Pseudobulbar Paraphroneogenesis: Uncontrollable Laughing at the Insanity of Existence.

The Unified-BSG-Theory / All Along The Watchtower / BSG Crossroads Part II Think-Tank

(Tue 03/27/2007 06:13am)



- WARNING! - SPOILER ALERT - BATTLESTAR GALACTICA SEASON 3 FINALE "Crossroads Part II" SPOILER ALERT - WARNING! -
.
.
S
.
.
P
.
.
O
.
.
I
.
.
L
.
.
E
.
.
R
.
.
.
S
.
.
P
.
.
A
.
.
C
.
.
E
.
.
R

Ye have been warned - ArrRRrr -  if ye haven't seen the season finale episode titled "Crossroads Part II"

(aired Sunday March 25th at 10pm on Sci-Fi in the U.S and Space in Canada - Ed)

..of this seasons BSG as yet, then..

EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!EJECT!


.
.
.
.
.

Right, still here? Excellent. Take your clothes off., slower.. slower..

sorry, relapse.

Well, Don't Drink & Post.

just went over this mess posted after a night of alleged debauchery, and suffice to say, I will now edit it down to a slightly less drunken stupor.

The 2 main Questions the occur are:


1. What happened to/with Starbuck?
2. Who is the 5th member of the Cylon Final Five?

^Raise-Eyebrow.

Hmmmmmmmmmm(n)

What do we know?

We know Starbuck appears at the end of the episode and that she is returning to the series next year.

We can suspect this with a great degree of probability because

Ronald D. Moore has been quoted as stating Starbuck is coming back next year.

He and/or she previously also implied Katee wasn't coming back to BSG, but according to Moore, if we examine their comments closely we'll find that what was said were things like "Katee is already looking for new work" that while "technically true", is not quite the same thing as saying she wasn't returning to BSG. 

Apparently she -was- looking for other work, it's just work that won't conflict with BSG.

(Moore claims) they deliberately chose their words/statements carefully so as it  would *appear* she was leaving, yet at the same time, their statements wouldn't be a complete lie.

Two points for that subterfuge Mr. Moore, except that I knew Starbuck wasn't really dead.

Even if I did predict earlier this year she was going to be the one you killed and even if you did name the episode that you killed her in ("Maelstrom" - Ed), after me.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*tug down on purple shirt*

Sorry, where were we..

Conclusion: Starbuck is really back.

but in what capacity?

There are 3 likely possibilities:

Theory number 1: Starbuck ejected and survived the explosion of her Viper in "Maelstrom" and has returned.

If she's coming back as the original Starbuck then they'll need to explain how she survived the explosion in "Maelstrom".

Let's assume she ejected, was picked up, went off and had a cathartic experience with someone, and it was terribly wonderful and multi-orgasmic and don't you wish we had video footage of that instead of that Paris Hilton video ..and then Starbuck was returned by whomever rescued her.

The important question then is how did she get ahold of a new Viper? and without anyone noticing?

Point being, Original-Starbuck-Returning seems like it has quite a few large logistics problems to me. 

You could argue that in the confusion she simply grabbed a Viper from Galactica and no one noticed, but that's a bit of a stretch, because she'd have had to have been  hiding *someplace* on Galactica prior to taking the new viper.

Assuming it is a new viper.

We may be able to answer a key question here:

Does anyone have an image capture of Starbuck's viper from the season finale?

It occurs, that we may be able to identify whether it correlates to her original "Maelstrom" viper, a Battlestar Galactica viper, or another colonial viper.

AISI Which viper she is flying gives us a big clue into where she was.

Until we can get a photo comparison, at this point, I say we move on from the original-Starbuck-returns theory, and temporarily call it "unresolved and unlikely at this point"

why? because on close analysis it requires much more elaborate explanation than theory number 2.

Which is..

Theory number 2: Starbuck was fried in her viper and was resurrected.

Consequently she is the 5th member of the final five, she is one of the "special" (hybrid/advanced) Cylons.

This one is an easier fit.

