Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
JJ ABRAMS RUINED STAR TREK FOREVER
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob Cypher
May 18, 2013, 5:08:05 PM5/18/13
to
This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
(aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
among other things) and has turned it into something that
resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
"Starship Troopers".
Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
next.
If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
Fuck that shit.
all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
(aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
among other things) and has turned it into something that
resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
"Starship Troopers".
Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
next.
If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
Fuck that shit.
RichA
May 18, 2013, 5:16:37 PM5/18/13
to
Keith D. Lee
May 18, 2013, 5:21:28 PM5/18/13
to
Rob:
Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
thinbluemime
May 18, 2013, 1:40:04 PM5/18/13
to
series LOST...
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3309/4624352665_ac4aa974e6_z.jpg
...Comes the allegorical tale of terror, trepidation and tribbles, 'Star
Trek Into Darkness.'
https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/b93fbf6bad545d4a/a8098d860606b4b1?hl=en&#a8098d860606b4b1
Your Name
May 18, 2013, 5:49:17 PM5/18/13
to
In article <juqfp8h2mia9h7f1d...@4ax.com>, Rob Cypher
Braga killed real "Star Trek" and put it in a coffin, JJ Abrams nailed the
coffin shut and buried it 600ft under. :-(
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
Yep. It extremely likely he'll be destroying real "Star Wars" with his
inane idiocy as well.
> If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> Fuck that shit.
Real "Star Trek" is now dead. Any future movies or TV shows will either be
more in JJ Abrams' idiotic version or yet another equally stupid
"reboot". :-(
<bal...@aol.com> wrote:
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
He did all that in his first so-called "Star Trek" movie too. Berman and
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
Braga killed real "Star Trek" and put it in a coffin, JJ Abrams nailed the
coffin shut and buried it 600ft under. :-(
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
inane idiocy as well.
> If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> Fuck that shit.
more in JJ Abrams' idiotic version or yet another equally stupid
"reboot". :-(
Your Name
May 18, 2013, 5:50:14 PM5/18/13
to
In article
<ccf27102-54d8-429e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, RichA
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
JJ Abrams would do since he is a moron. :-(
<ccf27102-54d8-429e...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, RichA
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bast
May 18, 2013, 5:51:06 PM5/18/13
to
Keith D. Lee wrote:
> Rob:
> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
But while the 2009 one was bad,....this one was even more of a waste of two
hours.
I can't wait until the Star Wars fans join up with the Star Trek fans,...and
treat Jar Jar Binks/Abrams to the tar and feathering he deserves.
GeneK
May 18, 2013, 6:08:30 PM5/18/13
to
I actually could have lived with all the changes. What ruined both
films for me was the number of times I saw something coming, thought to
myself, "they aren't going to THAT, are they?" and then they did.
There's nothing that kills a movie for me as much as being able to see
the next plot turn coming 10-20 minutes before it happens.
GeneK
films for me was the number of times I saw something coming, thought to
myself, "they aren't going to THAT, are they?" and then they did.
There's nothing that kills a movie for me as much as being able to see
the next plot turn coming 10-20 minutes before it happens.
GeneK
Your Name
May 18, 2013, 6:13:59 PM5/18/13
to
In article <op.wxajc...@experience.zoomtown.com>, thinbluemime
played the people who stupidly bothered to stick with it to the bitter end
as nothing but fools ... which pretty much sums up all of JJ Abrams'
work. :-\
<thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:08:05 +0100, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> > all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> > (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> > among other things) and has turned it into something that
> > resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> > "Starship Troopers".
> >
> > Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> > next.
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> From Bad Robot Productions and one-half of the minds behind the ABC hit
> series LOST...
> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3309/4624352665_ac4aa974e6_z.jpg
Lost was an over-hyped, confused load of garbage that made no sense and
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:08:05 +0100, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> > all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> > (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> > among other things) and has turned it into something that
> > resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> > "Starship Troopers".
> >
> > Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> > next.
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> From Bad Robot Productions and one-half of the minds behind the ABC hit
> series LOST...
> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3309/4624352665_ac4aa974e6_z.jpg
played the people who stupidly bothered to stick with it to the bitter end
as nothing but fools ... which pretty much sums up all of JJ Abrams'
work. :-\
Your Name
May 18, 2013, 6:17:07 PM5/18/13
to
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:08:05 +0100, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> > all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> > (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> > among other things) and has turned it into something that
> > resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> > "Starship Troopers".
> >
> > Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> > next.
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> From Bad Robot Productions and one-half of the minds behind the ABC hit
> series LOST...
> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3309/4624352665_ac4aa974e6_z.jpg
Well, you got it partly right ... although you're being extremely
> >
> > This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> > all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> > (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> > among other things) and has turned it into something that
> > resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> > "Starship Troopers".
> >
> > Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> > next.
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> From Bad Robot Productions and one-half of the minds behind the ABC hit
> series LOST...
> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3309/4624352665_ac4aa974e6_z.jpg
over-generous saying JJ Abrams has half a mind. Personally I say he
doesn't even manage to have a single braincell.
David Johnston
May 18, 2013, 7:46:43 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 3:08 PM, Rob Cypher wrote:
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit.
It's not a second reboot. It's just a sequel to the first one.
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit.
He's totally screwed with
> all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
>
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
>
> If there's ever another ST movie,
Which there will be, given the great success of the first two.
> "Starship Troopers".
>
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
>
> If there's ever another ST movie,
I hope they undo all the timeline
> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
Karolina Dean...Big Money weave a mighty
May 18, 2013, 8:14:03 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 2:21 pm, "Keith D. Lee" <keithdlee2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob:
> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
Does he finally explain what's in Maghan's box??
> Rob:
> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
Wouter Valentijn
May 19, 2013, 2:41:49 AM5/19/13
to
David Johnston wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 3:08 PM, Rob Cypher wrote:
>> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit.
>
> It's not a second reboot. It's just a sequel to the first one.
<snip>
> On 5/18/2013 3:08 PM, Rob Cypher wrote:
>> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit.
>
> It's not a second reboot. It's just a sequel to the first one.
> I hope they undo all the timeline
>> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
Star Trek XIII: The Search for Spock's Planet. (and/or Mother)
>> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
>
> It already is an alternate universe.
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Kirk: "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
McCoy: "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
chance to live."
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
liam=mail
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:04:35 AM5/19/13
to
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:04:49 AM5/19/13
to
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:07:48 AM5/19/13
to
will do nothing but blog and post.
RichA
May 19, 2013, 9:14:24 AM5/19/13
to
Merrick Baldelli
May 19, 2013, 9:42:05 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:40:04 +0100, thinbluemime
<thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...Comes the allegorical tale of terror, trepidation and tribbles, 'Star
>Trek Into Darkness.'
>https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/b93fbf6bad545d4a/a8098d860606b4b1?hl=en&#a8098d860606b4b1
Need a tissue dear? You seem to be ego masturbating in front
<thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...Comes the allegorical tale of terror, trepidation and tribbles, 'Star
>Trek Into Darkness.'
>https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/b93fbf6bad545d4a/a8098d860606b4b1?hl=en&#a8098d860606b4b1
of the lot of us.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli
May 19, 2013, 9:42:05 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:08:05 -0400, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
>all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
>(aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
>among other things) and has turned it into something that
>resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
>"Starship Troopers".
What do you expect? Berman and Braga (AKA Beavis & Butthead)
had been screwing the pooch on this for the better part of 11 years.
It's not at all surprising that Abrams would come along and grab the
wrong end of the stick for entirely the wrong reasons when he decided
to produce/direct these films.
>Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
>next.
I personally can't wait... Second to the Cult of Firefly, if
there's ever going to be a mob out to lynching Abrams, Star Wars fans
are definitely up there. Particularly when you consider they're the
ones that caused the fights at the last convention they attended.
>If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
>changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
>Fuck that shit.
Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it. Which is
what producers aim for because the producers know these sort of fans
are the first to throw money at that plate of offal, eat it, and then
blog it producing torrents of hot lady spunk from watching it and
coo'ing about it all.
wrote:
>This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
>all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
>(aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
>among other things) and has turned it into something that
>resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
>"Starship Troopers".
had been screwing the pooch on this for the better part of 11 years.
It's not at all surprising that Abrams would come along and grab the
wrong end of the stick for entirely the wrong reasons when he decided
to produce/direct these films.
>Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
>next.
there's ever going to be a mob out to lynching Abrams, Star Wars fans
are definitely up there. Particularly when you consider they're the
ones that caused the fights at the last convention they attended.
>If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
>changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
>Fuck that shit.
dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it. Which is
what producers aim for because the producers know these sort of fans
are the first to throw money at that plate of offal, eat it, and then
blog it producing torrents of hot lady spunk from watching it and
coo'ing about it all.
anim8rFSK
May 19, 2013, 10:38:54 AM5/19/13
to
In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
attention.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
attention.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Transition Zone
May 19, 2013, 2:59:24 PM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 5:08 pm, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
>all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
>
>Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
I bet most of the 70's and '80s sci-fi blockbusters continued into
>all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
>
>Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
cartoons would make a good splash.
thinbluemime
May 19, 2013, 11:29:23 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:42:05 +0100, Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:40:04 +0100, thinbluemime
> <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...Comes the allegorical tale of terror, trepidation and tribbles, 'Star
>> Trek Into Darkness.'
>> https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/b93fbf6bad545d4a/a8098d860606b4b1?hl=en&#a8098d860606b4b1
>
> Need a tissue dear? You seem to be ego masturbating in front
> of the lot of us.
>
I thought that was what your signature line was doing
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:40:04 +0100, thinbluemime
> <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...Comes the allegorical tale of terror, trepidation and tribbles, 'Star
>> Trek Into Darkness.'
>> https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/b93fbf6bad545d4a/a8098d860606b4b1?hl=en&#a8098d860606b4b1
>
> Need a tissue dear? You seem to be ego masturbating in front
> of the lot of us.
>
Your Name
May 19, 2013, 4:58:26 PM5/19/13
to
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:08:05 -0400, Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a dysfunctional bunch.
> Most of the ones that I've encountered will take any and all shit
> shoveled to them on a plate and eat it. Which is what producers aim
> for because the producers know these sort of fans are the first to
> throw money at that plate of offal, eat it, and then blog it producing
> torrents of hot lady spunk from watching it and coo'ing about it all.
Almost correct - you just need to replace "Trek Fan" and "fans" with
> wrote:
> >
> > If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> > changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> > Fuck that shit.
>
> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a dysfunctional bunch.
> Most of the ones that I've encountered will take any and all shit
> shoveled to them on a plate and eat it. Which is what producers aim
> for because the producers know these sort of fans are the first to
> throw money at that plate of offal, eat it, and then blog it producing
> torrents of hot lady spunk from watching it and coo'ing about it all.
"general dumbass public".
Almost nothing is ever made for the actual fans. It's made by
money-grubbers, and the best way to get more money is to make any old
garbage and the morons of the general dumbass public will spend piles of
money to watch it (especially if the marketing department over-hypes it)
... it's simply what the general dumbass public do on a Fridat / Saturday
night because they can't think of anything better to do. It makes little
difference what movie is playing, they watch any old tripe. If it's full
of chases and explosions, even better.
Your Name
May 19, 2013, 5:02:43 PM5/19/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-8CF2C...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
moronic "reboots" it was garbage that didn't fit with what was already
established.
Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating singing
episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as a show that (mostly)
fitted with what was established. The same can be said of Deep Space Nine
(you also have to ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
and The Next Generation.
<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
> They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> attention.
Enterprise was the first idiotic attempt at a "reboot", and like all
> In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
> They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> attention.
moronic "reboots" it was garbage that didn't fit with what was already
established.
Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating singing
episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as a show that (mostly)
fitted with what was established. The same can be said of Deep Space Nine
(you also have to ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
and The Next Generation.
David Johnston
May 19, 2013, 6:14:39 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/2013 3:51 PM, Bast wrote:
> Keith D. Lee wrote:
>> Rob:
>> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
>
>
>
> If by that, you mean,........ its a joke,......I agree.
>
> But while the 2009 one was bad,....this one was even more of a waste of two
> hours.
So then you hated the first movie and then went and paid money to see
> Keith D. Lee wrote:
>> Rob:
>> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
>
>
>
> If by that, you mean,........ its a joke,......I agree.
>
> But while the 2009 one was bad,....this one was even more of a waste of two
> hours.
the second movie?
Bast
May 19, 2013, 8:40:39 PM5/19/13
to
I didn't pay to see either.
Ever heard of P2P ?
Best way to sample the fare, and force Hollywierd to start making quality,
if they ever want to see many of us at a box office again.
.....And I have heard nothing but admiration of my foresight, from people
who admit they did waste their money.
Your Name
May 19, 2013, 9:09:50 PM5/19/13
to
In article <knbraj$2uo$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
You not watching a movie in a cinema isn't going to do anything at all.
There's more than enough morons in the general public who can't think of
anything better to do on a Friday / Saturday night to keep Hollyweird
happy - those morons will watch pretty much any old drivel simply because
it happens to be on in the cinema. :-(
wrote:
There's more than enough morons in the general public who can't think of
anything better to do on a Friday / Saturday night to keep Hollyweird
happy - those morons will watch pretty much any old drivel simply because
it happens to be on in the cinema. :-(
T987654321
May 19, 2013, 9:20:24 PM5/19/13
to
I thought he had also when I watched the first film. But then Spock made it clear that this is all happening in an alternate universe.
thinbluemime
May 19, 2013, 5:35:00 PM5/19/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:40:39 +0100, Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> David Johnston wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 3:51 PM, Bast wrote:
>>> Keith D. Lee wrote:
>>>> Rob:
>>>> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If by that, you mean,........ its a joke,......I agree.
>>>
>>> But while the 2009 one was bad,....this one was even more of a waste
>>> of two hours.
>>
>> So then you hated the first movie and then went and paid money to see
>> the second movie?
>
>
>
>
> Soitenly not.
> I didn't pay to see either.
> Ever heard of P2P ?
So did I, cause I couldn't wait.
>
>
> David Johnston wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 3:51 PM, Bast wrote:
>>> Keith D. Lee wrote:
>>>> Rob:
>>>> Keep cool, will you? It was just a movie. A fun movie at that. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If by that, you mean,........ its a joke,......I agree.
>>>
>>> But while the 2009 one was bad,....this one was even more of a waste
>>> of two hours.
>>
>> So then you hated the first movie and then went and paid money to see
>> the second movie?
>
>
>
>
> Soitenly not.
> I didn't pay to see either.
> Ever heard of P2P ?
> Best way to sample the fare, and force Hollywierd to start making
> quality,
> if they ever want to see many of us at a box office again.
>
> .....And I have heard nothing but admiration of my foresight, from
> people
> who admit they did waste their money.
TID comes out. If you don't want to P2P or wait for the DVD release, buy a
ticket and see it tonight. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
---------------
*****SPOILERS*****
I have been following the Bad Robot crew closely since early 2005, and
eagerly await to see how the writers will spin into nearly every film
production, the fateful events of September 2001.
*Abbreviated* Highlights:
Alias - Al-Queada was mentioned
LOST - September airliner crash
Cloverfield - Terror in Manhattan
Fringe - Twin Universe with Twin Towers
Star Trek Into Darkness - The USS Vengeance transports 72 frozen
*virgins*, that are bombs
(come on!, this is fuggin hilarious as an allegory)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins#Terrorism
Ed Stasiak
May 19, 2013, 10:29:46 PM5/19/13
to
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
as all maintained the same format, style and level of quality
throughout all four series.
Each series may have had different ships, crews, locations, etc.
but one can look at them as one very large series of 624 hour
long tv episodes and 10 theatrical movies.
That's a lot of sci-fi and most of it was pretty good.
>
> Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating
> singing episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as
> a show that (mostly) fitted with what was established. The
> same can be said of Deep Space Nine (you also have to
> ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
> and The Next Generation.
Agreed, thou I'd include ENT along with TNG, DS9 and VOY,
> Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating
> singing episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as
> a show that (mostly) fitted with what was established. The
> same can be said of Deep Space Nine (you also have to
> ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
> and The Next Generation.
as all maintained the same format, style and level of quality
throughout all four series.
Each series may have had different ships, crews, locations, etc.
but one can look at them as one very large series of 624 hour
long tv episodes and 10 theatrical movies.
That's a lot of sci-fi and most of it was pretty good.
Ed Stasiak
May 19, 2013, 10:36:04 PM5/19/13
to
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
the market wants!" and somehow it's our fault that what they make
is shit.
Nobody asked my opinion and I suspect nobody asked anybody's
opinion outside of the corporate boardroom, how the new Trek
should done.
Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
>
> it's simply what the general dumbass public do on a Fridat / Saturday
> night because they can't think of anything better to do. It makes little
> difference what movie is playing, they watch any old tripe. If it's full
> of chases and explosions, even better.
You're falling for the Hollywood lie that they're; "just making what
> it's simply what the general dumbass public do on a Fridat / Saturday
> night because they can't think of anything better to do. It makes little
> difference what movie is playing, they watch any old tripe. If it's full
> of chases and explosions, even better.
the market wants!" and somehow it's our fault that what they make
is shit.
