Hello all,
Let's try to be as sincere as possible.
Rumples, I don't agree with that, because Shatner had actually established himself as a serious dramatic actor in the classic Twilight Zone episodes long before his iconic role of James T. Kirk came along.
Except for some, I didn't catch up on these 60s shows until reruns of the 70s. I remember "Twilight Zone" pretty well. It was very well written and avant garde for it's time. The writing played upon common natural fears quite adeptly. Several shows gave me repeated nightmares for years as a kid. One of them was with Shatner and that gremlin attacking the plane in flight. His performance was well done. But to say two or three appearances in this series established him as a "serious dramatic actor" is an overestimation. He had done about 100 projects before that, and if anything his work for over a dozen episodes in a forgotten series called "For The People" in 1965 was probably more memorable back then.
As Shijak has already astutely noted, Star Trek was born the same year in which camp TV was at its zenith, with Adam West's Batman, Don Adams' Maxxwell Smart, Fred Gwynne's Herman Muenster, Bob Denver's Gilligan and Bob Crane's Hogan dominating the American Television scene. Shatner had an acting style and talent that naturally blended in with the trend towards campy television, but it should be noted that Star Trek, unlike the other TV series mentioned, was not purely camp.
I don't think the intention was camp at all. Due to the budgets and sometimes faulted writing some episodes came off that way. The episode with the "Gorn" for one. But Gene Roddenberry was looking for a more realistic and seriously thought-provoking extension of Buck Rodgers that tried to expand the mind well beyond the racism, nationalism, xenophobia, militarism, capitalism and other concepts he believed would become outdated in a better future.
Although it's true that the creativity of producer Gene Roddenberry had much to do with the popularity of Star Trek, Shatner's acting abilities had much to do with the popularity of the show's iconic hero, James T. Kirk. There was really no other character on the show that had a sense of humor, with the exception of "Scotty", and usually his sense of humor was only in dialogue with Kirk.
I thought the character of Chekov, recaptured in the new movie with Chris Pine, had some pretty good humor much of the time. He just wasn't included enough. However, Spock, who probably Roddenberry's attempt to represent an image of a futuristic improved mankind somewhat in concert with the cultural movements of the 60's is more iconic than Captain Kirk. In fact Spock was voted the favorite among sci-fi fans at
http://trekmovie.com/2010/08/18/spock-voted-favorite-alien-but-kirk-12-favorite-hero/ out of 200 characters.
Frankly, as I've pointed to several times, all the characters of Star Trek including Kirk owe their fame as much to each other than themselves alone, not to mention Roddenberry and everyone connected to all the branches and merchandize of the brand. That's why I question the fame of Shatner alone with all the older and newer characters to spread the brand around the world. The success of "Next Generation", which ended at around it's popularity height after seven seasons, and the new Star trek with Pine was and has been far more successful than the original was in it's time, and the characters of Picard, Worf, Data, Riker, LaForge, every bit as popular and loved by fans. There's just no way Kirk can be credited with all the popularity and importance some here have given him.
Shatner, as an actor, has given birth to 3 iconic characters: Kirk, Denny Crane, and the Priceline Negotiator. He has also snagged 3 major acting awards and also as Shijak noted, when cast in the role of Crane was getting nominated for major awards every year.
Denny Crane iconic? Kirk and the Negotiator yes, Crane? Just because an actor wins awards does not make him/her iconic. Maybe Crane is, but the show has never ranked higher than 28th, and the average ranking over the last four years is about 52nd...and that's for the season, not the year. So awards mean acting recognition, not exactly icon status necessarily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Legal#Ratings_and_audience_profile
Celine Dion, in my opinion, is a lightweight as an artist. She has a good singing voice, but its mostly wasted on pop ballads, and her actual entertainment skills are below Shatner's. She is not the kind of person who is going to win over someone not already a fan through live performance. Shatner, on the other hand, has been winning fans over for 60 years.
Well your right that she doesn't get the laughs a Ham doing shameless very bad campy croons to songs gets. Oh Shatner is entertaining, which is often synonymous with...embarrassing.
Here's where your bias makes honesty from you very difficult. For any person I ever talked to about music, if they don't like the music of a specific "artist" they nearly always make a claim like ...one hit wonder ...lightweight ...too pop ...no real skill ...the fans are just stupid. Music fans are very territorial about what style is best and usually dismissive of what is not on their list. I know people who think one style is all there is that's worthwhile. The point is too many people react with prejudice against someone because he or she is not a rock, rapper, hip hop or whatever, and it's usually out of ignorance. But as others have pointed out, Celine ranks very high in popularity, name recognition, and sales at 200 million albums worldwide, not counting shows or anything else.. That's got to be around $2 billion gross at minimum. Her skills are widely acknowledged in her industry. She has had 11 hits songs ranked at number 9 or higher on Billboard alone, and
3 at #1. So the one-hit-wonder stuff by some has been nonsense.
Having "pop ballads" does not diminish talent, fame, or importance. Even though I'm not particularly a fan I appreciate her skill and talent. I've been to the Boston philharmonic and symphony as well as to see varying major artists of hard rock, funk, jazz, pop, etc, and I recognize that many styles have their own real skills and "validity". Dismissing someone for being "Pop" is silly prejudice, and shows a closed mind.
In the end EB, you're working to promote Shatner, and prejudiced against Celine for dubious reasons.
It is amazing to me that a post can go so over your head.
...and there's the basic reason why you don't get it, you act like only your view and those who agree have the only clue. WRONG! :nod: :thumb:
Cheers,
Merlot
