william shatner

5stone10 · Jan 28, 2005

William Shatner as twin 'white' commanche brothers - that to me is science fiction!! White Commanche was on AMC last night - and I highly recommend it >> http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:54291~C Also if your into even weirder 'sci-fi' - William Shatner as an Esperanto speaking, psychic, satan worshipper />> "...'the movie-watching event of a lifetime,' actually benefits from the presence of a pre-Star Trek William Shatner, whose operatic style somehow conforms to the story's deranged logic." http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:96516~C Yes, the entire movie 'Incubus' was spoken in Esperanto - I highly recommend it !!!!

vogon13 · Jan 29, 2005

Slim Shady bit on Futurama probably number 1 indicator of decline of Western civilization I've ever seen. (not really, just hysterically funny) Is there anything he can't do? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

jmilsom · Feb 4, 2005

I once made a joke in the Free Space forum as follows: (Somewhere in Scotland ....) Jock: "Och, What's that 'orrible smell. Ya car stinks man!" Hamish: "Oh. Me friend William Shat'n'er." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scifigoddess · Mar 24, 2006

hey guys, i work for tvland and they're airing a new original program featuring the legendary william shatner <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> visit tvland.com/originals/litvl/ for previews, schedules, etc <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> thank you fellow fans! :lol:

lampblack · Mar 24, 2006

TV Land is recruiting hit-and-run spam artists? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

darth_elmo · Mar 24, 2006

I have to admit that I'm curious about this: how much of the Tek series did Shatner actually write; I can tell from the 8 Star Trek novels that have his name on them that I've read that Judy and Garfield Reeves-Stevens did most of the writing--their joint style is unmistakable.

darth_elmo · Mar 24, 2006

That wasn't nice. Accurate...but not nice! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

scifigoddess · Mar 24, 2006

we're not hit and run spammers lol like you say. we're fans just like you and some of the other forum members are hooking you guys up with stuff you may feel interested in seeing. `;]

yevaud · Mar 25, 2006

Then you may wish to cease using the term "SciFi." To us harcore "Fen," the term is analagous to cheesy movies and novels, chock-full of terms such as "ray-gun," "rocket blast," etc. Recollect that the word "Science" is prominent in the genre. If you can't get any science into it, there's nothing there except special effects and lousy dialogue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

scifigoddess · Mar 25, 2006

i see you've got strong opinions about it ..but i like the cheesy scifi movies hehe

yevaud · Mar 25, 2006

Well, yes, cheesy movies can be good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

hracctsold · Mar 25, 2006

Hey Yevaud, Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

darth_elmo · Mar 25, 2006

Yev, dude...chill out! Sci-fi and spec-fic are interchangeable...or virtually so.

yevaud · Mar 25, 2006

Please don't try to tell me that "Krull" (SciFi) and something penned by David Brin, PhD, Astrophysics (Science Fiction) are comparable. The former is absurd entertainment full of made-up terms not verifiable or scientific in the extreme; the latter will have numerous scenarios based on extrapolation of actual science. Example: ever read Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," and then see the movie? Here's an example of the differences. In the book, the troops use powered fighting suits, delivered by a perfectly legitimate delivery method. They use real world tactics and extrapolations of weapons systems we already use, or are currently working on. In the movie, giant bugs shoot rayguns out of their butts, the troops are delivered in Conex containers, and run forward/flee in panic as a mob when in battle. In the book, Sergeant Zim makes a moral point that relates to tactics and stress under combat. In the movie, Sergeant Zim sticks a knife through a recruit's hand for the sheer hell of it. In the movie, he laughs - it's a big joke. In the real world, now buck Private Zim would be breaking rocks for 20 years for assaulting a troop for his own sadistic entertainment. Perhaps you might see a small difference between the two. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

darth_elmo · Mar 25, 2006

To be perfectly frank...no. It's first and foremost entertainment. If there are socio-politico-moral undercurrents and themes in a book or movie, they're there because of 2 reasons: 1) the author put them there; and 2) because the audience sees something there. Sometimes, the author does put them there. Sometimes, as with Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, there's something that people see that the author swears wasn't intended. Both versions of Starship Troopers had points to make. The novel did it with directness and clarity. The movie did it with satire. Is one more legitimate than the other? No. Whether you want to accept both as valid interpretations is up to you. Personally, I enjoyed both versions of Starship Troopers. If you didn't, well...that's your issue.

yevaud · Mar 26, 2006

Oh, I never said I didn't enjoy both. But they're not really the same thing either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

derekmcd · Mar 26, 2006

I think you could replace this conversation with I Robot... both enjoyable. If you are a fan of "fun" movies... You just have to accept the fact than you can not put a book to celluliod. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

dragon04 · Mar 30, 2006

I think you could replace this conversation with I Robot... both enjoyable. If you are a fan of "fun" movies... You just have to accept the fact than you can not put a book to celluliod. Well said. I offer Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 as an example. I found the book 1000 times better than the movie. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

thepiper · Apr 1, 2006

I agree with Yevaud on this. There is popcorn entertainment sci-fi and then there is science fiction that actually incorporates science and requires thought. The novels of David Brin are a good example, as are the work of Gregory Benford, Ben Bova, Robert L. Forward and James P. Hogan.

serak_the_preparer · Apr 3, 2006

Agree that Shatner was more performer than composer where Trek is concerned. Since he's just being used to promote a program about how yesterday's imaginings can sometimes become today's realities, I'm okay with it: How William Shatner Changed the World It's nice to think that Roddenberry's hopeful vision of a better tomorrow has helped shape our world.

tomnackid · Apr 4, 2006

Yev, dude...chill out! Sci-fi and spec-fic are interchangeable...or virtually so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maybe to you young whippersanppers, but those of us who weren't raised by "Grand Theft Auto" know better <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Forest Ackerman--a devotee of B-grade movies, hack writing, and the "brass brazier" and "bug eyed monster" school of science fiction illustration coined the term (to resonate with the new buzzword in electronics "hi-fi"). Strangely enough, despite his questionable tastes "Forrie" Ackerman is a much loved figure in science fiction fandom. Go figure. We are a pretty tolerant bunch!

yevaud · Apr 4, 2006

Tom. I'm 47. I'm also hard-core Fen (I used to chum around with the people who run our yearly SF Con). I just find that Hollywood keeps taking good, hard-core SF and turns it into pap. Not, as I'd said, that it isn't enjoyable nevertheless. But they still (mostly) can't do good SF. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

lampblack · Apr 12, 2006

In the movie, giant bugs shoot rayguns out of their butts, the troops are delivered in Conex containers, and run forward/flee in panic as a mob when in battle. That, and the troopers are expected to fight the bugs with underpowered machine guns that were obviously salvaged from World War II surplus. And somehow, earth -- during a futuristic period in which human beings are spacefaring to the point of traveling between star systems -- was unable to detect and deflect big rocks that were lobbed at the planet from somewhere outside the solar system. I agree: it was a silly, silly movie. The only thing even remotely redeeming about it was the coed shower scene. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

eclipse_now · Apr 21, 2006

Hey, I agree that there is hammed up space opera and there is hard corps sci-fi, and that most of the hard corps stuff seems to be stuck firmly in books and that the movies often go for hamming it up. But it’s a different sort of audience? Of course, some things cannot be properly translated into film. I personally loved Solaris, the book detailing a century of philosophical thought in a kind of preamble. The Russian version of the movie kicked arse for it’s day… and scared me well and truly. Also, viewing it through subtitles and hearing the beautiful Russian added to it’s feeling of ‘mystery’ — something lessened when Hollywood and Clooney had a go. So what other movies have stayed fairly serious, and resisted the ham? Off the top of my head I like “Blade Runner” the Director’s cut of course… no cheesy voice over or happy endings, please. A mate tells me that the movie is actually more serious than the book, with the Replicants being kind of dumb and comedic in the novel. I have not read it yet myself. What about “Minority Report”? OK… I have not read that book either — but it felt right. Sometimes I like a little special effects with my dinner, if you know what I mean. It was a serious topic and handled in an interesting manner. Of course, Spielberg also tackled AI. That worked for me as well. I had no idea that the story was about to suddenly move thousands of years into the future as the Robot boy stares longingly into the eyes of the Blue Fairy, and was totally unprepared for the pathos of the ending. Also the “wow” factor of the bizarre Mecha droids and apparently digital matter craft they used to fly through frozen NYC… admittedly with the pre-9/11 WTC poking through ice sheets…. Sometimes film can express something pre-digested, more quickly and immediately absorbed than through a novel. That was one of the last real wonder moments I have had in maybe 10 years of sci-fi movies? Oh, of course the first time I saw the M

0689768687687687 · May 27, 2006

Sometimes the interpretation of sci fi can be utterly bizaare! You take sci fi - start trek - rockets... elton john singing about rockets and then so they think that the next logical conclusion is shatner singing elton john. Check it out! http://www.infectiousvideos.com/index.php?p=showvid&sid=0361&a=playvid

william shatner

5stone10

Guest

vogon13

Guest

jmilsom

Guest

scifigoddess

Guest

lampblack

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

scifigoddess

Guest

yevaud

Guest

scifigoddess

Guest

yevaud

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

dragon04

Guest

thepiper

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

yevaud

Guest

lampblack

Guest

eclipse_now

Guest

0689768687687687

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page