Nobody asked my opinion and I suspect nobody asked anybody's
opinion outside of the corporate boardroom, how the new Trek
should done.
Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
thinbluemime
May 19, 2013, 6:53:31 PM5/19/13
to
did with The Twilight Zone. He told a sci-fi tale that reflects
contemporary issues, and did it with metaphor and allegory.
Of course Gene Roddenberry did the same with the original Trek series.
Abram's weaving of Trek with the contemporary is unbelievably brilliant,
imo.
Brian Thorn
May 19, 2013, 10:38:08 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
>They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>attention.
Voyager was sometimes a very good show, the Janeway/Seven/Doctor
interaction was actually pretty well done. When they strayed from that
however, it went off the rails.
Enterprise was a train-wreck.
But bad Star Trek was still better than most other science fiction.
Would you really rather have had more "Space: Above and Beyond" and
"Seaquest DSV"? Voyager was a masterpiece compared to them.
Brian
wrote:
>In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
>They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>attention.
interaction was actually pretty well done. When they strayed from that
however, it went off the rails.
Enterprise was a train-wreck.
But bad Star Trek was still better than most other science fiction.
Would you really rather have had more "Space: Above and Beyond" and
"Seaquest DSV"? Voyager was a masterpiece compared to them.
Brian
Brian Thorn
May 19, 2013, 10:39:29 PM5/19/13
to
>This second "reboot" of his is bullshit.
It went off the deep end in the last half-hour paying homage to a
previous Trek movie, but overall it was very entertaining.
Brian
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 12:10:56 AM5/20/13
to
In article
<d8183406-4014-4f61...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Ed
I didn't say they actually wanted those movies. It makes very little
difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing, the
general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every Friday /
Saturday night because they can't think of anything else to do - basically
movie, McDonalds, and booze themsevles stupid = Friday / Saturday night.
:-\
<d8183406-4014-4f61...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Ed
difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing, the
general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every Friday /
Saturday night because they can't think of anything else to do - basically
movie, McDonalds, and booze themsevles stupid = Friday / Saturday night.
:-\
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 12:15:56 AM5/20/13
to
In article
<e2818b6e-595f-4b88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
Unfortunately Enterprise peed all over some established facts, although it
tried to fake it's way through (for example, Archer not actually seeing
the Ferengi) ... partly because Beavis & Butthead didn't actually know nor
care anything about Star Trek, and partly because it was an attempt at an
idiotic "reboot" (also why "Star Trek" was left out of the title).
Deep Space Nine used a different direction by "stranding" the stoylines on
a stationery space station, but it did still fit. Voyager tried to get
things back onto the same storyline as the first two series (TOS and TNG)
by having a ship travelling through space visiting different places.
<e2818b6e-595f-4b88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
tried to fake it's way through (for example, Archer not actually seeing
the Ferengi) ... partly because Beavis & Butthead didn't actually know nor
care anything about Star Trek, and partly because it was an attempt at an
idiotic "reboot" (also why "Star Trek" was left out of the title).
Deep Space Nine used a different direction by "stranding" the stoylines on
a stationery space station, but it did still fit. Voyager tried to get
things back onto the same storyline as the first two series (TOS and TNG)
by having a ship travelling through space visiting different places.
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 12:20:00 AM5/20/13
to
In article <dr2jp8p4c9acso7ql...@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn
"SeaQuest DSV" started out okay, but like many shows they quickly ran out
of sensible ideas, and then it "jumped the shark" and the submarine was
suddenly no longer uderwater (some nonsense about travelling through space
or some such lunacy). :-\
"Space: Above and Beyond" was semi-okay. It was really another version of
"Starship Troopers", but took itself a lot more seriously.
of sensible ideas, and then it "jumped the shark" and the submarine was
suddenly no longer uderwater (some nonsense about travelling through space
or some such lunacy). :-\
"Space: Above and Beyond" was semi-okay. It was really another version of
"Starship Troopers", but took itself a lot more seriously.
anim8rFSK
May 20, 2013, 12:39:46 AM5/20/13
to
In article
<YourName-200...@203-118-187-182.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
but like many shows they quickly ran out
> of sensible ideas,
In the pilot
and then it "jumped the shark" and the submarine was
> suddenly no longer uderwater (some nonsense about travelling through space
> or some such lunacy). :-\
I tried to watch SDSV on Netflix recently. It's rotten from the
terribly directed pilot episode, and gets worse.
<YourName-200...@203-118-187-182.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <dr2jp8p4c9acso7ql...@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn
> <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> > > Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> > >
> > >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> > >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> > >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> > >attention.
> >
> > Voyager was sometimes a very good show, the Janeway/Seven/Doctor
> > interaction was actually pretty well done. When they strayed from that
> > however, it went off the rails.
> >
> > Enterprise was a train-wreck.
> >
> > But bad Star Trek was still better than most other science fiction.
> > Would you really rather have had more "Space: Above and Beyond" and
> > "Seaquest DSV"? Voyager was a masterpiece compared to them.
>
> "SeaQuest DSV" started out okay,
No it didn't
> In article <dr2jp8p4c9acso7ql...@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn
> <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4llhp81jp2ri3g5eu...@4ax.com>,
> > > Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> > >
> > >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> > >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> > >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> > >attention.
> >
> > Voyager was sometimes a very good show, the Janeway/Seven/Doctor
> > interaction was actually pretty well done. When they strayed from that
> > however, it went off the rails.
> >
> > Enterprise was a train-wreck.
> >
> > But bad Star Trek was still better than most other science fiction.
> > Would you really rather have had more "Space: Above and Beyond" and
> > "Seaquest DSV"? Voyager was a masterpiece compared to them.
>
> "SeaQuest DSV" started out okay,
but like many shows they quickly ran out
> of sensible ideas,
and then it "jumped the shark" and the submarine was
> suddenly no longer uderwater (some nonsense about travelling through space
> or some such lunacy). :-\
terribly directed pilot episode, and gets worse.
>
> "Space: Above and Beyond" was semi-okay. It was really another version of
> "Starship Troopers", but took itself a lot more seriously.
> "Space: Above and Beyond" was semi-okay. It was really another version of
> "Starship Troopers", but took itself a lot more seriously.
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 1:15:01 AM5/20/13
to
worthless newsgroup?
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 1:47:09 AM5/20/13
to
thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.wxcow...@experience.zoomtown.com:
What's so hilarious about producers so devoid of imagination and
creativity that they have to constantly make references of the same
event? Glad I didn't watch any of that crap.
news:op.wxcow...@experience.zoomtown.com:
creativity that they have to constantly make references of the same
event? Glad I didn't watch any of that crap.
David Johnston
May 20, 2013, 2:04:01 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/2013 10:15 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article
> <e2818b6e-595f-4b88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
> Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
>>>
>>> Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating
>>> singing episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as
>>> a show that (mostly) fitted with what was established. The
>>> same can be said of Deep Space Nine (you also have to
>>> ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
>>> and The Next Generation.
>>
>> Agreed, thou I'd include ENT along with TNG, DS9 and VOY,
>> as all maintained the same format, style and level of quality
>> throughout all four series.
>>
>> Each series may have had different ships, crews, locations, etc.
>> but one can look at them as one very large series of 624 hour
>> long tv episodes and 10 theatrical movies.
>>
>> That's a lot of sci-fi and most of it was pretty good.
>
> Unfortunately Enterprise peed all over some established facts,
You mean the same way Deep Space Nine established that genetically
> In article
> <e2818b6e-595f-4b88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
> Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
>>>
>>> Once you ignore the silly holodeck episodes and the irrtating
>>> singing episodes, there wasn't much wrong with Voyager as
>>> a show that (mostly) fitted with what was established. The
>>> same can be said of Deep Space Nine (you also have to
>>> ignore the stupid quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo episodes)
>>> and The Next Generation.
>>
>> Agreed, thou I'd include ENT along with TNG, DS9 and VOY,
>> as all maintained the same format, style and level of quality
>> throughout all four series.
>>
>> Each series may have had different ships, crews, locations, etc.
>> but one can look at them as one very large series of 624 hour
>> long tv episodes and 10 theatrical movies.
>>
>> That's a lot of sci-fi and most of it was pretty good.
>
> Unfortunately Enterprise peed all over some established facts,
engineering human beings was illegal even though they'd been doing it on
TNG? Or the way that the movies and TNG retroactively changed the
Klingons? Or the way that Deep Space Nine changed how the Trill
symbionts worked? Or the way that initially on TNG they had never
encountered the Ferengi before and knew nothing about them, but later on
Picard had fought them years earlier with his previous command? Or the
way the Borg's nature changed again and again? Or the way suddenly
Romulans were readily distinguishable from Vulcans instead of looking
just like them?
.
>
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 2:11:22 AM5/20/13
to
In article <d74a00cc-0bbc-414f...@googlegroups.com>,
fitting in with the proper franchise. JJ Abrams' ego is so over-bloated
that he'd never want to fit in with someone else's idea, so he obviously
had to change it, and the "Star Wars" franchise is next on his list to
destroy with his own patheticness. :-(
T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought he had also when I watched the first film. But then Spock made
> it clear that this is all happening in an alternate universe.
That's simply the lazy ass excuse for doing whatever HE wanrs rather than
>
> I thought he had also when I watched the first film. But then Spock made
> it clear that this is all happening in an alternate universe.
fitting in with the proper franchise. JJ Abrams' ego is so over-bloated
that he'd never want to fit in with someone else's idea, so he obviously
had to change it, and the "Star Wars" franchise is next on his list to
destroy with his own patheticness. :-(
BTR1701
May 20, 2013, 2:21:12 AM5/20/13
to
> ...And I have heard nothing but admiration of my foresight,
> from people who admit they did waste their money.
Let me rectify that. I don't admire your foresight. It was a fun movie,
> from people who admit they did waste their money.
not a waste at all.
Even if you don't agree with me, you now can't legitimately claim to
have heard nothing but admiration for your 'foresight'.
BTR1701
May 20, 2013, 2:22:09 AM5/20/13
to
In article <op.wxcow...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Star Trek Into Darkness - The USS Vengeance transports 72 frozen
> *virgins*
How do you know they were virgins?
> Star Trek Into Darkness - The USS Vengeance transports 72 frozen
> *virgins*
thinbluemime
May 20, 2013, 6:35:09 AM5/20/13
to
to making one a virgin
The 72 have been made into human bombs, so the act and reward of martyrdom
have been combined in this metaphor.
-------------
roberto orciVerified account @boborci
17 May
@boborci If potus only takes away one thing from the movie, what would you
want it to be?”
********Peace*******
https://twitter.com/boborci/status/335540814002393088
Ed Stasiak
May 20, 2013, 12:59:56 PM5/20/13
to
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > Ed Stasiak
the Public dumbasses, nor is the Public responsible for the shitty
quality of entertainment coming out of Hollywood.
The movie studios and tv networks have all become just divisions
of one or another metanational corporation and this has resulted
in them being subjected to the same industrial efficiency processes
that, for example, a tennis shoe factory would be put under; produce
a product that appeals to the widest range of consumers at the
lowest cost possible, to generate maximum profits.
That Star Trek flick has to appeal not only to fans in Peoria but
also to movie goers in Peshawar, Petropavlovsk, Pago Pago, etc.
and that means everything must be is dumbed down to a global
standard.
Movies have become consumer products no different then Big Macs,
whatever elements of art that are retained is happenstance.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
> > the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
>
> I didn't say they actually wanted those movies. It makes very little
> difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing,
> the general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every
> Friday / Saturday night
But desiring a bit of entertainment on the weekend doesn't make
> > Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
> > the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
>
> I didn't say they actually wanted those movies. It makes very little
> difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing,
> the general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every
> Friday / Saturday night
the Public dumbasses, nor is the Public responsible for the shitty
quality of entertainment coming out of Hollywood.
The movie studios and tv networks have all become just divisions
of one or another metanational corporation and this has resulted
in them being subjected to the same industrial efficiency processes
that, for example, a tennis shoe factory would be put under; produce
a product that appeals to the widest range of consumers at the
lowest cost possible, to generate maximum profits.
That Star Trek flick has to appeal not only to fans in Peoria but
also to movie goers in Peshawar, Petropavlovsk, Pago Pago, etc.
and that means everything must be is dumbed down to a global
standard.
Movies have become consumer products no different then Big Macs,
whatever elements of art that are retained is happenstance.
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 5:16:11 PM5/20/13
to
In article
<3c4fac20-124d-4112...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
movie simply because you're too stupid to think of anything else to do. It
certainly doesn't mean going to see a movie called "Star Trek" when you
don't like "Star Trek". The majority of the general are simply dumbasses,
and that's who Hollyweird aim movies at. :-\
> The movie studios and tv networks have all become just divisions
> of one or another metanational corporation and this has resulted
> in them being subjected to the same industrial efficiency processes
> that, for example, a tennis shoe factory would be put under; produce
> a product that appeals to the widest range of consumers at the
> lowest cost possible, to generate maximum profits.
What a load of bollocks. They simply make a movie they believe will make
lots of money. Sometimes it doesn't, more and more often if it's an
over-hyped "blockbuster" it will, thanks to the bumbass brigade
artifically boosting box office numbers and the moron in studio management
blindly belieing those numbers mean people actually like the movie.
> That Star Trek flick has to appeal not only to fans in...
No movie is ever made for the fans, and certainly not an idiotic "reboot"
movie. They're called fans because they like how it is. Making idiotic,
ill-fitting changes so that it's a very different product is NOT the way
to "appeal" to fans.
<3c4fac20-124d-4112...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Ed
Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
> > > the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
> >
> > I didn't say they actually wanted those movies. It makes very little
> > difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing,
> > the general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every
> > Friday / Saturday night
>
> But desiring a bit of entertainment on the weekend doesn't make
> the Public dumbasses, nor is the Public responsible for the shitty
> quality of entertainment coming out of Hollywood.
"A bit of entertainment" doesn't mean going to see any old drivel of a
> > YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > Hollywood doesn't cater to the Public's taste, as much as it forces
> > > the Public to consume whatever it makes or go with nothing at all.
> >
> > I didn't say they actually wanted those movies. It makes very little
> > difference what the actual movie is which happens to be playing,
> > the general dumbass public simply "must" go to the movies every
> > Friday / Saturday night
>
> But desiring a bit of entertainment on the weekend doesn't make
> the Public dumbasses, nor is the Public responsible for the shitty
> quality of entertainment coming out of Hollywood.
movie simply because you're too stupid to think of anything else to do. It
certainly doesn't mean going to see a movie called "Star Trek" when you
don't like "Star Trek". The majority of the general are simply dumbasses,
and that's who Hollyweird aim movies at. :-\
> The movie studios and tv networks have all become just divisions
> of one or another metanational corporation and this has resulted
> in them being subjected to the same industrial efficiency processes
> that, for example, a tennis shoe factory would be put under; produce
> a product that appeals to the widest range of consumers at the
> lowest cost possible, to generate maximum profits.
lots of money. Sometimes it doesn't, more and more often if it's an
over-hyped "blockbuster" it will, thanks to the bumbass brigade
artifically boosting box office numbers and the moron in studio management
blindly belieing those numbers mean people actually like the movie.
> That Star Trek flick has to appeal not only to fans in...
No movie is ever made for the fans, and certainly not an idiotic "reboot"
movie. They're called fans because they like how it is. Making idiotic,
ill-fitting changes so that it's a very different product is NOT the way
to "appeal" to fans.
BTR1701
May 20, 2013, 10:12:21 PM5/20/13
to
In article <op.wxdo0...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
adults would likely have done.
thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:22:09 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.wxcow...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Star Trek Into Darkness - The USS Vengeance transports 72 frozen
> >> *virgins*
> >
> > How do you know they were virgins?
>
> 72 super humans frozen in suspended animation for 3 centuries comes close
> to making one a virgin
Not if they'd had sex at some point before being frozen, as those grown
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:22:09 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.wxcow...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Star Trek Into Darkness - The USS Vengeance transports 72 frozen
> >> *virgins*
> >
> > How do you know they were virgins?
>
> 72 super humans frozen in suspended animation for 3 centuries comes close
> to making one a virgin
adults would likely have done.
Merrick Baldelli
May 21, 2013, 8:03:42 AM5/21/13
to
>> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
>They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>attention.
Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>
>They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>attention.
were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
infinitely better than NO Trek". An attitude that continues to
permeate the fanbase to this day.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
David Johnston
May 21, 2013, 1:38:39 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 6:03 AM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
>>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>>
>> They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>> familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>> clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>> attention.
>
> Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
>
> In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> infinitely better than NO Trek".
Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
>>> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
>>> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
>>
>> They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
>> familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
>> clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
>> attention.
>
> Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
>
> In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> infinitely better than NO Trek".
would never have survived into a second season.