This theory would hold that post her "Maelstrom" Viper hit, Starbuck died and resurrected, she was then informed of her true identity and purpose and
one of 2 things occured.

1. she was inserted back into the Galactica convoy by the Cylons.
2. she's still soaking on the resurrection ship.

Mathematically problematically Cylon-Starbuck and the elements of Maelstrom + Crossroads P2, work with BOTH options 1 and 2.

Theory Number 3: Lee is the 5th cylon.

This one appears at surface value to make the most sense of them all in terms of  "simple explanations" because his seeing Starbuck-in-the-viper could be explained as a neuro-connected "vision" sent to him from Cylon HQ.

sent to him by a rather hot resurrection-vat bubble-bath soaking Starbuck.

(we know Starbuck is returning, so she is present in some form, someplace)

However Lee as Cylon on close-inspection contains a rather large flaw,  wouldn't that make both Lee and Starbuck Cylons for a total of 6 Final 5's?

Logically we'll assume Lee and Starbuck can't both be Cylons.

Lee's view of Starbuck then requires another explanation.

and there is one.

We haven't established Baltar as a Cylon yet and he has that neuro-connection to Six, who we know is a Cylon.

Ergo it would be consistent that Lee and Baltar (both as humans) share the same apparent capability to receive neurovisions from Cylons.

What's my point?

*scribble* *scribble* *erase* carry the 2.

Preliminary Conclusion: I think at this point, I'm going to come down here:

1. Starbuck as the final fifth Cylon.

2. Starbuck broadcast the music "All Along The Watchtower" to the other 4. 

That's right up her sense of frackin humour alley, and it would corroborate her line that "she's been to Earth".  It's a popular song on Earth.  I certainly love Jimi Hendrix version of it, and come to think of it, I could see Starbuck smokin a fat one with Hendrix himself.

and

3. Lee has a Baltar-like symbiotic relationship with Cylon-Starbuck.

I'm beginning to like this unification-theory best.

because the one stickler here was that the most obvious choice as Final Cylon would be President Laura Roslin (owing to her power position and Cylon shared dreams)

However, If Lee is linked to Starbuck as Baltar is linked to Six then  _specific_ Colonials/Humans may have a common symbiotic/neuro-link to _specific_ Cylon models.

and that would explain why the President shares dreams with cylons.

She'd then under this theory be the human connected-counterpart of the Cylons whose dreams she shared, and that, would eliminate her as the 5th Cylon, it would eliminate Lee as the 5th Cylon, and it would eliminate Baltar as the 5th Cylon.

All told, that would eliminate Starbuck's major contenders as final 5 Cylon, explain their experiences, and corroborate this theory.

(what theory? - Ed)

Maelstrom's Unified-BSG-Theory of course.

(I had to ask - Ed)

1. That Starbuck is the 5th Cylon.

2. That she broadcast the music to the other 4.

3. That she got the music from Earth. (or an Earth database).

4. That Lee is Starbuck's human symbiotic counterpart, just as Baltar is the human symbiot to  Six's Cylon, just as Roslin is to her Cylon counterpart.

5. That colonials/humans have a symbiotic/bio-neural connection to cylon counterparts.

---

(6. possibly because humans bioengineered cylons based on specific dna patterns though as an aside strictly from a writing/concept perspective,  one could conceive that the twist might be that ultimately (*wait for it* - Ed) cylons bioengineered humans)

(dun-dun-duuunh - Ed)

Go Away Ed.

Anyway, I present points 1 to 5 for your consideration, as a preliminary unified-BSG-theory that is self-contained and that I believe is consistent with evidence seen thus far on BSG.

(and point 6 as an unrelated in progress external wild-theory with extreme retro-fit requirements - Ed)

I feel close, may even be onto something (though we doubt it - Ed) in any case, I think I'll leave it there for now.

*P.S if anyone has an image capture of Starbuck's viper at the end of "Crossroads Part II" and a capture of her Viper prior to the explosion in "Maelstrom" it would be greatly appreciated if you could upload them so we could examine and cross-reference them to discern which Viper she's flying.

And that's my (current) BSG-unification theory.

