RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Kirk At The Oscars

Posted by T'Bonz - 25/02/13 at 09:02 am


Share |

At last night’s Oscars Award Ceremony, James T. Kirk paid a visit from the future.

Kirk, played by William Shatner, returned to give a little advice to Seth MacFarlane, who was hosting the event.

In the skit, Kirk warned MacFarlane that the headlines for the next day would claim that MacFarlane was the “worst Oscar host ever.”

“Your jokes at tasteless and inappropriate and everyone ends up hating you,” said Kirk.

Kirk went on to (rightly) criticize MacFarlane’s singing “We Saw Your Boobs” with a gay chorus, telling MacFarlane that he would be joining the chorus in July of 2015. When MacFarlane asked what he should do, Kirk told him not to mock the movies, but to sing a song that celebrates the movies, which MacFarlane does.

The headlines for the next day change to “Seth MacFarlane pretty bad Oscar host.”

MacFarlane gets more advice and again the headline changes; this time he’s only a “mediocre host.”

“That’s the best review I’ve ever gotten,” MacFarlane tells Shatner. “I’m going to take that.”

But he is persuaded by Kirk to do more, and is rewarded with “Best Oscars ever, says everyone except Entertainment Weekly.”

Source: ABC

Tags: , , ,

  • garak0410

    It was pretty funny. Funniest part of the evening for sure.

  • Rad

    The more I watch it, the more brilliantly funny the bit is. Marvelous!

  • JWPlatt

    Editorial comment within this article says “(rightly)”. Says T’Bonz, or some author. Let me guess: humorless woman. Meanwhile, it’s still okay to depict males as addled fools who only care about football and the size of their penis. I can laugh at that. I mean, I wouldn’t get all those emails if there weren’t some stupid guys who actually believe the ads (and care). It’s about time everyone can learn to laugh at themselves and their gender as easily as they laugh at others and just admit it’s funny without being offended.

  • SJStar

    I saw this on TV, and thought the first 17 minutes was awful, boring, unfunny and very narcissistic. If Roddenberry were alive, he’d sue.

    Note: Being outside the US, I can’t see the video. Typical of greedy egocentric America, who treats the rest of the world as frack’n second-class citizens! It is also noted that the American corporations think it is also fine to price gouge other countries, too! 50% to 100% markups, including everything on Star Trek related media. It is no wonder your economy is in such a complete mess.

  • SJStar

    William Shatner was much funnier on Friday’s Craig Ferguson than at the Oscars IMO.
    Loved his comment on Star Trek and Star Wars!

  • brathor1

    Really, you’re going to blame all of us for some media company’s decision to restrict streaming video?

  • brathor1

    I wanted to like this when I started the video, but it was pretty painful to watch. The boob song had a lukewarm funniness to it, but all the Shatner parts were just too forced for me to find funny.

  • SJStar

    Yes. It makes you feel different from the rest of the world. I carefully worded my response so I didn’t target the average American citizen, only the stinking corporations and their obsession with ownership and fleecing or exploiting ‘foreigners.’ There is a growing trend throughout the world at the moment to start ripping up trade agreements with the US and adding exploitation clauses.

    It really cheese me off that Americans can watch US TV series like Star Trek on-line for free, and that non-US citizens have to pay through the nose. (The only way it seems to break this at the moment is to have a US credit card, cash cards or hosting site account within the US.)

    If this trend continues, you might find that the US film and television markets will start being banned in many countries or have restrictions in trade. Blocking content, just like the video attached to this story, just irrupts and causes others to want to act against the US. If you can’t understand that, so be it!

  • Polaris01313-1

    That’s a bit harsh about the United States Of America, wouldn’t you say?

  • Mike

    Where are you from? You’re acting like that isn’t the standard. If you’re from Canada, guess what? Your content is generally blocked here… From the UK? The BBC blocks their content to the US. Australia? Same sort of deal… So… Exactly where are you from in the world that is so wonderful that they give their content away to international markets? You’re whining over a standard that virtually everyone abides by… The difference? The reason you don’t see Americans bitching constantly about this? Duh… make some content worth bitching about and we might… but as long as you’re feeding off the teet of American productions for your entertainment content, and you surely are, don’t gripe when the corporations at the head of things don’t share them internationally… Your’s wouldn’t and don’t either… you just don’t make enough actual quality material to hear us complain.

  • Mike

    Entitlement… thinks the US owes him… I’m thinking he must be a European…

    I know, maybe there’s another existential threat to his very existence we can spend over half a century protecting him from, only to have him turn on us in the end… Over broadcast rights……..

  • SJStar

    Nope. It is the truth.

    OK. Try buying a Star Trek : Voyager episode, say, on iTunes. It is $3.99 here while in the US it is $1.99, which is made worst as my currency in the exchange rate is slightly higher than the US dollar. (This is a mark up of 100% and a gross profit of $1.99. There is absolutely no difference in packaging, downloads, etc. Electronically, it is completely independent on markets too!) If I want to buy it directly from the US, I have to have, say a DVD player, which can play in my allotted region. If I buy it here, I am stuck with the same drastic markup.

    You could argue that there are taxes etc. Fair enough, but adding everything ancillary, including a small margin for the creator, cannot account for basically double the price. It is simply price gouging. (It is interesting too that the government inquiry about this, requested an Apple representative to answer the questions on this, and they refused to turn up!)

    As I said. There are free trade agreements with many countries, and the US is supposed to be the champion of free market enterprise and the global economy, yet it protects its markets, and improves its margins by sucking the rest of the world dry.

    That’s a bit harsh, wouldn’t you say?

  • SJStar

    Sorry. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  • SJStar

    The US is owes me or other countries nothing. All I’m talking about is fairness in pricing and equity in access. The Academy Awards are hardly desperate copyright material, especially considering it was already shown live and in replayed in my country. Perhaps I should have taped it… oh I forgot… if I do that, you probably want to extradite me from my country to the US because of copyright breaches regardless of my own country’s laws or sovereignty!

    According to you, that’s OK too!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ShaneNokes Shane Nokes

    Considering that it’s the laws of many nations that prevent this type of free access to content (usually others, not us) that’s your problem to be honest.

    Implore your government to allow free access to content from the US. I doubt you’ll get it to happen since content providers like to be able to charge for this…and that’s all around the world.

    Educate yourself on content locks and geofencing before you embarrass yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ShaneNokes Shane Nokes

    There are taxes, import fees (even on digital content) imposed, legal wrangling as the content is often handled by a different publisher/distributor than here in the US, and they pay for the content. Then there’s all the legal mess as regards someone having to inspect the content to ensure it meets broadcast/decency standards in your region.

    As someone who has worked in the entertainment industry it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be.

    Educate yourself (as I stated above) before you make yourself look even less educated….

  • http://www.facebook.com/ShaneNokes Shane Nokes

    Actually it’s you that has no clue as to what you’re talking about. I can’t watch BBC content here in American because it is subject to geofencing, same with Canadian content, Australian content, etc.

    Everyone does this to everyone else. In order to watch BBC content I actually subscribe to BBC America…or I have to catch things 1 or 2 seasons behind via Netflix/Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, etc…which are pay services.

  • T’Bonz

    LOL. I’m 54. As a woman, I found the boobs song was fucking retarded and the bit about MacFarlane becoming part of the gay choir in 2015 was rather insulting to gays, yet not a peep was heard on that, which was a bit surprising. The entire skit was stupid and twice as long as it should have been. If that makes me humorless, oh well. I probably am, and I can’t be sorry if having a sense of humor means embracing stupidity like that. :p

  • SJStar

    Good to see an apologist in action. 100% markup for you is perfectly OK. You obviously can’t do the maths.
    Apple to a classic example of such corporate greed. Price gouging and price fixing by law is totally illegal in the US, but it is not outside the US. I suggest you are being quite disingenuous and liberal with the facts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ShaneNokes Shane Nokes

    Got it. You’re not interested in the actual situation, just how you want to interpret it. You could have told me that you weren’t interested in an actual discussion of the reasons for the higher prices.

    Sheesh…my fault for assuming you might be capable of some sort of discussion in a manner even slightly resembling reality.

  • SJStar

    The blocking of free content is OK

    Just wish it was worth something. We are not taking about a film or TV Series, we are talking about a simple skit at the Oscars. You’d think America would likely want to promote their film industry, instead they just put people offside.

    As for pay services, there is no problem as long as it is done fairly. Doubling prices to ripoff consumers in plainly unjust, and Americans are the masters at it. It promotes a free market, and instead is ultimately protectionist and exploitative.

  • Mike

    Put out a better product at a lower cost. Feel free.

  • Mike

    Last I checked, the United States isn’t a signatory to the ICC… your country, whatever it is, probably is… So, who is wanting to extradite whom regardless of sovereign borders? Your comments in the last couple days have been so far out as to not be believed… I think you need a breath, a shower, and maybe some fresh air, chum.

    If I wanted to watch an online clip of the BAFTA’s, guess what? I couldn’t really do it without going through the American content provider that has licensed the material… or, you know, YouTube…. Point being, that was shown on American tv… And who cares? You’re trying to pretend the US is doing something unfair and unique… and it simply isn’t, in any way. As I said, if your backwater was producing anything worthy of being watched abroad, you’d know it works this way for everyone, everywhere.

  • Mike

    Is there a free trade agreement between your country and the US? If not, it’s more than likely your country that is causing the higher price of goods imported from the United States. The United States doesn’t tax exports, genius. It may be true that corporations charge a higher premium in international markets, but, there again, I assure you something imported from a non-free trade nation into the US is also subject to higher pricing both because of the nature of the import, AND FROM THE FOREIGN CORPORATION. That’s the nature of business. But as Shane rightly notes, you’re not apparently much interested in reality.

  • Polaris01313-1

    Given the responses that you have made in the past on various subjects, there is no probably to it. Humorless is defiinitely an accurate description for your commentary. Then again, the Romulans always were. Another clear sign of Star Trek and its devoted fan following being in such a shambolic state.

    All that aside, Seth MacFarlane is a huge fucking joke. His goddamn cartoons are nothing more than a accurate representation of the garbage that is clearly being broadcasted on TV these days(i.e. useless reality TV shows that don’t mean shit and amount to nothing, along with other useless crap, just to make big ratings for networks).

    Paddy Chayefski was right in his predictions when he wrote Network(MGM, 1976)back in the Seventies.

    This past Oscar ceremony’s bullshit content is a clear example of networks converting themselves into *****houses just to get ahead in the Neilsens. Do we really need any more fucking bullshit polluting the airwaves?

    Or worse, ignorant dipshits like MacFarlane hosting ceremonies that he really should not?

    No, we fucking well don’t.

  • JWPlatt

    What I’d really like to know, given the all the other colorful text in your post, is why you bothered to censor whorehouses.

  • Guest

    Recording something for private use is not a breach of copyright. You’re just ranting here.

    If you hate corporations in the USA so much, stop having an interest in their products…such as the movies that are the subject of the Academy Awards, that awards show itself, and the Star Trek franchise.

  • SJStar

    @ Guest and Mike
    “Recording something for private use is not a breach of copyright. You’re just ranting here.”

    Evidence showing this is wrong see below….

    “So, who is wanting to extradite whom regardless of sovereign borders?”

    Example is Hew Raymond Griffiths, who suffered this fate. He had never visited the US, where he “…is an Australian resident who has been indicted by a court in Virginia for copyright infringement and conspiracy to infringe copyright under the US Code. .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths

    He is the is the first person in the world to be extradited and criminally prosecuted in the US for copyright infringement performed in another country

    Another is the failed case from the UK citizen Richard O’Dwyer.

    This is your beloved dictatorial America in action.

  • SJStar

    A 100% markup cannot be justified by the cost of the product sold no matter how much you twist and turn. This is the reality, sunshne!

  • Mike

    Something tells me jackbooted American thugs didn’t fly down to Australia and kidnap him to face charges. If Australia extradited their own citizen to face charges in the United States, how is that a violation of sovereignty? We have a treaty with Australia for the extradition of criminals or accused criminals. Australia, presumably, could’ve refused, in violation of their extradition treaty with the United States. That they didn’t, and that they extradited him suggests they were following the rule of law… Shame you can’t wrap your mind around that. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that someone cannot violate another country’s law from outside its borders… which would be an awfully silly notion to put forward.

  • SJStar

    You said “So, who is wanting to extradite whom regardless of sovereign borders?

    I gave you an answer that says this statement isn’t true.

    Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that someone cannot violate another country’s law from outside its borders…

    Umm… Guantanamo Bay. Let’s see. US guilty as charged.

    In this case of Mr. Griffiths, it should have been made in Australia I’d presume?

    From the responses here, Americans are either deliberately oblivious to what is going on or they are in denial. No matter how you interpret it, price differentials of 100%, when say even 20% suffices as reasonable markup, is unacceptable. America centrally is supposedly wanting to break down trade barriers and promote a free market, yet its corporations use their power to exploit those who they are wishing to free trade with!

    Another example, and worst example at that is Adobe. At an American site, CNet, they report of Adobe cutting prices of their software under consumer pressure. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57568892-93/adobe-cuts-prices-in-australia-following-price-gouging-probe/ The question is why are they charging so much in the first place? (Note: I read a story where to buy this their Photoshop software in a non-US country, that it was cheaper to buy a plane ticket to the US, including accommodation, buy it in the US, then bring it back with you, and still have a couple of hundred dollars in your pocket! This was made worst, because you can download this software electronically! Markup is 142%. I.e. $495US against $1200.

    ..and yet Nokes here, which you agree with, says I don’t know the reality! Sorry the ignorance here beggars belief!

  • SJStar

    Oh. If you think I’m making this up, the read the comments at the US site known as the Sports Shooter in an article entitled “Adobe Price Gouging In Australia” http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=41225

    To quote Phil Hawkins, from California, and written on 24th February 2013;

    “Price gouging isn’t the word, its highway robbery. Not only are the prices high but the profits go offshore to international companies. These companies don’t necessarily return their profits to the USA either and through transfer pricing etc they often avoid some tax. These companies are getting really bad names for themselves and their country of origin.

    Nikon and Canon cameras can be 20% – 40% higher, Adobe 140%+, Epson 80%, Tommy Hilfinger, Polo, Ralph Loren, perfume and mens products, shoes (Nike, ECCO, Clarks, Sperry etc) 140%, to 200%, Apple 13% to 35%+, software 20% to Adobe 142% ($495 us to $1200 aust when 1$us =1$ Australian) and the download comes from USA. Petrol 1.45 litre.

    He also says;

    In the shorter term these companies earn high profit on low volume often from the same offshore supplier/manufacturer, but now with the internet and overseas travel (also higher in Australia), they earn a bad customer relationship and invite others into the market, i.e. China and India who like Japan of the 60’s era is emerging from a copier/manufacturer economy to a dominant cheaper alternative eg car manufacture (Chery) and export from China.

    This same situation is also happening elsewhere throughout the world.!

    This here quite independently verifies what I have been saying I’d think! (Whether too, I’m ignorant or not!)

  • SJStar

    I would like to make a comment on this somewhat heated debate within this story. I honestly have appreciate the general candor and restraint of those who have so passionately disagree with me, especially without the usual need for swearing, personal attacks or name calling. Thanks for setting such an excellent example. :)

  • Mike

    First, the International Criminal Court is the only institution that wants to go and round up people without the resident country’s approval… The US isn’t a signatory to that. As I said, your country probably is. That is a violation of sovereign borders… The execution of an extradition treaty between two nations is, by definition, not… So, you’ve provided no such example.

    Secondly, Guantanamo Bay is American territory, so I’m not sure what you’re going on about there. The point is, you surely can commit a crime against a country from outside that country, can you not? And if someone is violating American copyright laws and their country is willing to extradite them for it, how is that the fault of the country whose laws and copyrights they’re violating?

    Third, free trade is not what you apparently think it is. Free trade is the removal of state sponsored obstruction to commerce… ie taxes, tariffs, fees, etc. It is not state sponsored or international governing body sponsored price controls. If a private corporation wants to sell you a product they make, they are at liberty to sell it for whatever they want. If the potential consumer deems it not worth it, that’s capitalism, chum. Don’t buy it. If your market makes something better for cheaper, do that. If it doesn’t, and you want what it is these corporations are selling, either put pressure on them, or don’t, but it or don’t… but to expect the US government or individual people to be held accountable for the actions of international corporate conglomerates is delusional.

    Then again, you’re already slightly delusional given this: “At an American site, CNet, they report of Adobe cutting prices of their software under consumer pressure.” The question you ask is why were the prices so high… The question you should’ve asked is, “Why am I complaining about this in a Star Trek forum instead of pressuring Adobe in my rathole country to lower their prices like Americans were apparently capable of doing?”

    Why are you afraid to tell us your country so we can provide some specific examples of the same practices? Sad.

  • Mike

    If I whine long enough, do you think Ford will give me a new car for twenty bucks? I deserve it, after all…

  • SJStar

    That comment is quite unfair. In case you’ve missed it, I’ve already said; “All I’m talking about is fairness in pricing and equity in access.” I have never suggesting getting anything like a discount here.

  • SJStar

    Wow! “Third, free trade is not what you apparently think it is. Free trade is the removal of state sponsored obstruction to commerce… ie taxes, tariffs, fees, etc.”

    Bingo, got it in one. Australia (and many other countries) have a current free trade agreement with the US. I.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement It says, under ‘Electronic commerce’, for example’;

    “The parties agreed to co-operate on mechanisms to facilitate electronic commerce, not to impose customs duties on digital products and for each to apply non-discriminatory treatment to the digital products of the other.

    As I’ve now exampled now many times, they are simply not doing that. American corporations are obliged by law to adhere to that agreement. You are correct in regards the basis of economics here, but it is far more complicated in nature. The idea of agreement in trade, is to balance available products or services that each country and not cause a protectionist or tariff boundary. Any barrier just restricts trade in selling the homegrown products.

    The obvious thing is if American companies wanted to sell more product, they could do so at a low prices, therefore locking-out foreign competition. Yet by NOT doing this, America is risking its clear reputation as the supporter of a free market and capitalism. If that’s what the US wants, so be it!

  • Polaris01313-1

    Quite simply. I don’t use that word because it is both degrading and disrespectful of women in general. Even though there are some women I have had differences of opinions with(some who were unfortunately not prim, proper, and lady-like), I HAVE NOT and I WILL NOT ever use that word in any disputes, period. That same rule also applies to me NOT EVER using the word that begins with the letter B.

    Does that answer your question?

  • JWPlatt

    It answers the question, but I remain amused. You still invoked both “whorehouses” and “bitch” because you effectively communicated the words regardless of their disguise. It’s like wearing a tie to dinner out of respect for the establishment while spitting and “swearing like a sailor.” The terms ‘N-word’ and ‘C-word’ are all the rage these days, like euphemisms dressed up in a tie, but the listener still hears them in their mind complete with full understanding. Eloquence doesn’t require even the disguised invocation of any such words to get the point across unless the words themselves are the topic. I think it’s dishonest to say it’s out of respect that you use the word but hide behind the asterisks when you had a choice to not use it at all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ShaneNokes Shane Nokes

    I can’t even tell what you’re ranting about at this point. The phrasing that you use is not clear for some parts of your post, and seem to be contradictory.

    You say the blocking of free content is OK. One would think you meant that the blocking of free content doesn’t make sense, and that the blocking of paid content is OK since it’s not free.

    As regards a simple skit, it’s a 10 minute long piece of content, not a quite bit. Also as stated geofencing is a huge issue worldwide, not just here in the US. I can’t view free or paid content from the BBC here in the US at all. I can’t even pay to use their site to keep up on shows.