Adam H. Kerman
May 21, 2013, 1:46:28 PM5/21/13
to
Dano
May 21, 2013, 5:43:34 PM5/21/13
to
"David Johnston" wrote in message news:kngb77$ch$1...@dont-email.me...
==========================================
Whatever. You have quite a high opinion of yourself that you would appear
to feel your opinion holds more validity than mine and the millions of other
TNG fans who liked it. Hell...the show ran for SEVEN years.
Personally...I've always held that rendition in higher regard than the
original series. Tastes DO vary, Doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong"
for that matter. Just means we don't share identical tastes.
Whatever. You have quite a high opinion of yourself that you would appear
to feel your opinion holds more validity than mine and the millions of other
TNG fans who liked it. Hell...the show ran for SEVEN years.
Personally...I've always held that rendition in higher regard than the
original series. Tastes DO vary, Doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong"
for that matter. Just means we don't share identical tastes.
Your Name
May 21, 2013, 5:59:28 PM5/21/13
to
In article <rdnmp85rla1qukn82...@4ax.com>, Merrick Baldelli
as long as it has "Star Trek" in the title (or in the case of Enterprise,
assumed to be in the title) OR they simply flit from one new toy to the
next no matter what it is. Slap a "Star Trek" label on Barney and many of
these morons will happily watch that believing it actually is "Star
Trek". :-(
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> >
> >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> >attention.
>
> Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
>
> In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> infinitely better than NO Trek". An attitude that continues to
> permeate the fanbase to this day.
Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-night psuedo-fans happy with any old crap
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> >
> >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> >attention.
>
> Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
>
> In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> infinitely better than NO Trek". An attitude that continues to
> permeate the fanbase to this day.
as long as it has "Star Trek" in the title (or in the case of Enterprise,
assumed to be in the title) OR they simply flit from one new toy to the
next no matter what it is. Slap a "Star Trek" label on Barney and many of
these morons will happily watch that believing it actually is "Star
Trek". :-(
BTR1701
May 21, 2013, 11:21:40 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<YourName-220...@203-118-187-122.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
every few years without hysterically obsessing over every detail and
acting like their entire world is coming to an end because Abrams
changed the number of head ridges on the Klingons or any of a myriad
other insignificant details.
<YourName-220...@203-118-187-122.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <rdnmp85rla1qukn82...@4ax.com>, Merrick Baldelli
> <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> > >
> > >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> > >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> > >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> > >attention.
> >
> > Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> > were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> > the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> > Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
> >
> > In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> > rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> > infinitely better than NO Trek". An attitude that continues to
> > permeate the fanbase to this day.
>
> Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-night psuedo-fans
In other words, they're people who can go enjoy a Star Trek movie once
> In article <rdnmp85rla1qukn82...@4ax.com>, Merrick Baldelli
> <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:38:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, won't happen. Why? Because Trek Fans are a
> > >> dysfunctional bunch. Most of the ones that I've encountered will take
> > >> any and all shit shoveled to them on a plate and eat it.
> > >
> > >They're also amazingly defensive of material they aren't remotely
> > >familiar with. The one extolling the virtues of Voyager and Enterprise
> > >clearly didn't actually watch it, or, at the very least, didn't pay
> > >attention.
> >
> > Oh they did... I was with them through both newsgroups and
> > were fucking flooding the threads with their hot lady spunk, either on
> > the fact that Janeway was a competent Captain or the T&A of 7 of 69 on
> > Voyager... Or how "fresh" Enterprise was.
> >
> > In the years that I had participated in those groups, it
> > rapidly became obvious that the mantra of these cows was "Bad Trek is
> > infinitely better than NO Trek". An attitude that continues to
> > permeate the fanbase to this day.
>
> Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-night psuedo-fans
every few years without hysterically obsessing over every detail and
acting like their entire world is coming to an end because Abrams
changed the number of head ridges on the Klingons or any of a myriad
other insignificant details.
David Johnston
May 21, 2013, 11:28:38 PM5/21/13
to
in mind that I wasn't talking about TNG in its entirety. I was talking
about just the first season of it. And I believe my opinion, that the
show was struggling at first but managed to find its feet at about the
same time that Riker grew the beard is quite widespread. It's even a
tvtrope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrowingTheBeard
Adam H. Kerman
May 21, 2013, 11:41:11 PM5/21/13
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
PC-er than thou, and unsubtle life lessons For Our Times. Also, the absurdly
short '60's cheesecake uniforms worn by the women. And where's the Shat's
acting?
>Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-night psuedo-fans
>In other words, they're people who can go enjoy a Star Trek movie once
>every few years without hysterically obsessing over every detail and
>acting like their entire world is coming to an end because Abrams
>changed the number of head ridges on the Klingons or any of a myriad
>other insignificant details.
I find I can't enjoy Star Trek without the over-the-top moralizing,
>>Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-night psuedo-fans
>In other words, they're people who can go enjoy a Star Trek movie once
>every few years without hysterically obsessing over every detail and
>acting like their entire world is coming to an end because Abrams
>changed the number of head ridges on the Klingons or any of a myriad
>other insignificant details.
PC-er than thou, and unsubtle life lessons For Our Times. Also, the absurdly
short '60's cheesecake uniforms worn by the women. And where's the Shat's
acting?
thinbluemime
May 21, 2013, 8:09:46 PM5/21/13
to
for your enjoyment included in the latest Trek installment.
As a bonus, Kirk even get a piece of tail.
Adam H. Kerman
May 22, 2013, 12:06:45 AM5/22/13
to
BTR1701
May 22, 2013, 12:57:18 AM5/22/13
to
Merrick Baldelli
May 22, 2013, 5:34:59 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:43:34 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Whatever. You have quite a high opinion of yourself that you would appear
>to feel your opinion holds more validity than mine and the millions of other
>TNG fans who liked it. Hell...the show ran for SEVEN years.
