Page 2 of 3

Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 7:31 pm
by TrashMan
odyssey wrote:Bringing back Kirk or Shatner seems to be smacks of desperation on their part if by some miracle Ent survives for a 4th season. I think Shatner is past his prime on playing Kirk. Besides, this time travel bizness... haven't they screwed up the time continunity enough as it is? Can anyone honestly keep track of the going ons and the changes/complications to the time lines by the way they travel back and forth? There are already enough inconsistancies as it is. Bringing back Kirk to the past will only make things more confusing. :?

They should should relaunch Ent ala DS9 4th season... with new sets, costumes, cast changes... etc.,
And no more time travel..hopefully....
I agree it screwes the whole ST universe...

Shatner. He needs shooting.

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:59 am
by -mik-
Shatner is the worst actor in the whole of the acting career. My dog can act better than that wasak.

There is nothing worse than a sef-inflatuated egotistical wasak on a popular tv series. If he was put into Enterprise, he wouldn't be able to fit through the turbo lift doors. The whole set would have to be remodelled around him.

In Britain, we have the nightmare of him on our Kellogg's All Bran advert (cereal).

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 am
by USS_Nova
Do you really think that Star Trek would have gotten this big if Shatner was the worst actor on the planet?

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:58 am
by blindeye01
I.....think.......he.......has problems........emoticating....but......he....has.....done good work........on.....such shows as.............the Twilight Zone..........plus........his........style of acting............seems to fit Trek.

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:12 pm
by Twitch
Anyone can say what they will about Shatner but he carried the original Star Trek with forceful personality alone.

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:22 pm
by CaptSyf
I like Shatner, But I was disappointed when he would not appear on Enterprise, simply because he wanted more money than Paramount would give him. To me, that seems more of a slap in the face to trek fans. I guess like all stars, money is what he cares more about these days than giving the fans one last on-screen look at Capt. Kirk. But in these days, that seems to be all that most people care about only.

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:59 pm
by blindeye01
I wouldn't say that about myself. I picked a job not for the money, but for what it was. And I know many other people who feel the same way

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:45 pm
by Elrond
blindeye01 wrote:I.....think.......he.......has problems........emoticating....but......he....has.....done good work........on.....such shows as.............the Twilight Zone..........plus........his........style of acting............seems to fit Trek.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

So very necessary. Exactly.....how he....SOUNDS! :P

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 pm
by blindeye01
I'll set up a thread for that purpose

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:27 am
by -mik-
lol. It was the concept of Star Trek that carried it mostly. Shatner was just seen as an iconic figure, and he let that thought get to his head.

His and the other crew's ability to move when the ships was "fired" upon was terrible. Everytime I see it, I can't help myself but say "Everybody to the left, now to the right, back again, oh no! forward. Little man over by the console that we have never seen before, fly backwards over the rails".

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:31 am
by Elrond
-mik- wrote:lol. It was the concept of Star Trek that carried it mostly. Shatner was just seen as an iconic figure, and he let that thought get to his head.

His and the other crew's ability to move when the ships was "fired" upon was terrible. Everytime I see it, I can't help myself but say "Everybody to the left, now to the right, back again, oh no! forward. Little man over by the console that we have never seen before, fly backwards over the rails".
Hahaha! Little man over by the console that we have never seen before, fly backwards over the rails! Yeah! That's what I'm thinking. That was terrible acting. :lol:

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:36 am
by dubester
Well what would you expect TOS we so under budget, and 60's acting isn't as critical as now because almost everyone is a critic nowadays.

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:44 am
by -mik-
It would have been cheaper and more likely better if they had gone the puppet way, like Thunderbirds. Puppets are very manipulative :twisted:

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:29 am
by Twitch
Acting is not better today than it was in the 1960s or, for that matter, when actors performed Shakespear's works long ago. To say it is, is folly since that would mean that people are smarter and the brain is the same.

The only thing that has changed is special effects. If you go back to 1940s Flash Gordon episodes compared to 1968 Star Trek you'd say they were cheezy and cheap. As for acting, was Buster Crabbe any less believable than William Shatner? Of course not.

By the way, if any of you has ever been on a fishing boat off shore with a a couple dozen day fishermen you'd see the duplicate of the Enterprise bridge when a fair-sized swell hits the boat laterally. It's physics and no one is acting.