G'night,
Michael X. Maelstrom.

Why X3 SucksLark'sVomit - Maelstrom's view on:

(Thu 03/22/2007 07:30pm)


re: Merin's Definitive Critique of X-Men 3: The Last Stand
( see http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/217.html - Ed )

THAT was impressive focussed rage.

A rage I share.

Merin displayed his disdain at X3 incisively from the "X-Men" angle and I could not add a thing to it from the "X-Men" perspective, he hit every key point dead on
AISI.

Bloody impressive.

But I would like to respond by expressing my rage against X3, from another perspective., from the "Movie" angle. 

I hated X3 with a (baseball-bat wielding - Ed) passion for what it did to the X-Men
thematically, but also just as equally for what it does to "Movies" and "Cinema".

if I may, I would like to present my POV for you Maniac's consideration.

It's part of why I carry around a bat and took said baseball bat to Ratner the day
before yesterday (yet again) over X-Men 3.

( see http://www.mania.com/54005.html -Ed)

AISI The blame for this X-Men "movie" atrocity is -primarily- Ratner's. 

Not exclusively, but primarily.

Why?

Because he has broken the sacred Director/Audience/Producer trust.

The Director is the final defense against this sort of studio-driven money-grubbing soul-less formula crap-fest occurring.

(though he is far from the first or the last, as there are plenty of Directors out there that slurp at the ballsack of the Producer.

Ratner's one of the worst offenders in my eyes because he's got some talent, allegedly, apparently enough to catch Spielberg's attention when he was in film school.

but Ratner has apparently decided "to blazes with it, Producer testicles taste ok so long as you can mask the smell by inhaling million dollar bills")

I despise him for that as much as for displaying such blatant and deliberate flippant disregard for the X-Men.

But more broadly, it's what he currently represents in the Movie industry.

Ratner (currently) doesn't make movies for movie-go'ers, he makes them for _The producers_ for _the studio_, for _the dollar_ , _exclusively_.

There is NO artistic vision, not 1 iota of it, there is NO DIRECTOR in Xmen 3.

Producer: "Formula boys say to make audience laugh 15 minutes in"

Ratner: "OK boss, done"

Producer: "Ok, book says to alter their breathing here to create tension, I got the soundtrack to do half your job for you, gimme some tense action 33 minutes in"

Ratner: "Right Boss"

Producer: "OK, now make them cry 47 minutes in"

Ratner: "Done Boss"

Producer: "for the rest of it, Action, Action, Action, Blow stuff up, More Action!"

Ratner: "Cool, I'm good at that"

Producer: "oh shit, wait let's go back over it, I forgot about the _substance_ part"

Ratner: "aw oh"

Producer: "..book says we need that or the fanboys will go thermo-nuclear. They're anal like that. We figured out how to get films past the critics, we just don't show em to them before the release or we tell the one's we own what to say in advance, but we can't get past these bastard "fanboys" and "movie" people, they'll kill us by word of mouth, and since we can't incinerate them all, book says we have to put some of this "substance" stuff in.

..you know anything about "substance" Ratner?"

Ratner: "are you kiddin? have you seen my recent films?"

Producer: "Nope, I stopped looking up your resume when I saw the box they made. You're the best Director ever in my book!

Hmmmmmm.

Aw fuck, I don't wanna call Singer to ask him. OK, don't panic Ratner baby, we'll both sit through Xmen 1 and Xmen 2 movies and see if we can figure out what Singer was getting at.

and by both of us, I of course mean, I'll grab them from the library and go home to my mansion to bang my prostitute, you'll study them."

Ratner: "are you nuts? I'm action-man! I re-iterate, have you seen my films?! Not only do I not do substance but I don't recognize substance in -any- film in the first place, watching Singer isn't going to help. I don't know what to look for"

Producer: "OK, OK, relax, lets go by process of elimination then.  Just jot down the scenes in Singer's movies that _AREN'T_ something you're familiar with, that'll be the "substance".

Ratner: "Good idea!  uh, then what?"

