William Shatner's Weird or What?

The show Nimoy did in the 70's was called "In Search Of..." and it was actually pretty good, far better than the pandering we see today.

The ironic thing is that, even though we can do so much today with digital effects, back in the 70's all we had was cheesy stock footage, and yet it was so much better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPEf-uLv1U4
 
In "William Shatner's Weird or What?", is the apostrophe possessive or indicative of a contraction?
 
TheZebu said:
I see in the US it is on the Discovery network (which I though was supposed to be a Science focused network)
Click to expand...


yeah, it's a sad result of market driven media. thank whatever for PBS, which actually has science shows. Discovery, History, etc Channels are full of ghosts, bible stuff, and all sorts of crap
 
Who cares?

So, Capt. Kirk is hosting a 'paranormal' show?

If someone takes this show as serious science, so be it. Meaning, if one lacks the critical thinking skills to recognize entertainment/infotainment from actual science, they're lost to begin with. That is, no amount of rational, logic-based thinking is going change that persons' mind. For the rest of us, it's a flight of fancy: something fun to watch & Ideas that are fun to kick around for pure entertainment.

I understand the primal urge to fight stupid. I really, truly do. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with pure fantasy for funs’ sake.
 
Last edited:
Brown said:
In "William Shatner's Weird or What?", is the apostrophe possessive or indicative of a contraction?
Click to expand...

I noticed that. The contraction with "is" makes most sense, but if that were the case, it should be "Is William Shatner Weird" since it's a question.
 
RayG said:
Is that weird or what?

Click to expand...

Fixed yt embed:



ETA: So then shouldn't it be: William Shatner's "Weird or What?" if the apostrophe means it's his show of that title? Or at least William Shatner's Weird or What?
 
Last edited:
gabeygoat said:
It would be better though, if it were on the "Pure Fantasy for Fun's Sake" channel then the Discovery channel
Click to expand...

My thought exactly. Theres a SciFy channel, so why is all this fantasy on Discovery and History? And the Bio channel has strange films and stuff on that have nothing to do with bigraphies any more. Add to MTV's no music, and 4 music shows with no music. I think the execs are the age who were too much 'there' in the 60s if you know what I mean!
 
Let's not get too sentimental about "In Search of...". I loved it as a kid, too but the researchers were every bit as shoddy as those working on modern day "woo" shows. "In Search of..." started to run out of subjects fairly quickly and even built one episode around the feeble premise that Sherlock Holmes might have actually existed.:jaw-dropp A witless time filler of a subject if ever there was one (and I say that as a Holmes fan) and yet they still managed to make three factual errors in just the first ten minutes of the program. I'm guessing it was Nimoy's idea as he was playing Holmes onstage around that time.
 
The incredibly awesome William Shatner is among my top 10 favorite Canadians, maybe top 5. He's allowed this silliness, as far as I'm concerned.
 
The episodes (only 2) I saw started out in the usual paranormal "MYSTERY!" way, but in the end they presented a reasonable scientific explanation. I think it's aimed at people like my brother in law who love paranormal shows, and gently giving them the actual scientific information.
 
If Admiral Kirk were to host a real, honest-to-goodness science show, maybe people would listen to him.
 
gabeygoat said:
yeah, it's a sad result of market driven media. thank whatever for PBS, which actually has science shows. Discovery, History, etc Channels are full of ghosts, bible stuff, and all sorts of crap
Click to expand...

I wish this stuff did not "sell" so well. Real science is way more exciting. TV has an idea they have to dumb things down, but that is self limiting. Even when a show is proscience it minimizes things like statistics and thus lose out on educating people. (I am looking at you MYTHBUSTERS, I know you use stats, mention them more, and one of the tenants of science, repeatability. I know you are just needing it can be done, not reliability, but stash are your friend)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom