he would bring in order to avoid the damage he would do to the story, I trust that they have darned good reason to think as they do. It might be good for business, but if it damages the film then it isn’t worth it.

I’m avoiding the Enterprise image until Cloverfield tonight… MIDNIGHT!

270. A. - January 17, 2008

269. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008
“I’d love to see Kirk in the movie, ”

He is.

Oh, another little something you should know about Godwin’s law. Godwin’s law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Which of course is EXACTLY what you did. LOL. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin’s law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.

You’re welcome.

271. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

Why does Shatner need to be in this?
He’s obviously not written in at this point and as James Heany said (above) adding him would likely ruin a good script. He’s said he doesn’t want a cameo.
He’s complained about this being a bad business decision and has insulted JJ. I hear little of his own bad business decision (from him) that resulted in William Shatner effectively killing James T. Kirk, his best known part.
That one act likely cost him a huge part in what would have been the script for ST08.
Yes, I’ve read all the arguments repeated in here before. “It’s science fiction.. anything can happen.” “If they were good writers, they’d have found a way to get him in.” (sorry Roberto, making a point), etc.
Killing Kirk made it very difficult to write this story and bring him back in a proper way.
May I suggest to those who scold the production team for their “bad business decision”..you aren’t hearing the whole story in my opinion. There’s more to be told about the conversations between Shatner and JJ’s team.
Trek is now filming during a writers strike. Unless that is resolved now, nearly any chance of seeing Shatner written in at the 11th hour is gone.
There are few people that hate William Shatner. But there are people that don’t see a need now that the film’s in production.
I would have been happy without Nimoy too. It’s not like I dislike either, I just think it was time to relaunch without the “training wheels”. It’s time for fandom to start coming together, putting aside differences and look forward to a new movie with old friends.

272. A. - January 17, 2008

271. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
“He’s complained about this being a bad business decision and has insulted JJ”

For the recrod, he didn’t complain. HE asked and he commented.

“Killing Kirk made it very difficult to write this story and bring him back in a proper way.”

I don’t care whether he is in it, or not but him dying in Generations is NOT the reason why he isn’t it. They ahve another story in mind, and that is fine. But they could easily bring him back.

“May I suggest to those who scold the production team for their “bad business decision”..you aren’t hearing the whole story in my opinion. There’s more to be told about the conversations between Shatner and JJ’s team”

Wouldn’t surprise me. Maybe he wanted too much money. Sp-0eculating at this point.
My guess is they simpler had an idea that did not involve an older Kirk. Having said that, it is stupid not to include him for business reasons. Easy money to include Shatner. IT would make MORE sense to me not to have any of the TOS crew, than excluding Shatner.

“Trek is now filming during a writers strike. Unless that is resolved now, nearly any chance of seeing Shatner written in at the 11th hour is gone.”
I think it was gone long ago. A hope of a secret appearance is fantasy in my opinion.

I saw pics of Pine, and I gotta say more and more he looks like the part for, what I suspect will be a very good re-launch of Kirk and the boys. But I have yet to see him act in anything so I ahve no clue. But JJ is a very creative guy. I doubt the average fan will be disappointed. Zealots however, will be.

273. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 17, 2008

I, of course, meant the original Kirk, as I think was clear from context.

You’re becoming more human every day, A. Now you’re learning how to cherry-pick from Wikipedia. (FC quote FTW!) If you read -any- of the rest of that article (which admittedly is flawed; the [citation needed] fact is, in fact, false) you’ll notice the rephrasings from The Economist and Wired, and there is of course the big sentence at the top of the paragraph saying that “there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.” And, of course, even the Reason article acknowledged the Godwin’s law corollary–the article was an argument that Godwin should be repealed, not that there are exceptions to it! Read your sources!

(And, as we know, the Internet went ahead and collectively ignored that article. Godwin’s Law remains in force. If you’d care to continue flouting Internet Law, that is, of course, your choice, but I and most other serious users will ignore you.)

Incidentally, though he doesn’t explicitly state the corollary–he never has–the originator of the Law has a nice article in a 1990 issue of wired:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

I think I’m suffering from a case of the Spocks: the physical inability to let someone else get the last word. Ah, well. Maybe we’ll make it to 300 posts.

I don’t suppose you’d care to comment on any of the actual content of 269, would you, A?

274. A. - January 17, 2008

“You’re becoming more human every day, A. Now you’re learning how to cherry-pick from Wikipedia. (FC quote FTW!) If”

Tis you that Cherry picked. Then you either mistakenly, or purposely lied, and try to say I equated anything to Nazi’s or Hitler, which of course is not the case. Have you apologized for that yet, no. Point toeh Phrase where I do that? You can’t as it did not happen.

But I like to keep facts as facts, and the fact is in Godwin’s law (which by the way is not law at all in life or physics. It’s something someone made up, when frustrated proven wrong by using extreme examples) comprision to such ARE ALLOWED. Something you claimed WAS NOT!!!! It is.

“there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”
First off, tradition IS NOT LAW! Second, please show me where I mention Nazi’s in the example I gave? You can’t because it didn’t happen. The sooner you admit that the sooner you’ll get SOME credibility back.

principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.” And, of course, even the Reason article acknowledged the Godwin’s law corollary–the article was an argument that Godwin should be repealed, not that there are exceptions to it! Read your sources!

Yes, you really must do that and ESPECIALLY know what you are talking about on two points
NCC-1701A know when Godwins law can be used. That is to comparisons to Nazi’s and Hitler, It was not.
NCC-1701B Know that you cannot use it just to try as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. You should know this since you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert.

“(And, as we know, the Internet went ahead and collectively ignored that article. Godwin’s Law remains in force. If you’d care to continue flouting Internet Law, that is, of course, your choice, but I and most other serious users will ignore you.”
Your memory is REMARKABLY short. YOU flouted thi law when you uised it inappropriately.
“I don’t suppose you’d care to comment on any of the actual content of 269, would you, A?”
what? YoU ARE SUPPOSE TO BE IGNORING ME if you belive you’ve used your law, correctly. LOL. Obviously you now realize you did not. For the record (as in the way this thread got started), this law was created by frustrated people who kept losing argument with extremem examples. You see, extreme examples often DO prove a point and that is when people get frustrated, and create “laws”.
But to answer your question, some of what you say is interesting, but I’m focusing on keeping facts straight here and that takes enough of my time (ie Shatner NOT complaining, Misinterpretation of Godwin’s law, etc)

275. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

272. A. – January 17, 2008
271. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
“He’s complained about this being a bad business decision and has insulted JJ”

For the recrod, he didn’t complain. HE asked and he commented.

— “For the record? What record? You keep track?
I’ve read your posts above since I first posted tonight. I’m sorry you have a BIG problem with definitions of “complaint”. But in my opinion (and others, it seems)… it’s complaining.

“Killing Kirk made it very difficult to write this story and bring him back in a proper way.”

I don’t care whether he is in it, or not but him dying in Generations is NOT the reason why he isn’t it. They ahve another story in mind, and that is fine. But they could easily bring him back.
— The production team is quoted as saying the death of Shatner’s Kirk made it very difficult to get an Old Kirk into the film. While it MAY not be the only factor, it was a factor and based on other quotes, likely a major one.

276. A. - January 17, 2008

275. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
– “For the record? What record? You keep track?”
Yes, I do. You see he’s asked in interviews and when he express”s the fact it is a stupid decision, people suggest that is complaining.
If I ask you do you like my cooking and you say no, is that complaining? Of course not. Futhermore, people have suggestet here he refuse to answer that question. LOL. My suggestion is STOP READING HIS INTERVIEWS if you dislike what he has to say when asked.

“I’ve read your posts above since I first posted tonight. I’m sorry you have a BIG problem with definitions of “complaint”. But in my opinion (and others, it seems)… it’s complaining.”
It seems then you have a different definition of the word, when it comes to William Shatner.

“– The production team is quoted as saying the death of Shatner’s Kirk made it very difficult to get an Old Kirk into the film. While it MAY not be the only factor, it was a factor and based on other quotes, likely a major one. ”

Just strikes me as so implausible because as you know in Sci Fi, anything is easily possible (and can be done as well as reviving Spock, at least) Sounds more like an excuse.
But based on Pine’s look alone, he is a good fit. I’ll be curious when I rent the film.

277. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

276. A. – January 17, 2008
As I said… I read your multiple posts on “complaining” and I can’t agree with that definition and it makes no matter if it’s applied to Shatner or anyone else. You don’t know me, so don’t imply I view one person’s comments differently from another.

278. A. - January 17, 2008

277. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
“276. A. – January 17, 2008
As I said… I read your multiple posts on “complaining” and I can’t agree with that definition and it makes no matter if it’s applied to Shatner or anyone else. You don’t know me, so don’t imply I view one person’s comments differently from another. ”

I just have trouble believing ANYONE would honestly if asked a question, and you answered honestly, that can be called “complaining”. It isn’t. If they do, they have trouble with the definition.
Not knowing you has nothing to do with it.

279. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 17, 2008

*sigh*

A., I hoped to bring you out of the darkness of n00bishness by causing you to accept Godwin’s wisdom so that you might resume discussion within traditional Internet parameters. It was an invitation, which you clearly reject, based on your own abnormal standards of what constitutes the rules of discourse. You’re welcome to those rules; it’s just that you’ll never convince anyone of what you think and people will mostly engage with you out of a combination of frustration and amusement.

I thought it preferable to bring you up to the level of the rest of the Internet, but you’ve decided that your sentence in 164 regarding Holocaust deniers does not constitute a violation of Godwin, nor that Godwin is a good rule, and so you remain a n00b.

This is fine by me; n00bs are amusing. I return now to my aforepromised lurking. Good evening, all, and, please, enjoy yourself, Orbitallic.

280. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

278. A. – January 17, 2008

You care to clean up that statement? It looks like I’ve been accused of lying and I will wait before reacting. I gave an honest opinion.

281. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

good night Wowbagger

282. A. - January 17, 2008

280. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
“278. A. – January 17, 2008

You care to clean up that statement? It looks like I’ve been accused of lying and I will wait before reacting. I gave an honest opinion. ”

No, the statement properly reflects my views.

283. A. - January 17, 2008

279. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008
*sigh*
“A., I hoped to bring you out of the darkness of n00bishness by causing you to accept Godwin’s wisdom so that you might resume discussion within traditional Internet parameters.”
You see, Godwin’s law, does not apply here. The sooner you admit that, the sooner we can move on. For the third time, show were I compare anything or anyone to Nazi’s or Hitler. IT did not happen.
Having said that, such comparisons can be valid contrary to what you claim. If you don’t know this you should have before bring it up.
“ It was an invitation, which you clearly reject, based on your own abnormal standards”
My standards are vastly superior to yours as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. But I like your continual inflammatory remarks, which by the way bring a smile to my face rather than bother me, which is of course your aim. LOL
“ of what constitutes the rules of discourse. You’re welcome to those rules; it’s just that you’ll never convince anyone of what you think and people will mostly engage with you out of a combination of frustration and amusement.”
Most people are incapable of admitting they are wrong. You are a perfect example. You brought up Godwin’s law when it pertains to Nazis and Hitler and my comparison had no such comparison. But you refuse to admit that as evidenced here, repeatedly now.
“I thought it preferable to bring you up to the level of the rest of the Internet, but you’ve decided that your sentence in 164 regarding Holocaust deniers does not constitute a violation of Godwin, nor that Godwin is a good rule, and so you remain a n00b.”
And it doesn’t. Ask any “expert”. Furthermore, you used it as a distraction or diversion, as my comparison was a valid one. Godwin’s law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons, such as you have done here. But of course you refuse to admit this as it would invalidate your entire argument.
“This is fine by me; n00bs are amusing. I return now to my aforepromised lurking. Good evening, all, and, please, enjoy yourself, Orbitallic. “
Oh, I highly doubt you’ll refrain from posting for doing so would equate to losing, in your mind.

284. Orbitalic - January 17, 2008

I suspected that.
I can see why you drove people out of here like James, Xai and Katie. It’s a shame Anthony only gave you a warning. But it’s likely you ignored it because you felt he was wrong too.

My opinion, which you’ll find to be wrong, is that you are a very lonely person.

285. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

Can anyone tell me who’s idea it was to kill Kirk in “Generations” (or ST:VII)? Was it the writers’ idea or the directors idea or was it Shatner’s idea to die a glorious death (which by the way was an anti-climax, as his last words were (and I quote) “oh my…”. I never did know who orchestrated that fiasco. I know everyone dies (some day) but c’mon. James T. Kirk? NEVER. Yet, he dieth. Oh my.

Also

279. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008

and

277. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008

Guys, don’t go there. It will just descend into madness and/or get closed down by Anthony. I made the mistake of continually discussing things thereby keeping it going. Do yourself a favour and don’t invest the time. It is time you can’t get back (because we don’t live in the Star Trek universe).

I’ll keep posting here until the thread disappears then I’ll find you guys elsewhere. (Eww. That sounded rather creepy in a stalkish kind of way.) You know what I mean.

Peace and long life (and everyone says “…

kg

286. A. - January 17, 2008

284. Orbitalic – January 17, 2008
“I suspected that.
I can see why you drove people out of here like James, Xai and Katie. It’s a shame Anthony only gave you a warning. But it’s likely you ignored it because you felt he was wrong too.”

LOL. You are very funny, now suggesting I should have got more than a warning. Why? Because you’re getting more and frustrated with losing your argument here. So you try and suggest my “punishment” should ahve been more severe. I guess I should just say, get a grip on reality.

My opinion, which you’ll find to be wrong, is that you are a very lonely person. ”
Two responses
1) yes, you are wrong. My phone rang not less than 8 times this evening, inviting me out with others. I declined as I am not drinking these days
2) More inflammatory words.. You notice how those who are wrong, get uglier and uglier with their attacks?

All this, and more becuase you are so angry that Shatner’s words were not complaining. And you’re trying to suggest I have issues? LOL

287. Katie G. - January 17, 2008

269. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008

Regarding DS9 movie, I guess it would be more adventures similar to what we were accustomed to on the space station with the odd “trek” :-) here and there. Wonder why they left Sisco with the Prophets? I always thought it was to leave the door open for more so I kept my hopes up.

Voyager could do the same. Now that they are back, they could have more adventures in the Alpha Quadrant for a change. Seven of Nine is one of the best characters Trek has ever come up with (along with Spock, Data, Q, K’Ehleyr, Hugh, Jadzia Dax, Odo, The Doctor).

Guess we’ll have to wait and see. The fans of LOTR probably never dreamed that someone would actually do what Peter Jackson has done so there’s always hope. Let’s do it before the actors get too old!!!

Good-night.

kg

288. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 17, 2008

Katie, we never seem to be on at the same time. But you need not warn me off of A. As I have said, I find him amusing, and I believe Anthony has formally shaken his head in disgust and given up on this thread after a few quick deletions he made last night. And, orbitallic, don’t worry; you couldn’t shake me off of TMR with gaffi sticks. (I suppose TMR is now an obselete acronym, since it’s no longer called the Trek Movie Report. Ah, well. Never caught on anyway.) And I have the time to post because it turns out I have much less of a life than A.

The idea of killing Kirk in Generations, as I understand it, was batted around by Berman and Braga. Ronald D. Moore (architect of some of the greatest hours of Trek ever and now showrunner of nuBSG) thought it would make a great opportunity to write a movie talking about death and loss. (Hence the loss of the Picard family, the Enterprise-D, and the whole darned nexus–and, on the flip side, how life moves on despite the pain, as with Worf’s promotion or Data’s emotional evolution.) Braga and Moore wrote the script. Bill Shatner enthusiastically signed on.

Notably, Nimoy, despite being part of the original draft, declined the role, saying, “There’s no role for Spock in this script;” essentially, he believed that his lines were so generic they could go to anyone. And, in fact, that was exactly what they did: Spock’s lines were split up, and Chekov and Scotty suddenly appeared in the script.

Unfortunately, the script simply didn’t come out as well as it might have. You can occasionally, watching the movie, see the themes screaming to come together into a focus, but they are ineveitably broken up by an off-tone plot-advancement sequence (usually involving the Sisters of Duras). This, Ron Moore later said in one of his many famous online chat sessions during the run of DS9, was partly because the crew and cast underestimated the insanity of the end of TNG Season 7. They were, for several days, literally switching between filming “All Good Things…” and filming Generations, based on what sets were ready. As we all know, “All Good Things…” came out as one of the greatest Treks in history (in my opinion, *the* greatest). Generations… did not.

In fact, you might be interested in seeing the original ending of Generations, mentioned as long ago as the writing of “Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of the Future”, but only recently leaked to YouTube (where it was featured on this website). In it, Kirk dies even more pointlessly than he did in the theatrical release, and the movie abruptly ended. This was actually shown to test audiences, who walked out of the theaters like they had been to a funeral, and the whole team was called back to rewrite and refilm the end of the movie, in which Kirk was given a far more fitting–if still somehow unsatisfying–death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpO3TJCPRk

As I recall from the time–and I admit I was very young–the killing of Kirk in Generations, while not as heroic as it ought to have been, was considered in the abstract to be a good idea by most people (not all). It was a passing of the torch to the new generation of movies. Yes, it was an odd-numbered movie, and people noted it as such, but it was not considered by any means a bad movie. Shortly before the movie premiered, in fact, Kirk and Picard were featured on the cover of TIME Magazine, and the franchise was given a glowing feature. Star Trek was at its height, and would continue to soar until Insurrection saw a sudden dropoff in box office receipts compared to First Contact, and the realization began to sink in that the ratings decline was not a random fluctuation. This led to the rise of basher culture.