Producer: "then _copy it_ as best you can and we'll find someplace in the film to stick those "substance" scenes. No one will notice"

Ratner: "Right On. That's why they call you Boss, Boss man!"

and ^that^ is why they keep hiring him (and people like him - Ed) despite the mindless soul-less films they make.

I'm not kidding you when I say I need a freakin SHOWER after I watch a Ratner film, to wash the greed and filth off.

In my observation there is NO Director in X-Men 3, there is only a lackey-boy for the Producer's demands. 

Do they make money? yes, buckets of it, because they play to well established _formula_, they play strictly to the "I wanna kill an hour and 45 minutes" crowd, they -don't- play to actual fans of movies or cinema.

They have no replay value as movies.  At worst, we never watch them again, at best, we might fast-forward to a particular scene, then pull it out.  They're not "movies"
they're a conglomeration of formula scenes patched together.

Some already know my reaction to X3, it was pure rage, I have had a baseball bat with Ratner's name on it ever since I saw it.

However, in the interest of what should be the obvious (and yet somehow rarely is - Ed) I should point out that this condemnation of Ratner's current studio-lackey-boy approach is not a personal dislike for him or for every movie he has or more importantly will ever make.

I personally don't hold cinematic grudges.

Because they're pointless, and counter-productive.  What I want, is for Ratner to evolve
-out- of being this lackey-boy to the Studio.

It is conceivable that with all the money he has made from these formula shitfests, he may one day feel secure enough to focus on making a quality movie, and maybe _then_ we'll see why Spielberg sent this guy some money when he was in Film School.

but for now, to excuse him this excrement that he's making now, to dilute the emphasis on where the primary problem lay, that is effectively to PROMOTE the furtherance of these sorts of shitcock films.

It all boils down to this:

When a film is motivated -entirely- by the Studio's desires, and the Director recuses himself of his responsibility and bows and raises his ass to them, consequently there is NO Director.

(except as a courtesy, named in the credits, and as the recipient of a massive cheque -Ed)

..at that point, 8 times out of 2 it results in pure unadulterated bonobo chimpanzee disposable formula excrement being hurled at the screen.

And we NEED to stand up and call it out.

Well, I certainly need to. 

Hollywood may not listen very often, but they _do_ have scanner-boys reading. 

Speak up when you don't like what you're seeing. 

Who knows, one day it may have an effect.

Because to let it pass without enraged comment, is to promote the furtherance of these craptastic films, by the consent implicit in our silence.

And That's My View.

michaelmaelstrom.

StarTrek Bond & Baird

(Sun 03/18/2007 07:06pm)





Looks like I can't reply to the comment You / Elrushbo left on my profile's comments page (re: Star Trek: Nemesis & Star Trek XI ) so what the 'ell I'll make a blog entry out of it, since I had a thought yesterday (oh no - Ed) Go Away Ed., as I watched Casino Royale, and saw Stuart Baird's name in the credits.

/BEGIN QUOTE/
re: #5 - elrushbo  [Mar 17 2007, 8:41 am CDT] Dude-I read what you said about Nemesis, I think it was awful because the studio was blindly cranking out movies, and didn't recognize that the team behind it(Berman and Braga) was the problem. The studio assumed that, well, it's Star Trek, so it wil automatically make money. It wasn't an appeal to the masses, as you're trying to make the current project to be. Besides, in reality, movies have to make money for there to be more movies! And the reality is that Berman and Braga killed Star Trek. And yes, the limitations placed on Trek by the studios didn't help either. They very well could have moved forward, but now they have to break out the AED and do what will jumpstart the franchise! After two failed TNG movies and Enterprise, we're not going to see some new storyline with new characters set in or ahead of the TNG universe before the franchise is reinvigorated. Frankly, I think this is a very good idea, looks like the studio is giving the guys making it some freedom, like maybe they're getting it-this is one of the most successful and revered franchises in entertainment history, let them have some freedom instead of giving it a shoestring budget.

I see this as Star Trek getting the royal treatment, and at this point I have to say "IT'S ABOUT TIME!"  -- Elrushbo

/END QUOTE/

*WARNING!*  *WARNING!*  *WARNING!*  *WARNING!*  *WARNING!*  *WARNING!*

WARNING!: Casino Royale and Star Trek: Nemesis SPOILERS below.

I agree with your assessment of B&B, they fragged up Nemesis, mostly (I'd say) because they were burned out on Star Trek, coasting on past-successes, running on fumes.

I'm not one of those hardcore anti-B&B people though, imo they made good Star Trek at one time; very good Star Trek; Star Trek that resulted in 3 other Star Trek series no less.

(and let's not kid ourselves, if Paramount wanted to they could have run Enterprise for the same TNG/DS9/VGR 7 seasons , regardless of the ratings - and that probably would have upped the -perceived- value of Enterprise too - (particularly with people that use number of seasons as a guage for levels of success -Ed) they could have imo, if they'd wanted to - for the simple reason that they own UPN :)

I say that to illustrate that I try not to use box-office success/failure or number of seasons as an argument in itself for why something may be good, or may suck larks vomit.

But I agree, I thought Star Trek: Nemesis sucked larks vomit, mostly owing to B&B.

I think B&B stayed WAY too long, and that they deserve scorn for not leaving when they knew they were burned out.  Instead they took Star Trek down with them. 

(for purposes of brevity, I'm not going to bother differentiating between the 2 men together versus the 2 apart, though we'll take it as read that upon close examination, criticism should probably be levied against one or the other at different times.  Instead I'll use the shorter "B&B" as a catch-all term for the type of Two-Headed-Hydra Star Trek we all know we're talking about)

(sort of like porn vs art, difficult to define but you know it when you see it - Ed)

Yes. You can stop helping me now Ed.

(Moo-Aha - Ed)

But aside from B&B coasting on fumes and consequently delivering sub-par Trek.

..and that I think the casting of Picard's clone..

(Hugh of Praetor Shinzon of Tom Hardy of Reman Borg - Ed)

..was horridly juvenile - reminded me of the emo kid that tugs at your pantsleg, (impossible to take seriously -Ed)

..one other reason for the failure of Nemesis to work as a cohesive Star Trek movie came to mind yesterday.

Just rented the latest Bond flick and saw Nemesis' Director Stuart Baird was the editor of Casino Royale.

Casino Royale certainly scores high as a Darker, Rawer entry into the Bond canon.

I admit I prefer the refined quip-tossing ladies-man stone-cold-killer secret agent Bond, James Bond - but I thought as a sort of Bond prequel, Casino Royale worked really well. 

IF the intent is to watch Bond refine over the next few films into the secret agent we all know. 

Conversely IF the intent is to move Bond over to permanently manifesting as a sort of Blue-Collar Bond, then I'm probably gonna hate this by the 3rd film.  To me if you want to do a Blue Collar Bond, then call him Bourne or something.

Anyway, if it's designed to watch Bond Evolve into the Sauve British Secret Agent, then I'm all in.

For now, I'm liking it.

My only major problem was that I thought Casino Royale's _EDITING_ sucked larks vomit. 

It really stood out to me.  Which nominally editing never should.  Good editing, is editing you don't notice. imo.

Continuity was somewhat fragged, (how come Bond doesn't apparently evolve from the opening Black&White scene to post-July 6, 2006? - we're supposed to believe Bond remained un-refined, all the way from his Double-O inception through to 2006? - and why does M ask Bond if he's sure that Mathis is guilty? didn't LeChiffre tell him he was with his "Your Friend Mathis is My Friend Mathis" remark to Bond?)

However, I suppose you could argue that the latter was the continuity-department's fault, or that "uh we planned to intimate that Bond doesn't tell M everything he knows when he talks to her" or some such post-facto explanation but personally I find it very hard to believe that he'd just skip over telling her something that important. 

(or maybe it was their way of leaving a thread clearly open-ended and unresolved in the minds of the audience, to hint that the next Bond film is going to be a direct continuation of Casino Royale ? - Ed)

Which it is going to be, reportedly. 