    So please stop trying to sound intelligent when you’re quite clearly not part of the industry or versed in what goes on.

  • SJStar

    Blocking some free content is OK, because the programming may yet to be broadcasted in another country, for example. However, it was already shown in my own country, and as i was only a portion of the whole program, so why not show it. However, I did see the Academy Awards live on television, which was repeat later on. Here I can comment on what I’ve seen.

    Note: I can’t see the ABC content here nor its length, so I can’t comment on that at all. All I see is a 403-1 error. It seems I can’t view it because of an “International Rights Agreement”, but it does appear outside the US on a number of different sites. I.e. NZ at http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Seth-MacFarlanes-opening-Oscars-monologue/tabid/312/articleID/288064/Default.aspx

    As for your persistent and repeatably telling me on-the-lines “I don’t know what I’m talking about.” Please cut it out!

    Disagree if you must, but stop trying to undermine me by putting someone down. Attack the ideas not the person. Please.

  • Mike

    It’s good advice… maybe you should expand it a bit and apply it to yourself. Nothing is being done here that isn’t happening in reverse. That you feel so entitled isn’t my problem, but, somehow, it’s apparently my fault because International Law restricts usage of produced material. As I’ve said, you don’t realize it happens exactly the same in reverse, mostly because your shithole country probably doesn’t really export anything in terms of film/tv/music… so, it’s understandable… except to you.

  • Mike

    Well, what defines fair? If a company wants to retail a product for a certain amount, you can either buy it or not. I don’t think it’s fair for healthcare to cost what it does. Does that mean I get it for free? Maybe I think a new Ford is only worth $20. Who are you to argue with that? That’s what I think is fair… See how ridiculous that is? As you pointed out, when consumers pressured Adobe, Adobe altered their pricing because the market demanded it. It demanded it by virtue of lack of sales, mind you, not by whining. If the sales had justified it, do you really think they would’ve lowered the price? Hell, I think $500 for Photoshop is too much. Does Adobe care? Not so much… they make plenty of money at that price point. And I hate to break it to you, they didn’t price their products in Australia with the understanding that they hate all Australians. They priced them because that’s what they thought the market could manage. It didn’t, they lowered their price. And? What part of that is anything other than standard capitalism? If I think the $500 is too much, I can either not buy it, pirate it, or do without. Whining hadn’t occurred to me. How odd.

  • SJStar

    It is nothing to do with international law. Also I have said nothing here anything like “entitlement” – a falsehood you persistently throw at me. I’ve say it again, for the third time; “All I’m talking about is fairness in pricing and equity in access.”

    If you can’t comprehend that simple notion, it’s not my fault.

  • SJStar

    Why can’t you get this through your seemingly thick skull!

    I’ll say it yet again, I have never said getting anything for free!! This is your claim not mine.

    If America sells something at $100, and there is a trade agreement saying there is no discrimination in trade between two countries, then another country would also expect to pay around the same $100. (Costs could be marked up by shipping, etc., but the overall margin would be expected to be minor.) Mark up of +100%, or doubling the price is plainly unjustified.

    As I first noted;

    Typical of greedy egocentric America, who treats the rest of the world as frack’n second-class citizens! It is also noted that the American corporations think it is also fine to price gouge other countries, too! 50% to 100% markups, including everything on Star Trek related media. It is no wonder your economy is in such a complete mess.

    I stand by that statement, and have justified it as to why. End of story.

  • John (not McCain)

    What’s also degrading to women is expecting them to conform to standards you have set for them.

  • Mike

    Oh, my bad… which part went over the line for you? Calling your mystery country a shithole after endless trashing of my country? When you START OUT by saying, “Typical of greedy egocentric America”, what kind of response do you expect?

  • Mike

    You won’t name your country, so I can’t give you an example of your exports being vastly more expensive here than there… wherever there is… So, clearly you just want to bitch.

  • SJStar

    Bingo. Got it in one.

  • T’Bonz

    Yeah, yeah, you deal with some of the dipshits I’ve dealt with in the last 8 years running the place and you’d lose your sense of humor too. ;)