Only in the very recent past, as bashers have become more and more ascendant with the cancellation of Enterprise and the much-ballyhooed “death of Star Trek” (to which I say, “Reports of my assimiliation of been greatly exaggerated) has it become acceptable and even normal to consider Generations a sucky installment in the Trek film franchise. This, I believe, is because the bashers have been gradually winning ground and will soon be in a position to criticize ALL post-Roddenberry Trek as substandard. And, of course, the fact that Star Trek VII may well prevent our beloved Captain Kirk from appearing in XI has not helped its popularity one iota.

Still… Bill thought it was a great idea. So did most everyone else. Now Nimoy reaps the benefits of ignoring popular opinion.

As for DS9, I see a lot of plot threads left to be touched. One would have to be -extremely- choosy–you simply can’t bring in everything–but there are a number of episodes, characters, and villians that send chills down my spine and which are still “in play,” such as (most obviously) Sisko being in the wormhole. Much as I enjoy Voyager and her characters, I don’t see very many plots, if any, that haven’t been fairly well closed up (or which are better left forgotten. Yeah, I’m looking at you, “Dark Frontier!” :P). And Voyager has the advantage of being rather easy to understand from the get-go. I can’t imagine the difficulty of doing a DS9 pre-movie exposition dump and having it make any sense, much less have it fit in with the rest of the film. But, hey, I’d see either movie either way–probably several times. Gosh, I miss those shows.

Anyhow, Trek history lesson of the night. All of that’s from memory, so some of the particulars may be wrong. But not many.

289. A. - January 17, 2008

288. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008
“Katie, we never seem to be on at the same time. But you need not warn me off of A. As I have said, I find him amusing, and I believe Anthony has formally shaken his head in disgust and given up on this thread after a few quick deletions he made last night. And”

Yet another attempted dig. So you are the spokes person for Anthony? LOL. Disgust? Hardly, tis you that keeps this going. That’s OK, I” bite when you bait. But if I was the owner of this site, you would have been kicked out and banned long ago for your continual and blatant inflammatory behaviour.
Deletions? You are mistaken (presumably), but sometimes posts disappear for a while then reappear.

You’re welcome.

290. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

“Deletions? You are mistaken (presumably), but sometimes posts disappear for a while then reappear.”

Remember the three posts last night that were nothing but punctuation marks? They’ve been gone all day. I think they were deleted. Could be wrong. No great loss, in any case.

As for Anthony, I only speculate. Further, I speculate that he shook his head at the entire thread with disgust–not just your posts but our continued responses. He hates the should-Shater-be-in-XI topic with some passion, based on what I’ve seen previously from him here and at the TrekBBS. Makes some sense, because he’s been moderating the same bloody subject in several scores of threads for six months, though this one has been by -far- the most entertaining (and one of the lengthiest).

So, in short, for once, I wasn’t deliberately trying to provoke you, A.. For once.

291. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

288. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 17, 2008

Wow — James — above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks! You’re a great help and extremely articulate!!

Although I am a rabid fan, I guess I’m not an expert — don’t delve as deeply as others into the issues because, as I said, I am rather a “newbie” at the whole internet thing. I have all of the series’ “companion” books except for “Enterprise” but have since found the website startrek.com and it has everything I need. I do prefer having the info in hard copy with the computer as supplementary, but that’s okay. Have never been to a convention. Find the crowds intimidating. However, I’m beginning to realize I really missed out on a wonderful experience.

Sorry about the warning. I didn’t know whether you had seen the particular posts or not and wanted to prevent another cataclysm. However, I see you are totally capable of dealing with difficult situations.

This posting column under the article “Shatner on Being Poor, Almost Dying, and the New Movie” has disappeared from my “Dell Start Page” but I found you again under trekmovie.com. I’m learning…

Have a great day, and thanks again for investing so much time in your explanation of my question!!

I just love talking “Trek”!!

kg

292. VOODOO - January 18, 2008

#288

“Bill thought it was a great idea. Now Nimoy reaps the benefit of ignoring popular culture”

Mr Nimoy was correct in passing on that script, but why is he given a free pass (Nimoy agreed to kill his character off in ST II) yet Shatner is somehow held to higher standards?

Take out Kirk’s death and Generations is still a mess.

293. Closettrekker - January 18, 2008

#278–Looks like Anthony is calling it “complaining” as well. Look at the most recent thread posted.
Look, as a younger man (in my 20’s), I spent some years in restaurant management. If I went around to tables and asked, “How is everything this evening?”, and someone answered that something was “disappointing”(Shatner said he was “disappointed”) about our customer service, then that server got an attachment to his/her record. Can you guess what that attachment was called? That’s right–a complaint. It made no difference that the “expression of disatisfaction (by your definition)or disappointment” was solicited or not, just that such a feeling was expressed.
Looks like you’ve called someone else a liar. Wow. I have been around this site for a long time, and never have I seen someone so bitter and intolerant of someone else’s legitimate posts. Why are you so personally offended at some of us exercising our right to criticize Bill’s handling of certain questions? Are you a relative? That is the only way I could come close to understanding it.
Anyway, in the interest of peace and the restoration of harmony, I would like to ask you one more time to stop accusing people whose opinions vary from yours of lying. That is completely unnecessary. We all welcome you to disagree–that is the nature sometimes of these forums–but you can simply say so without personal or inflammatory attack. Katie G. was a newcomer to this site, and you very nearly made her (a fellow Trek fan) feel unwelcome, and you did not represent the rest of us well. I no longer ask for an apology, as I can see that is not in your nature, but just that you respect opinions here that may very often differ from yours. It is not alot to ask. I hope that you receive this with a more open mind.

294. A. - January 18, 2008

290. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
“Remember the three posts last night that were nothing but punctuation marks? They’ve been gone all day. I think they were deleted. Could be wrong. No great loss, in any case.”

Ah, I stand corrected. Those are deleted although I didn’t consider those real posts since there was no content.

“So, in short, for once, I wasn’t deliberately trying to provoke you, A.. For once.”

So then, you DO acknowledge you were before! tsk tsk tsk. But at least you admit it. Most people are not capable of even that.

295. A. - January 18, 2008

293. Closettrekker – January 18, 2008
“278–Looks like Anthony is calling it “complaining” as well. Look at the most recent thread posted.”

Refer to post #, please. But regardless, while entitle to an opinion, that does not mean it was complaining. I’ve noticed you all avoid my questions, presumably because it makes my point soooo well. If I cook you dinner, then ask how is it, and you reply “It has waaay too much spice”, is that complaining? No, of course not.

“ook, as a younger man (in my 20’s), I spent some years in restaurant management. If I went around to tables and asked, “How is everything this evening?”, and someone answered that something was “disappointing”(Shatner said he was “disappointed”) about our customer service, then that server got an attachment to his/her record. Can you guess what that attachment was called? That’s right–a complaint. It made no difference that the “expression of dissatisfaction (by your definition)or disappointment” was solicited or not, just that such a feeling was expressed.”

Well this is very very ironic, as I DO work in a restaurant. IF someone complains (That is says “excuse me, can you come over here please? This meal sucks”) then we remedy the situation. BUT if we are taking a “survey” of the meals, then we write down the observations, as “FEEDBACK!”

You’re use of the term “complaint was, and still is incorrect.

“Looks like you’ve called someone else a liar. Wow. I have been around this site for a long time, and never have I seen someone so bitter and intolerant of someone else’s legitimate posts.”

Do you understand the term liar? I bet you think it’s just when you can get “caught” stealing, then deny it. No, it is when you say one thing, but KNOW another.

“Why are you so personally offended at some of us exercising our right to criticize Bill’s handling of certain questions? Are you a relative?”
You really need to follow James lead and admit your words are to provoke.
No not a relative. Not even a fan. Just don’t like to see facts distorted and he did not complain.
As for your “right” to your opinion, I don’t have a problem with. But you do not have a right to your facts, and that is what we are talking about.
Tell us, Why is it SOOOO IMPORTANT for you to try and convince others that SHatner was complaining, when he wasn’t? You suggested I was a relative, which I am not. Are part of some Anti-Shatner club? Seems like the only reasonable explanation.

“Anyway, in the interest of peace and the restoration of harmony, I would like to ask you one more time to stop accusing people whose opinions vary from yours of lying.”

You seem to forget, people mislead inj life ALL THE TIME-ESPECIALLY online as they can get away with it more. So if someone says something that cannot be true in a person of right mind (and I do assume most of you are in your right mind) then that person is lying. I catch people weekly lying, prove them wrong. Some apologize, and SOME GET SUPER ANGRY such as some of you. Then I prove it further, and they eventually disappear out of embarrassment, or own up to it an apologize. Which will you do?
“sometimes of these forums–but you can simply say so without personal or inflammatory attack.”

Uhm your words should be directed to towards that started lying about shatner, and those who attacked me first. But you’re too short sited to see that, aren’t you.

“Katie G. was a newcomer to this site, and you very nearly made her (a fellow Trek fan) feel unwelcome”

BAH HA HAHA. Are you KIDDING ME!!!! Are you JOKING!!? That is the most risiculous statement I have heard in a long time. I made her feel unwelcome. I learned loooong ago nobody can make me feel anything.

“ and you did not represent the rest of us well.”
ISo no, unless I toe your line I’m not representing Trekker well? I’ve news for you, I’m not a Trekker in any way, shape or form.
And by the way, your words should be directed then, towards the Shatner Bashers.
You really need to re-read your posts. Very funny.
“ I no longer ask for an apology, as I can see that is not in your nature, but just that you respect opinions here that may very often differ from yours. It is not alot to ask. I hope that you receive this with a more open mind.”

I apologize frequently for my behavior, That is why I have such high standards on others., Most people are incapable of apologizing, and I am above that. I do when I am wrong.
It is clear you are not and have among the most closed minds in this forum.
I do respect other opinions, and well embark in civil discussion if mine differs. But if someone starts distorting facts, and begins attacks on me, then things will escalate. You’ve conveniently forgot that is what happened here.

296. jonson roth - January 18, 2008

Given that Star Trek XI is actually a prequel to TOS, and that Nimoy is in it, why would it be more implausible that Shatner be in it? We are talking science fiction, and we’re talking several time lines in this new movie. I agree with Shatner: it’s a stupid decision not to have him in it. On the other hand, I really believe he’ll still be in it, but it all hinges on the WGA writer’s strike ending sooner rather than later – especially if the movie will be released earlier than Dec 25th.

297. A. - January 18, 2008

296. jonson roth – January 18, 2008
“Given that Star Trek XI is actually a prequel to TOS, and that Nimoy is in it, why would it be more implausible that Shatner be in it? We are talking science fiction, and we’re talking several time lines in this new movie. I agree with Shatner: it’s a stupid decision not to have him in it. On the other hand, I really believe he’ll still be in it, but it all hinges on the WGA writer’s strike ending sooner rather than later – especially if the movie will be released earlier than Dec 25th. ”

I wouldn’t see it as stupid if none of the crew was there. But to have only half of the original dynamic duo, is, well…..stupid.
I doubt he’ll be in it. AS hard as it is to believe (and when I tell people, the invariable question is, why isn’t he?) I don’t really care to be honest. But if the goal is money (and of course it is) it makes more sense to have him in it, than not. They’ll still get my money, but as a rental.

298. Xai - January 18, 2008

293. Closettrekker
290. James Heaney – Wowbagger
291. Katie G.
284. Orbitalic

This thread is still moving? Wow.

299. A. - January 18, 2008

298. Xai – January 18, 2008
“293. Closettrekker
290. James Heaney – Wowbagger
291. Katie G.
284. Orbitalic

This thread is still moving? Wow. ”

LOL. My feelings are hurt.

300. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

Ahem. 300th post!

Yeah, Xai, this is the only thread I can read right now–I’m seeing Cloverfield tonight or tomorrow, and am trying desperately to avoid all trailer or feature spoilers, which means I can’t read any other recent articles on this site. (tear)

Katie, thank you for your thanks. It warms my heart to know that all the hundreds of hours I have invested (or, depending on your POV, wasted_ in cramming information about a fictional universe and its production into my head can occasionally prove to be somewhat useful to someone. :P (And it is always a pleasure to share.)

I will recommend that you check out memory-alpha.org as a possible substitute for StarTrek.com; M-A is a truly incredible resource and is vastly more informative than the ST.com library (and, what’s more, ST.com was recently shut down and its staff fired, so it’s not exactly updating anymore). I also recommend fiveminute.net, simply because I’ve been plugging that site at every opportunity for umpteen years now.

Jonson Roth, my thoughts on Kirk’s disinclusion are in Post #269.

301. Cosettrekker - January 18, 2008

#295–I can’t see how you can show us a definition, then not accept it yourself. You said the definition of “complain” was “to express dissatisfaction…,etc.” What in that definition says that the expression has to be unsolicited? One more time… Shatner said, “I am disappointed.” Are you really trying to convince someone that is not an expression of dissatisfaction? Webster’s defines it as “an exspression of discontent”. How can you be content, or satisfied for that matter, and say that you are disappointed? Moreover, how on Earth could you call it a lie to interpret it the way both dictionaries say it is? Nowhere in either text does it say that expression must be unsolicited, and that is a fact–not a lie. Now, this thread is old. If you still wish to pretend that you are not defeated, join us on the latest comments on Shatner and the new film thread.

By the way, if you ask me about your cooking, and I say that I am disappointed—then it IS a complaint!

302. A. - January 18, 2008

301. Cosettrekker – January 18, 2008
“#295–I can’t see how you can show us a definition, then not accept it yourself. You said the definition of “complain” was “to express dissatisfaction…,etc.” What in that definition says that the expression has to be unsolicited? One more time… Shatner said, “I am disappointed.””

So then using YOUR definition, if your mom asks how your meal is, and you don’t like it, You’re complaining. That’s crazy talk. The definition provided reinforces what I say.
I’m sorry it bothers you to a great extent that he didn’t complain, but he didn’t. No more than you are to your mom or Dad when they ask you how the meal was. Using your logic, every film review that does not give 100% endorsement is a complaint.

I just saw cloverfield this afternoon and was disappointed on some levels. That is not a complaint. IF I volunteering how AWFUL it was over and over again, then maybe. But that is not what Shatner did. He was asked, he answered what he though, and it is true. Business wise it is a stupid decision.

“How can you be content, or satisfied for that matter, and say that you are disappointed? Moreover, how on Earth could you call it a lie to interpret it the way both dictionaries say it is? Nowhere in either text does it say that expression must be unsolicited, and that is a fact–not a lie:”
First off, both dictionaries are dummying it down. For one when volunteers a complaint, that is still an expression. And you can be asked AND complain when ranting, but that is not he case here. HE was asked and expressed an opinion as curiosity and puzzlement. That is not he same thing as saying “Damn it, THEY HAVE TO PUT ME IN THERE” over and over again. He said it was a stupid decision business wise, and it is. That is not complaining. That is feedback.

It’s either a lie because you KNOW that it isn’t a complaint but just are 1being difficult for difficult sake
2)You do not know what the term “complaint” means.

“lie. Now, this thread is old. If you still wish to pretend that you are not defeated”

LOL. NIce attempt buddy to pretend that I am defeated. That is the cry of someone who knows they are wrong. Kinda like invoking Godwins law when not applicable. Thank you.

“By the way, if you ask me about your cooking, and I say that I am disappointed—then it IS a complaint! ”

No it isn’t. If that was the case, every comment that was not 100% in favour of any scenario would be a complaint.

303. A. - January 18, 2008

OK, here is a question for you. If you deem Shatners comments as “Complaining” and you , when asked about your parents cooking you say it is good but has too much salt, deem as “complaining”
How could it be possible to offer ANY criticism, or ask ANY question such as “Why didn’t they do this, that or the other” without complaining. Using the logic of the anti-Shatner’s you cannot offer such without complaining which is asinine.

304. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

Hey, A., I just pulled out Roget’s thesaurus:

Turns out that “complain” and “criticize” are synonyms. So, no, Shatner cannot offer criticism without complaining. That’s not asinine; it’s English.

(Looks at watch… notes that resolution to ignore A. lasted less than a day. Shrugs.)

305. Litenbug - January 18, 2008

A.
“Mother, your soup is delicious.”
Complimentary opinion.

“Mother, your soup is a little too salty.”
Complaint.

“OK, here is a question for you. If you deem Shatners comments as “Complaining” and you , when asked about your parents cooking, you say it is good but has too much salt, deem as “complaining”

Yes.

“…every comment that was not 100% in favour of any scenario would be a complaint. ”

Yes.

A. What do you do for a living?
After reading the highlights above, I don’t see why this is a mystery for you. Criticism and complaints can be minor or major. An observation, comment, feedback or whatever you are choosing to call it can also be a complaint. Note I said “can”.

If you are truly that concerned about us understanding your point, I’d ask that you do a little survey of the people around you… work and home and see what they say and let us know.

306. A. - January 18, 2008

304. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
“Hey, A., I just pulled out Roget’s thesaurus:

Turns out that “complain” and “criticize” are synonyms. So, no, Shatner cannot offer criticism without complaining. That’s not asinine; it’s English.

(Looks at watch… notes that resolution to ignore A. lasted less than a day. Shrugs.) ”

LOL. LOL. You actually think that means they are the same thing? REALLY?!! LOL. A thesaurus is mean to offer alternatives to similar words. But the reason we have different words is for different things. IF they TRULY mean the same thing, they would have the same definition, right? But NO!! Take a look for yourself. they will NOT have the same definition.
crit·i·cize .
–verb (used with object) 1. to censure or find fault with.
2. to judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.
–verb (used without object) 3. to find fault; judge unfavorably or harshly.
4. to make judgments as to merits and faults.

com·plain
–verb (used without object) 1. to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault: He complained constantly about the noise in the corridor.
2. to tell of one’s pains, ailments, etc.: to complain of a backache.
3. to make a formal accusation: If you think you’ve been swindled, complain to the police.

you’ll notice they differ substantially. If they meant the same thing as you said, they would be identical. They do not.

OH and before you start stating of constructive criticism means the same thing as “criticism.” it doesn’t. For the record, constructive criticism means the following:
Definition: criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.

So I really suggest you learn the difference between critism, contructive critism, complain, and critisize.

I must express gratitude for helping me prove my point. IT would not have occurred to me had you not used the thesaurus. so again, thanks for PROVING my point, AGAIN!!

LOL. You are really making my day, three days in a row. Thank you.

“(Looks at watch… notes that resolution to ignore A. lasted less than a day. Shrugs.) ”

That was very predictable. People arguing for arguing sakes never to stop. And you won’t

307. Xai - January 18, 2008

299. A. – January 18, 2008
298. Xai – January 18, 2008
“293. Closettrekker
290. James Heaney – Wowbagger
291. Katie G.
284. Orbitalic

This thread is still moving? Wow. ”

“LOL. My feelings are hurt. ”

Don’t expect a sympathy card.
You’ve shown little humanity toward anyone on this thread. If someone disagrees with you they are judged either a liar or get insulted. The people named above may or may not agree with me, but they have shown that they know this is a discussion, not a verbal war or mockery.

308. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

You didn’t say “constructive criticism” in #303. You said “ANY criticism.”

Now, if there’s some difference between “to censure or find fault with” (criticize, definition 1) and “to censure; find fault” (complain, definition 1), I’m not seeing it. I don’t believe the difference to be definitionally signifcant, although I grant that the two words can carry different connotations. If you have some reason to believe otherwise, I’m glad to hear it.

“So I really suggest you learn the difference between critism, contructive critism, complain, and critisize.”

And I suggest you practice spelling. Ow. My eyes.

Anyhow, I suppose I’m afraid that if I don’t respond, this thread might die, thus drying up a source of much amusement in recent days.

309. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

#307: It’s not so much a mockery as a self-mockery.

Which I continue to feed. Why? Same reason you climb a mountain: because it’s there.

310. A. - January 18, 2008

305. Litenbug – January 18, 2008
A.
“Mother, your soup is delicious.
Complimentary opinion.”
Yes.
“Mother, your soup is a little too salty.
Complaint. “
WRONG. BEEEP. But thanks for playing. It is constructive criticism or critical opinion
Oh, if she didn’t ask and you repeat it over and over unsolicited? Of course. Your example does not do that, and neither did Shatner.
“OK, here is a question for you. If you deem Shatner’s comments as “Complaining” and you, when asked about your parents cooking, you say it is good but has too much salt, deem as “complaining”
“Yes.”
Then you either have a massive lack of grip on the English language, or just being ornery. Likely the latter.
“…every comment that was not 100% in favor of any scenario would be a complaint.”
“Yes.”
OK, now I can see you’re just plain wrong. You’re being repugnant.
“A. What do you do for a living?”
I am the manager of a small chain of restaurant. You?
“After reading the highlights above, I don’t see why this is a mystery for you.”
The only mystery is why you are DESPERATE to view Shatner’s comments as complaining when in fact they were not.
“Criticism and complaints can be minor or major. An observation, comment, feedback or whatever you are choosing to call it can also be a complaint. Note I said “can”.””
You CAN use complaint if you want to demonize him as several wish to. But using the terminology as used in everyday language, or according to dictionaries or Thesaurus’s, you cannot. YOU CAN call him a cabbage but that does not mean it so.
“If you are truly that concerned about us understanding your point, I’d ask that you do a little survey of the people around you… work and home and see what they say and let us know. “
I did. I asked people if there a difference between complaint and criticism. Unanimously they all said yes, a clear difference. And it was they that pointed out if they mean the same thing; they would have the same definition in the dictionary. They don’t. IT was agreed, criticism is critical observations. Complaints were initiated continuous negative attacks or formal charge. An excellent example brought up were civil cases. When you take someone to court, you file a “complaint. When you contact the police about your neighbor’s music you file a complaint. Notice you don’t file a “criticism.
And if you TRULY feel answering your mom’s question about her soup, then you owe her and virtually every person you know an apology for constantly criticizing everything around you, since there are few things you would endorse 100%. But I suspect you’re just being recalcitrant., here.

311. A. - January 18, 2008

307. Xai – January 18, 2008
“299. A. – January 18, 2008
298. Xai – January 18, 2008
“293. Closettrekker
290. James Heaney – Wowbagger
291. Katie G.
284. Orbitalic
This thread is still moving? Wow. ”
“LOL. My feelings are hurt. ”
Don’t expect a sympathy card.”
”You’ve shown little humanity toward anyone on this thread. If someone disagrees with you they are judged either a liar or get insulted.”
Humanity? Can you hear yourself? Do me a favor and show your loved ones (presuming you have any) what you write here.
You see, the problem with you is any insult I have hurled, has been in RESPONSE to that thrown at me. You know that but because you cannot respect other viewpoints you ignore that fact. You hve shown you’re incapable of civil discussion, without you pushing it the level it has come to. IT should be emphasized I still haven’t dished out the rudeness you, or several others have displayed. I’m way behind in that regard. But you’re more concerned about keeping allies, than admitting you or any of your allies are wrong because you dislike my opinion (which has the facts to support it)
“The people named above may or may not agree with me, but they have shown that they know this is a discussion, not a verbal war or mockery. “
Then why do you take it to that level? The Mockery started LONG ago, and not by me. Go back and review.

312. A. - January 18, 2008

308. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
“You didn’t say “constructive criticism” in #303. You said “ANY criticism.” “
So? Constructuive critism is a form of critism, but not the same THING as critism. Is that so hard for you to grasp?
Just as a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are types of dogs, they are style different.
“Now, if there’s some difference between “to censure or find fault with” (criticize, definition 1) and “to censure; find fault” (complain, definition 1), I’m not seeing it. I don’t believe the difference to be definitionally signifcant, although I grant that the two words can carry different connotations. If you have some reason to believe otherwise, I’m glad to hear it.”
I have multiple times. And you acknowledging they DO differ is grand of you. And in Shatners case, he did not complain. He was asked a question and he answered. If he called several press conferences and said “I want the fans to write in and demand I appear” then that might be a complaint. But HE WAS ASKED!!!
“So I really suggest you learn the difference between critism, contructive critism, complain, and critisize.”
“And I suggest you practice spelling. Ow. My eyes.”
OH, a new low of desperate. Do you know how many spelling mistake you have made that I ignore since it isn’t the issue? The others? Many, many many. But that is what you guys do, right? When proved wrong? Change issues? Take your eyes off the ball?
“Anyhow, I suppose I’m afraid that if I don’t respond, this thread might die, thus drying up a source of much amusement in recent days. “
You can’t stop. Just like the child in you was desperate enough to point out spelling mistakes, the child in you wants the last word regardless of the fact you’re incorrect from the beginning.

313. A. - January 18, 2008

309. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
“#307: It’s not so much a mockery as a self-mockery.”
You’ll allies will ignore this clear attempted insult. But had I said it, it would be clear evidence of how bad I am. SO regardless of whether they admit it, the feel you ‘you’ve shown little humanity toward anyone on this thread.’

“Which I continue to feed. Why? Same reason you climb a mountain: because it’s there. ”
Well no, you do it because of the child in you that wants the last word, regardless of being proven wrong. You remind me of my 6 year old neighbor, who insists He is Superman. While cute, certainly deluded. But at least he has the excuse he is 6 years old. What excuse do you have?