But I still maintain they need a bloody good reason why Bond doesn't tell M what LeChiffre told him about Mathis.  Certainly better than "because we're making a sequel and we wanted the audience to know it". 

Still, I'll let that one go until the sequel is out and we see what their answer to this apparent snafu is.

but that situation combined with Bond not evolving into the refined bond until post 2006? 

^Raise-Eyebrow.

OK, let's leave both those aside then, perhaps the blame (or answers - Ed) there can be laid at the feet of the writers (Purvis, Wade and Haggis - Ed), and lets move onto the biggest example of imo questionable-editing.

2/3rds through Casino Royale there are story-jumps that require the viewer to piece what happened and how we got from the last scene, to the next scene, together.

Now THAT is inarguably the result of Editing.

Curiously. (or not - Ed) Nemesis had a sim problem with Editing. 

Troi being "raped " twice for example, it was as un-necessary and repetitive as Bond's attempt at witty-repartee with Vesper, which also occurred un-necessarily and repetitively twice, one scene after another. 

I'd qualify both those as examples of bad-editing.

I also saw deleted scenes in the Nemesis special director's edition that I thought should have been in the movie, and probably would have given it more of a TNG air (the Captain's seatbelt scene for example -Ed)

But most disjarringly (to me) was the 2/3rd of the way through Casino Royale monumental editing-jump from Bond's ball-busting scene over to a whirlwind Romance.

Yes, you could piece together what had happened, but nominally should you have to? isn't that's the editors job?

So my point is this: I'd toss Stuart Baird into the Nemesis failure-to-work-as-a-Star Trek film culpability pit  too, right next to B&B and Nemesis Hugh of Shinzon casting, his Directing/Editing style just doesn't work for Star Trek. or at least my view of Star Trek.

I'd argue it barely works for Casino Royale too.  I think the movie is a success -in spite of- its questionable editing.

But, what do I know, Ironically (or unfathomably in my view) Baird was nominated for an Editing Award for Casino Royale?!?!

And it wasn't a Razzie.

[Pathud - Ed]

And that's my view.

(such as it is - Ed)

Please Go Away Ed.

Wil Fucking Wheaton PartII

(Fri 03/16/2007 06:42pm)

Well, that was far more shiite-disturbing fun that it ought have been. 

if you read Wil Wheaton's William Fucking Shatner Part I, Wil Wheaton's William Fucking Shatner Part II concludes here:

http://suicidegirls.com/news/geek/20634/

(newbies, right click on underlined links, open in new window -Ed)

Yes, I think they already know that Ed.

(just doing my bit to help - Ed)

Go Away Ed.

At the end of the day, I 'ave no idea of course whether my particular world-view interpretation of Shatner's past behavior was correct (as expressed in my Wil Fucking Wheaton blog entry here), but it was nice to see that it ended ...well let's just say in the interest of not spoiling it for anyone that hasn't  read part II as yet, it ends catharticly for all involved.

Though (curiously - Ed) I think no matter where you stand on Shatner or Wheaton, you can essentially continue to maintain your (warped - Ed) view.

(which is probably a good thing, because this means that we won't have rampaging mobs of enraged Trekkies, Trekkers and Trekites running about with de-stabilized psyches - Ed)

^Raise-Finger-To-Comment.

(addendum: correction. at least not anymore deranged than you lot apparently already are - Ed)

v-Lower-Finger.

(Shrug)

Works for me.

- mXm

 

Wil Fucking Wheaton

(Wed 03/14/2007 03:01pm)

 

Wesley Crusher's surprisingly-cooler eviler ace-poker-playin twin Wil Wheaton is at it again.

He's "Writing" in such an intelligible amiable manner that (I find) it's impossible to hate him.

(_And_ unfathomably, I don't hate him for managing to pull off getting me to not hate him _either_; though I feel I probably should, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm(n) is this a mirror universe?)

Damn you Wil Wheaton!

*shake fist at sky*

*tug down on shirt*

Anyway, for those as yet unawares Wil Wheaton's latest Trek related intertube smartbomb is a story he recounts of: The First Time He Met William Shatner..