>Personally...I've always held that rendition in higher regard than the
>original series. Tastes DO vary, Doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong"
>for that matter. Just means we don't share identical tastes.
Actually, his opinion is one that reflects some of the
behind-the-scenes stories that were being circulated back then.
Particularly on how sexist and out-of-the-times Roddenberry was while
he had more production control.
wrote:
>Whatever. You have quite a high opinion of yourself that you would appear
>to feel your opinion holds more validity than mine and the millions of other
>TNG fans who liked it. Hell...the show ran for SEVEN years.
>Personally...I've always held that rendition in higher regard than the
>original series. Tastes DO vary, Doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong"
>for that matter. Just means we don't share identical tastes.
behind-the-scenes stories that were being circulated back then.
Particularly on how sexist and out-of-the-times Roddenberry was while
he had more production control.
Merrick Baldelli
May 22, 2013, 5:34:59 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
>Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>would never have survived into a second season.
And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
wrote:
>Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>would never have survived into a second season.
intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
David Johnston
May 22, 2013, 5:52:12 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>> would never have survived into a second season.
>
> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>
I have no idea what any of that means.
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>> would never have survived into a second season.
>
> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>
MITO MINISTER
May 23, 2013, 7:42:14 AM5/23/13
to
On May 19, 6:08 am, Rob Cypher <bals...@aol.com> wrote:
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
>
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
>
> If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> Fuck that shit.
No. Fuck you!
> This second "reboot" of his is bullshit. He's totally screwed with
> all the characters' backstories, has them acting all uncharacrstically
> (aka tons of inapproriate emoting from supposedly logical Vulcans,
> among other things) and has turned it into something that
> resembles "The Bourne Legacy" along with the worst aspects of
> "Starship Troopers".
>
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with your canon
> next.
>
> If there's ever another ST movie, I hope they undo all the timeline
> changes or just ignore them/treat them as an alternate universe.
> Fuck that shit.
Merrick Baldelli
May 23, 2013, 12:56:53 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:12 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
because you have an axe to grind.
wrote:
>On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>>> would never have survived into a second season.
>>
>> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
>> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
>> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
>> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
>> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>
>I have no idea what any of that means.
Google.. Get thee to it. And stop acting like a pratt
>On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>>> would never have survived into a second season.
>>
>> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
>> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
>> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
>> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
>> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>
>I have no idea what any of that means.
because you have an axe to grind.
David Johnston
May 23, 2013, 2:14:24 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 10:56 AM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:12 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>>>> would never have survived into a second season.
>>>
>>> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
>>> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
>>> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
>>> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
>>> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>>
>> I have no idea what any of that means.
>
> Google.. Get thee to it. And stop acting like a pratt
> because you have an axe to grind.
>
Actually I was just baffled by "step down with his authority" and
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:12 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
>>>> would never have survived into a second season.
>>>
>>> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
>>> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
>>> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
>>> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
>>> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
>>
>> I have no idea what any of that means.
>
> Google.. Get thee to it. And stop acting like a pratt
> because you have an axe to grind.
>
"actually have been better than it actually was".
Your Name
May 23, 2013, 5:15:40 PM5/23/13
to
In article <3bisp8h01g6dqg44d...@4ax.com>, Merrick Baldelli
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:12 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
> >On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
> >>> would never have survived into a second season.
> >>
> >> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
> >> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
> >> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
> >> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
> >> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
> >
> >I have no idea what any of that means.
>
> Google.. Get thee to it. And stop acting like a pratt
> because you have an axe to grind.
He's not acting ... he is a prat, one best ignored.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:52:12 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
> >On 5/22/2013 3:34 PM, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:38:39 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey if Trek fans didn't think that bad trek was better than no trek, TNG
> >>> would never have survived into a second season.
> >>
> >> And if the powers that be of the production of TNG didn't
> >> intervene and cause Roddenberry to step down with his authority, I
> >> personally think that the reboot might have actually been better than
> >> it actually was. But then again, as a member of the group "Campaign
> >> for Real Time", I really can't say one way or another, now can I?
> >
> >I have no idea what any of that means.
>
> Google.. Get thee to it. And stop acting like a pratt
> because you have an axe to grind.
anim8rFSK
May 23, 2013, 7:07:36 PM5/23/13
to
In article
<YourName-240...@203-118-187-106.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
You should see him do a (wait for it) prat fall!
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
<YourName-240...@203-118-187-106.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
William December Starr
May 24, 2013, 12:16:13 AM5/24/13
to
In article <juqfp8h2mia9h7f1d...@4ax.com>,
-- wds
Rob Cypher <bal...@aol.com> said:
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with
> your canon next.
You mean he might change it so that Han shot first?
> Don't laugh, Star Wars fans. He's coming to screw with
> your canon next.
-- wds
Your Name
May 24, 2013, 2:42:33 AM5/24/13
to
In article <knmpid$ngk$1...@panix2.panix.com>, wds...@panix.com (William
Nope, worse. It's JJ Abrams, so he'll change that scene so that Jar Jar
Binks shoots first, probably using a gun that shoots jelly beans and cause
hugemungous amounts of lens flare ... then later Yoda will say that it was
Obi-Wan who shot first. Also Abrams will claim point-blank that there is
no sci-fi involved, only to than have it turn out that the Jelly Bean
bullets were travelling backwards through time from Episode 27. :-(
Binks shoots first, probably using a gun that shoots jelly beans and cause
hugemungous amounts of lens flare ... then later Yoda will say that it was
Obi-Wan who shot first. Also Abrams will claim point-blank that there is
no sci-fi involved, only to than have it turn out that the Jelly Bean
bullets were travelling backwards through time from Episode 27. :-(
Your Name
May 24, 2013, 3:09:15 AM5/24/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-B7D56...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
I'd love to see it ... as long as it's off a very high cliff. :-)
0 new messages