314. A. - January 18, 2008

I’ve just reviews James spelling mistakes. Yeeeeouch. Some words he butchered so bad I can’t recognize them. I only bring it up since he decided spelling should be an issue. James, you’re going to hate your allies spelling.

315. A. - January 18, 2008

What’s going on? No Snappy comebacks?

316. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

Actually, I was watching Firefly.

What’s wrong with my spelling?

Also, I AM Superman.

317. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 18, 2008

Looking over my work, I have detected that I, on at least one occasion, used “it’s” when it should have been “its”. I apologize for the use of the contraction when it was clear I should have used the posessive. I’m having trouble finding other errors, although there may be several. I’ve never been good at searching for things.

Still, “I’ve just reviews James spelling mistakes”? You don’t see the irony in how you wrote that sentence? Wrong tense, much?

Oh, and re: #294: I actually have never denied that I enjoy provoking you or that I have been attempting to do so since you began your fight with Katie G.

318. Orbitalic - January 18, 2008

Abrams On Shatner and Star Trek Audience January 18, 2008
by Anthony Pascale

“Corolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’”

It seems no one gets this “complaint definition” right.

319. Orbitalic - January 18, 2008

or these guys either..

Is Captain Kirk the New Dr. Who or James Bond? – Associated Content
Calling studio Paramount and Abram’s decision not to include him as “bad business sense”, Shatner complains about the film “going in another direction …
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/

YouTube – William Shatner Talks Kirk in J.J. Abrams …
Yes,its true William Shatner continues to complain he was …

Star Trek: American Myth
Justman relates a particularly stinging encounter with Shatner wherein the actor complains that his costume is shrinking, when, in fact, it’s his expanding …

Allen Salkin – The New York Times
Nimoys Not Bothered by Spurning of Shatner. By ALLEN SALKIN. Leonard Nimoy said he was not sympathetic to William Shatner’s complaints about being left out …

320. Xai - January 18, 2008

319. Orbitalic

LOL

321. Orbitalic - January 18, 2008

and from this site…
“Corolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’”:

No one gets it right.

322. Orbitalic - January 18, 2008

oops repost

323. Katie G. - January 18, 2008

Oops. Found this thread again. Haven’t read everything but this caught my eye:

Re: #293. Closettrekker

“Katie G. was a newcomer to this site, and you very nearly made her (a fellow Trek fan) feel unwelcome, and you did not represent the rest of us well.”

That’s very perceptive of you. I was considering not coming back. Was surprised anyone noticed. Then something James Heaney – Wowbagger said (about being amused) made me relax and I decided to not take it so seriously. Besides. my need to discuss Star Trek with fellow rabid fans overcame my frustration. However, I never expected the support I received. That was really amazing. (Trying not to goober all over everyone, being that I may be the only “chick” in these postings, according to “The Enemy” in a different thread.)

Better go to bed. I’m getting space sick from going in circles. You really know how to entertain a girl…

kg

324. Doug - January 19, 2008

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Abrams and crew will find a way to get Mr. Shatner in the film (after this writers’ strike is resolved).

Here’s why: Nimoy and Shatner have a contractual clause, “what he gets, I get. (so there!)”

Here’s a list (in no particular order):

* In the movies, Shatner got big bucks for salary, follow suit with Nimoy.
*Nimoy releases an album, Shatner follows suit (ow ow ow my ears– the difference here is that Nimoy can sing, Shatner… well…).
* During ST: TMP Shatner gets script approval; so does Nimoy.
* Spock has pointed ears, Kirk does too (in one episode).
* Nimoy directs a movie, Shatner does too.
* Both Shatner and Nimoy quest star on episodes of ‘The Twilight Zone.’
* Both Shatner and Nimoy (pre-TREK) appear in the same episode of “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”
* Spock dies, dammit, so does Kirk…
* Kirk gets the girl (more times than we can count); Spock does too (okay, once, maybe twice).
* Spock comes back, Kirk co… (oops, sorry Bill, you’re toast…).
* After TREK was cancelled, Nimoy moved over to Mission: Impossible; Shatner makes a few quest appearances on the same.
* Shatner stars in two horror flicks (“The Devil’s Rain” and “Kingdom of Spiders”) and Nimoy stars in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
* Shatner has a nude scene with Angie Dickinson in “Big Bad Mama;” –oops, I think Nimoy avoided that one (grin)!
* Nimoy publishes a book or two, Shatner follows by writing quite a few novels penciling every single word (snicker).
* Nimoy narrates ‘In Search Of;’ Shatner narrates a number of documentaries for PBS and Discovery.

Methinks they are ying and yang– talk about being competetive!

I hope everyone takes this loving jab in the spirit intended as I think each of the two are super talents. “Star Trek” wouldn’t be what it is without either– and I do hope Shat makes some kind of appearance in the movie.

325. A. - January 19, 2008

316. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
“Actually, I was watching Firefly”
Boring, much like you.
What’s wrong with my spelling?”
Are you joking? I am going to assume you are honestly and truly retarded. And WANT this pointed out
Shater should be Shatner
There is no such word as disinclusion
There is no such word as aforepromised
Obsolete should be obolute (presumably
Showrunner should be show runner
Sendup should be send-up
Ow should be owe (that one was my favourite since it was pointing my spelling mistakes)
No such word as Definitionally
signifcant should be significant
Just ot name a few. LOL. What a Buffoon you are.
“Also, I AM Superman. “
Hardly.

326. A. - January 19, 2008

317. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 18, 2008
Looking over my work, I have detected that I, on at least one occasion, used “it’s” when it should have been “its”. I apologize for the use of the contraction when it was clear I should have used the posessive. I’m having trouble finding other errors, although there may be several. I’ve never been good at searching for things.”
Do you mean possessive. LOL. Buffoon! Of course you have had trouble. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong when it comes to the original issue.
Still, “I’ve just reviews James spelling mistakes”? You don’t see the irony in how you wrote that sentence? Wrong tense, much?
“Oh, and re: #294: I actually have never denied that I enjoy provoking you or that I have been attempting to do so since you began your fight with Katie G. “
Correction, Katie G began her fight with A.
As for provoking me, that is fine. Doesn’t bother me, but at least we have on record now, you admitting you are patently, wrong.

327. A. - January 19, 2008

318. Orbitalic – January 18, 2008
Abrams On Shatner and Star Trek Audience January 18, 2008
by Anthony Pascale
“Corolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’”
It seems no one gets this “complaint definition” right.
Anthony has simply chosen your side since he apparently already gave me a fruitless “warning”. That was his way of a dig. But he is wrong in that term, Orbitalic. You know this. Anthony knows this. Whether you admit it, ever, is another matter.

328. A. - January 19, 2008

319. Orbitalic – January 18, 2008
“or these guys either..
Is Captain Kirk the New Dr. Who or James Bond? – Associated Content
Calling studio Paramount and Abram’s decision not to include him as “bad business sense”, Shatner complains about the film “going in another direction …
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/”
This like pointing to tabloids and saying “see….”
Are you just saying trekmovie.com is worse than a tabloid? If so, then that is equivlant to saying you are wrong.
“YouTube – William Shatner Talks Kirk in J.J. Abrams …
Yes,its true William Shatner continues to complain he was …”
LOL. LOL. YOUTUBE! You tune is the definitive source for you? ROTFLMAO
“Star Trek: American Myth
Justman relates a particularly stinging encounter with Shatner wherein the actor complains that his costume is shrinking, when, in fact, it’s his expanding …”
I notice you omit the interview and kept the title. Show the interview. Maybe he is complaining, or more likely, joking.
“Allen Salkin – The New York Times
Nimoys Not Bothered by Spurning of Shatner. By ALLEN SALKIN. Leonard Nimoy said he was not sympathetic to William Shatner’s complaints about being left out …”
WHAT!??? Are you crackers? This is a journalist out to make a headline. Unless he has another interview where Shatner complains. If so, post it here.