(during the shooting of Star Trek V - Ed)

..and he's titled it "William Fucking Shatner".

The short of which is that this encounter results in WW altering his (self-admitted teen-geek -Ed) idol's nomenclature from "William Shatner" to "William Fucking Shatner".

^Raise-Eyebrow.

if you haven't as yet you can read his recounting 'ere:

http://suicidegirls.com/news/geek/20562/page1/#commentStart

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm(n)

/Begin Opine./
(mine)
(no really? - Ed)
Go Away Ed.

This is purportedly _part 1_ of Wheaton's "William Fucking Shatner" recounting which
allows a brief window for reflection and commentary.

My View: Good lord Wheaton, what have you done?

This brings back geek-memories of my own that nominally would have otherwise required regressive-hypnosis to surface.

I spent years - hours - OK minutes in therapy trying to come to terms with the apparent dichotomy of the on-screen TOS family dynamic and the rumours of off-screen troubles. I comfortably concluded..

(as a function of TOS-family-illusion-maintaining necessity - Ed)

..and years before Denny Crane made it plausible, that in fact Shatner had been mis-represented or at least misunderstood.

I concluded (constructed - Ed) that Shatner's purported asshat-persona was largely a result of his wry sense of humour coupled with his uncanny desire to almost never give the jism up that he was only playing and meaning to have some fun (as a megalomaniac - Ed); that his arrogant-dismissive persona was an act; one that he expected to eventually be called on.

(Though apparently rarely has been - Ed) 

Apparently.

Apparently a well constructed wry comedy act persona that no matter HOW OBVIOUS he has at times made it (SNL skit, Denny Crane) yet still some people simply can't/don't or won't see it as an act.

(and so., had formed my personally constructed view of The Shatner)

Nimoy for example seemed to manifest proof of my theory, he seemed to "get" Shatner's gig, where-as it appeared to go right over the head of well, in the interest of amity, we won't mention which Star Trek cast members it might have gone over the head of.

(Doohan - Ed)

*cough*

And low Nimoy and Shatner ended up good friends.

Such at any rate, had come to be my view of Shatner and the TOS family.

and it's one of the few places where I find myself at odds with other Trek'ites, I never took the SNL "get a life" skit personally, ergo I never felt a need to "get him back", ergo I didn't gravitate towards assuming he was an asshat simply because a rumour (or two -Ed) circulated that he was.

and then came Boston Legal and Denny Crane, and well all-bloody-right he cemented the view that he was well capable of "acting" like an ass, yet with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek.

And all was well.

and now we 'ave this, WIL FUCKING WHEATON you appear to be challenging my carefully elaborately constructed Star Trek TOS family view and consequently my psyche.

I'm hoping Part II (apparently due soon) will end with Shatner having in some
manner given Wil Wheaton that nod, wink and smile, so that he came to see he was just having a bit of fun with him.

Because otherwise, if Shatner really IS that big of a dick, you've upset my elaborately constructed view of the TOS family and you really don't want to frag with my fragile little psyche.

I'm insane enough as it is, but luckily for you I'm easily distracted by more important things

(like apparently Vaginas - Ed)

but it's not just me, there are millions of Star Trek fans out there whose TOS view has had to twist and contort in order to account for these rumoured stories of Shatner's ass-hat-itude(or is that ass-Shat-itude - Ed) and you have no idea what hell you will unleash onto this Earth if you destabilize the fragile psyche of the Trek'ites.

There will be blood, tonight!

(more like green corn starch - Ed)

Nevertheless, there will be lots of something, and it won't be pretty,

Wil Fucking Wheaton, what have you done?

to quote Kirk from ST II: TWOK
"you of all people should know the danger of re-opening old wounds".

/End Opine/

(mine)

(still -Ed)

Stay Tuned for Wil Fucking Wheaton's - William Fucking Shatner - Part Deux coming  *scribble* *scribble* *erase* carry the 2 .. soon.

In the meantime, somehow I know I'm going to regret asking this, but in your estimation is William Shatner really a dick?

-- michaelXmaelstrom.