Stallone is NOT such a bad actor!

Yeah, sorry, I dont belive in the whole my dads dead so I've been a jerk my whole life. That cliches is extremly old and, in a messed up sort of way, that cliche is used in another film, or set of films, that we have been talking about latley....the star wars films. Btw, con goers seemed to hate star trek 5 and generations....so its unwise to call them unbiased. There was no sigh of relief at Kirks death, most fans wouldve preferred if the dude kept making star trek and were upset when Shatners character was killed off. You accuse any fan of being too biased and too crazy. That may be true for some fans, but their are plenty of fans of various films and shows who realize when a bad film is made (Fans of Friday the 13th hated Jason X, fans of highlander hated all its sequels, fans of star wars hated attack of the clones, and fans of Star Trek were very very mixed about Trek 5).

Shatner was offered a part in the remake, but Abrams said  Shatner was too busy at the time. The Kirk in the new film came off as a self centered prick, who only wanted fame and glory, wereas Shatners Kirk always was compassionate and caring towards the other crew members. The Star Trek fans still love Shatner dearly, and have far from distanced themselves from him. I'm not sure you have been to enough conventions to state what you have to say about his popularity among admirers of the show. The fans of the show love him so much it's incredible. And at the conventions I went to, they (the people who organized the convention) took polls as to which captain the convention goers preffered. And although they agreed the man who played picard is a better actor, Shatner always won hands down as favorite captain. All four times! Lastly, killing actors off doesn't mean they are unpopular. It does some of the time, but not all the time. Are you saying Dumbledore was killed off in harry potter because he was unpopular? Or what about Spock in Star Trek 2? Sure he was brought back in the third film, but when the second film was being made, they had no intention of ever brining him back. So are you saying fans were distancing themselves from Leonard Nemoy?  I doubt it (and if i were you, I would definatley not question Nemoys status as an artist). Lastly, generations featured Kirk for the sole reason of passing on the torch of films from the original to next gen series. To keep him alive would've ruined the point of that film.

I'm not putting the filmakers i mentioned on as high levels as speilberg and scorcese, but art is art. Even if they only make one artistic film, it took an artist to make it nonetheless. They arent great artists, but artists anyways, whose certain films proved a mastery of the filmaking craft that only an artist could acheive. As for Shatner, I feel certain he is an artist because Kirk is such a beloved character in not only pop culture but sci fi history. To be loved that much in a demanding genre like sci fi must have taken great skill and craftsmenship. If your a fan, perhaps you know what im getting at. He isnt on a level of Nicholson, Dean, Bogey, and the like. Those are great artists. Shatner isnt a great artist like them, thats for sure, but he is an artist. It takes great artistry to create a captain so beloved by many critics as well as fans.

See, this is were i disagree. Many wonderful and vital films in film history were made by directors with otherwise so-so films, but we still call them artists. Donnie Darko is a good example (Richard Kellys other film, the box, was ok, but southland tales sucked). It very intelligent and thought provoking, and artistry is definatley there, hence the word artist. Charles Laughtons only film, Night of the Hunter, is regarded as a masterpeice, and Laughton an artist as well. Boyz in the Hood from John Singelton, is a milestone of African American cinema, and Singelton is respected by many in the film community, even though his other films have recieved average reviews. Michael Cimino, who made one of the greatest anti war films, the deer hunter, made crap the rest of his life, but even he is still sought after for advice on good moviemaking. The examples go on and on. The point im making is that if you make one beautiful, brilliant peice of art, wether it be your only work ever made, or your other work is mediocre in comparison, you still deserve the title of artist for giving us an experience beyond mere entertainment that we wont soon forget. Though i think a debate about that would take up 500 billion pages lol

The first Rocky is definitely something with the power to change your life, and people who admit they were changed by that film are very wise people indeed. Even First Blood is admired by some Viet Nam vets for showing that many people who returned from that war were scorned and tossed aside.  

You always seem to ignore everything I write, or misinterpret it. I'm saying that films that shaped our childhood should receive some amount of  favorable recognition, good or bad, because they made us who we are today. I'm not defending them, just saying they shouldn't be down-played. 

When I was 6 years old I enjoyed Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor. I find it unwatchable these days, as is most of Lewis' other cinema work. So just because we might find something appealing as children doesn't make it classic...sometimes it is just crap that appeals to very young minds.

Films that made a mark on our childhood are worthy of credit though, even if we dont love them as much now, because the helped shape us into the people we are....at least, for me they did!