329. A. - January 19, 2008

322. Orbitalic – January 18, 2008
oops repost
that’s aht you guys rely on.

330. A. - January 19, 2008

323. Katie G. – January 18, 2008
“Oops. Found this thread again. Haven’t read everything but this caught my eye:”
Of course it did. Go figure.
Re: #293. Closettrekker
“Katie G. was a newcomer to this site, and you very nearly made her (a fellow Trek fan) feel unwelcome, and you did not represent the rest of us well.”
“That’s very perceptive of you. I was considering not coming back.”
Since a differing opinion has that much power over you, then Don’t come back, ever. In fact, go take your own life. Since apparently words have that much power over you. If you never do, than I was right. If you don’t, then you were lying.
“Was surprised anyone noticed. Then something James Heaney – Wowbagger said (about being amused) made me relax and I decided to not take it so seriously. Besides. my need to discuss Star Trek with fellow rabid fans overcame my frustration.”
But that is not what you’re doing here, so why don’t you start?
“However, I never expected the support I received. That was really amazing. (Trying not to goober all over everyone, being that I may be the only “chick” in these postings, according to “The Enemy” in a different thread.)”
Bahahahah. Bahyahahahah!! Hilarious. Truly hilruous. One note of support from a sock puppet, makes you teary eyed? Bahahaha. Hahaha.
“Better go to bed. I’m getting space sick from going in circles. You really know how to entertain a girl…”
To bad your husband doesn’t Have a good sleep.

331. A. - January 19, 2008

324. Doug – January 19, 2008
“I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Abrams and crew will find a way to get Mr. Shatner in the film (after this writers’ strike is resolved).”
Can’t see it happening. No biggie. It’s just a film (however some will take exception to that remark. Other will take exception to him being in the film)

332. A. - January 19, 2008

I know it upsets you a great deal that Shatner never complained. IT hurts you a great deal. But facts are facts. He didn’t. Maybe a few of you need to up your medications. Katie? Are you in tears yet? Did you have a good sleep while your husband slept, again.

333. A. - January 19, 2008

According to you guys the above interviewee is complaining Shatner is still working. (anything short of a 100% endorsement) Does that bother you? I guess so. Why don’t you start a petition to make her stop?

334. A. - January 19, 2008

Slow, so very slow. Several of you can’t keep up? Lets go. OR is your bowing out admission that you were wrong? Yes, that is a safe bet.

335. A. - January 19, 2008

Oh for crap sakes. This is dull. I trust soon, to make it up you’ll resort to other inane topics. Or start pointing to other anti-shatner publications and referring to them as “fact”. LOL. ROTFLMAO.

336. marc - January 19, 2008

I am annoyed that bill won’t be appearing in the new Trek, If Gene Rodenberry was still alive, Bill would be the first on the cast list, the Shat made Star Trek, i think he deserves more!

337. Cervantes - January 19, 2008

# too many to mention – A.

Man, I wonder what the ‘A’ stands for…

Anthony obviously hasn’t seen ALL your work here so far…

338. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

337 Cervantes

How goes the story, or did I miss it?

339. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

A.

I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject. You, your words, ultimately define the word “complaint”.

340. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#330–That is despicable. How can you possibly ask a fellow poster to “take your (her) own life”, just because she has once again proven you incorrect? That is disgusting. You are an internet coward, nothing more. Is that how you treat women? All of this talk about your mother’s cooking. What would she think of your behavior? I’m willing to bet she would not approve. Your insults toward Katie G. are even worse than your grasp of the English language and the use of definitions. You are a poor loser.

341. A. - January 19, 2008

337. Cervantes – January 19, 2008
“# too many to mention – A.

Man, I wonder what the ‘A’ stands for…

Anthony obviously hasn’t seen ALL your work here so far… ”

I’m sure he hasn’t seen anybody’s work.

342. A. - January 19, 2008

339. Orbitalic – January 19, 2008
“A.
I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject. You, your words, ultimately define the word “complaint”. ”
It’s not rocket science. THey7 know it too, as do you. It';s just they REALLY REALLY desperately want Bill’s words to have been complaining. But they weren’t and it upsets them a great deal

343. A. - January 19, 2008

340. Closettrekker – January 19, 2008
“#330–That is despicable. How can you possibly ask a fellow poster to “take your (her) own life”, just because she has once again proven you incorrect?”

That didn’t happen as you know. And I said those words as YOU suggested I had that much power. WE both know I do not and her continuing to post here, proves that.

“That is disgusting. You are an Internet coward, nothing more. Is that how you treat women?”

LOL. YOU ARE A puny little wimp, AND sexist.

” All of this talk about your mother’s cooking. What would she think of your behavior? I’m willing to bet she would not approve. ”

It should please you to know my mom passed away.

“Your insults toward Katie G. are even worse than your grasp of the English language and the use of definitions. You are a poor loser. ”

No Clostetrekker, you are referring to yourself with all your insults. IT is YOU who is the coward as you cannot admit you are wrong. You were. Shatner did not complain, and it upsets you greatly. I can’t help that. All I can do is ensure the truth prevails.

344. Katie G. - January 19, 2008

Re: 339. Orbitalic

Please don’t do this. Anthony may ban you for trying to goad “A” into responding further. Please. I don’t want to see you get into trouble.

kg

345. A. - January 19, 2008

In the very slight chance that Katie G. is mentally unstable and prone to cultish behaviour, and highly susceptible to suggestion, I’ll ask you actually do not take your own life. Such things do happen. They may be billions to one, but has happened.
But you understand my point. Claiming you nearly left because I hurt your feelings is crap.

346. A. - January 19, 2008

344. Katie G. – January 19, 2008
“Re: 339. Orbitalic

Please don’t do this. Anthony may ban you for trying to goad “A” into responding further. Please. I don’t want to see you get into trouble.”

There is something very weird about that post. Am I detecting a sockpuppet?

347. Closettrekker - January 19, 2008

#343—“Corolla took a few swipes at Shatner’s recent complaints about not being in the Star Trek film, but Abrams came back saying that Shatner was ‘an icon’ and ‘an amazing guy.’ “—–posted by Anthony just yesterday.

Seems you are all alone.

William Shatner has complained about not being cast in the film. You can call it “feedback”(but complaining is just giving negative feedback), just because he was answering someone else’s question to him, but nothing in the definition of “complain” demands that an “expression of dissatiafaction” be unsolicited as a prerequisite. If Bill was satisfied with not being cast in JJ’s movie, he would never have said, “I’m disappointed.” You cannot get around that argument. You can try, but you only appear foolish in doing so. Bill would not have to go any further than that for such an expression to qualify as a complaint, yet he does. He further complains about the business accumen of the film’s director, calling his choice a “stupid business decision”, a “stupid box-office decision”, and finally, a “silly oversight”. Complaint, complaint, and another complaint.
You are like the Japanese soldier who stayed on a South Pacific island well into the 1960’s thinking that he was still fighting a war against the United States. The only difference is, he has the excuse that he never saw Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he never saw the surrender on board the USS Missouri. You have seen your arguments go repeatedly up in flames, yet you cannot accept that the battle is over and you have lost. Thank goodness for the people of Japan (and a million or so American servicemen ready to invade Japan) that the Emperor Hirohito was not as foolish as you are.

348. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

344. Katie G. – January 19, 2008

Thanks for the concern.
We post here because we have a gracious and tolerant host. I’m prepared to banned or permanently banned if I post something that Anthony feels violates his rules and I’ve told him so.
There’s a level of discussion, debate and argument that is allowed here and if it finally gets to the point of personal insult, that line has been crossed. I’ve admittedly crossed it as well but not to the degree of others. It’s Anthony’s call as it always is.

349. A. - January 19, 2008

347. Closettrekker – January 19, 2008
“Seems you are all alone.”

Uhm, no. Your selective reading has lead to your selective memory.

“William Shatner has complained about not being cast in the film.”

No, he commented and expressed surprise and offered an opinion. That is not the same thing as complaining. But you know this. If not, you’re foolish.
” You can call it “feedback”(but complaining is just giving negative feedback), just because he was answering someone else’s question to him, but nothing in the definition of “complain” demands that an “expression of dissatiafaction” be unsolicited as a prerequisite. If Bill was satisfied with not being cast in JJ’s movie, he would never have said, “I’m disappointed.” ”

Who said he was satisfied? Just because you are dissatisfied does not mean you are complaining. You should know this. It’s obvious.

“You cannot get around that argument. You can try, but you only appear foolish in doing so. ”

The only fools here are those expending so much energy on their hatred for Shatner, by insisting he complained. He didn’t

“Bill would not have to go any further than that for such an expression to qualify as a complaint, yet he does. He further complains about the business accumen of the film’s director, calling his choice a “stupid business decision”, a “stupid box-office decision”, and finally, a “silly oversight”. Complaint, complaint, and another complaint.”

No, not a complaint, at all. Not even slightly. You again, foolishly, misunderstand the term complaint. All those are comments (some of which are true by the way) and expression of puzzlement. You can call it a cabbage if you like, but that doesn’t make it so.

“You are like the Japanese soldier who stayed on a South Pacific island well into the 1960’s thinking that he was still fighting a war against the United States. The only difference is, he has the excuse that he never saw Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he never saw the surrender on board the USS Missouri. You have seen your arguments go repeatedly up in flames, yet you cannot accept that the battle is over and you have lost. Thank goodness for the people of Japan (and a million or so American servicemen ready to invade Japan) that the Emperor Hirohito was not as foolish as you are. ”

The only fools here are those, such as yourself, that desperately want to call Shatner’s comments, complaining. They weren’t. Plain and simple.

350. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

Katie G

It wasn’t taken in the spirit intended.

If I am booted, hang in there, it’s a good site

351. A. - January 19, 2008

348. Orbitalic – January 19, 2008
“344. Katie G. – January 19, 2008

Thanks for the concern.
We post here because we have a gracious and tolerant host. I’m prepared to banned or permanently banned if I post something that Anthony feels violates his rules and I’ve told him so.
There’s a level of discussion, debate and argument that is allowed here and if it finally gets to the point of personal insult, that line has been crossed. I’ve admittedly crossed it as well but not to the degree of others. It’s Anthony’s call as it always is.”

I’m of the opinion that the person who starts hurling the insults, should be banned (if anyone at all). Too often it is the person who has only responded in kind, that gets the blame.
Who can point out where this thread started to degenerate? I know I can.

352. A. - January 19, 2008

350. Orbitalic – January 19, 2008
“Katie G

It wasn’t taken in the spirit intended.

If I am booted, hang in there, it’s a good site ”

If you’re booted? Hang in there?
Wow, I had no idea I had so much power over you too. I feel so omnipotent. Able to cause Kate G to leave? Get you kicked off. LOL

353. James - Wowbagger - January 19, 2008

My internet crashed last night. It’s actually still down; I’m working on someone else’s computer. This is fine, because I won’t be returning to this thread. A., if I ever encounter you outside the Internet, I’ll slug you like Sisko in “Q-Less”. Who the frack raised you to talk to women–heck, to anyone–the way you did to Katie G.? I presume someone in your life would be ashamed of you to know what you wrote. That someone is not you, because you are apparently shameless.

Katie: since you’ve indicated that you’re new, I want to say this: I’ve been doing Star Trek fan boards since shortly before Enterprise began, which means I’ve been at this for just about seven years now. The online Trek community is one of the friendliest groups of people I have ever encountered, and it’s someplace I try to drop by on a regular basis. I’ve met thousands of people here and other places, made dozens of friends, and had arguments–sometimes heated ones–with scores more. Never in all my years have I encountered someone so deeply personal, vicious, and childish as A. I actively work with twelve-year-olds who are ten times his age. Even the Sinister Six, contemptible trolls though they were (long story), had certain standards of discourse. And do you know why? Because *we’re all Star Trek fans*. We all *believe* in the IDIC and in heroism and in the basic goodness of humanity! By the Great Bird, we don’t act like A. does with *anyone*, much less with each other!

In short, I beg of you not to judge the fan community by this one petty sociopath we have discovered. Check out a few for yourself. Join one of the Voyager caption contests at TrekBBS.com, or contribute to the 100,000-post-long Trip Tucker/Connor Trineer is HOT! thread at TrekUnited.com, or watch the fanfilm “World Enough and Time” from StarTrekNewVoyages.com (props if you’ve already done any of the above). This is a good and happy and very large community, and it would be our loss to see someone like you driven away by this perverse yIntagh.

Like I said, I’m done. I’ve been here because A. amused me. I am no longer remotely amused. A., much as it pains me, I’ll be praying for you. Till now, it’s been fun, and I hope I see the rest of you in other threads and, perhaps, in other corners of the Treksphere.

Or, to quote Q: “I’ll see you… out there…”

354. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

A.
I could post a note to the Pope and Castro and you’d feel the need to respond.
That post addressed Katie, not A.

355. Anthony Pascale - January 19, 2008

OK folks I had no idea this was still going…and it is all very unpleasant.

A. — you are wrong and you have moved into serious trolling and flaming territory. You have a simple choice…apologize and move on, or be banned.

Everyone else…don’t take the bait. And don’t become backseat admins.

356. Orbitalic - January 19, 2008

good night Wowbanger

357. Katie G. - January 20, 2008

Re: #353. James – Wowbagger

Sorry, not ignoring you. Actually went to bed early. Needed a break from it all. However, I will admit that the one post really shook me up — literally. I was trembling. When my husband asked what was wrong and I told him, he was stunned then angry. I told him not to worry about it. As all things do, it shall pass.

Don’t worry — I learned years ago not to judge a group by a few individuals. I have enjoyed this site, even despite of the “detour” shall we say. Am thrilled to see all the ideas here about Star Trek — most I had never thought of. Don’t know what it is about Star Trek that has people so enthralled. You all (y’all) have much more of an imagination than I do. Reading the posts stimulate my SciFi thoughts. And I love it when the big guns contribute (Orci, etc.) It’s Like I said, I’ve been watching it faithfully since 1966 (when I was a child!). Actually, I was but not too young to miss the adventurous aspect and a little of the humour.

The other SciFi series/fliks didn’t grab my imagination as Trek did (Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Buck Rogers… — okay, nix that last one.) Really enjoyed Star Wars (IV, V, VI) and still watch it occasionally. It’s prequels didn’t do much for me — not sure why — but I will still watch them the odd time as well. It’s Star Trek for me. I love all of the series from TOS to Enterprise. Obviously each series has some episodes which are excellent and each even have some turkeys (although I’d be hard-pressed to remember which).

Am so thankful that William Shatner got the part along with Nimoy. (I would ABSOLUTE LOVE TO KNOW who was up for the parts and who all auditioned for every single part.) Everyone made it what it is and thank God for film so it will continue to thrill each time I watch. My one Trekker friend and I still laugh at all the jokes (from TOS to Enterprise) although haven’t seen Enterprise for a while. Can’t afford the luxury of the DVDs right now and have missed it terribly since I cancelled Cable. My friend purchased the DVDs of TOS and Voyager so we’re doing okay. She’ll get TNG next. However, I’ll have to buy DS9 because she wasn’t thrilled with it like I was (am!).

So don’t worry. It looks like Anthony is handling it. I should send him a post thanking him for this incredible idea of being able to communicate with fellow Trekkers. (Personally I don’t mind “Trekkie” but for those of you who do, I shall refrain from using it.) I didn’t post a thank-you on the “Feedback” thread yet because I didn’t want it to appear like shallow, bribing flattery while the other stuff was going on.

So, hope to continually stay in touch with everyone. I’ll be busy today so see you later. Will be praying for A also. Feel badly about the whole thing.

Wowbagger
Orbitalic
Closettrekker
Vulcanista
Xai
trektacular
Harry B

“See you around the galaxy!” Or maybe later tonight.

kg

358. Katie G. - January 20, 2008

Re: #353

One quick “post” before I go to sleep.

Did I detect some Klingon there? Very clever. A little bit like the word “frack” (another language in a different universe) except there’s so much more of it.

That is part of what I love about Trek. Some brilliantly-imaginative minds (or someone with too much time on their hands!) sat down and devised a culture and a language which some Trekkers are actually speaking to each other. They did make up more (like a little bit of Bajoran mostly in DS9) but my favourite is the Klingon. Don’t remember it being in TOS. Wasn’t dreamed up then or just not used.

Guess I’m not into it on that level because I haven’t really taken the time to learn it. Just remember a bit from watching TNG and DS9 repeatedly. A lot of the shows on TV have references to the geeks that speak Klingon, making fun of Star Trek (and it’s fans) in general. I feel sorry for them in the sense that they haven’t discovered the wonder that we have. (“Kinda brings a tear to me eye…)

But it’s been around since 1966 and will continue on, I believe, for a long time. At least I hope it will.

kg

359. Katie G. - January 20, 2008

Sorry — I forgot to put the name beside the post # I was referring to (in case the numbers change as they are wont to do). The post I made was regarding #353 James – Wowbagger.

Nighty-night.

kg

360. Xai - January 21, 2008

Katie, I believe “frack” is a Galactica psuedo- swear word.

361. Katie G. - January 21, 2008

Re: #360. Xai

Thanks, Xai. I know that — just forgot to quote my source. I have been a fan of Battlestar Galactica since the beginning. It’s corny but I loved it with Starbuck and Apollo et al. Didn’t like the later ones. Tried to watch the remake but had to cancel the cable due to lack of finances (for luxuries). It was interesting… Never got into it in the same depth as Star Trek.

I love the Klingon language. It seemed to be the one they used the most. Possibly because of the number of main characters that were Klingon. Worf in TNG, Worf again in DS9 along with General Martok, then B’Elanna in Voyager. They seemed to focus on the history/culture and it was fascinating.

Better go. I tend to ramble on because I love Trek and enjoy discussing it with friends.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.