Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
JJ ABRAMS RUINED STAR TREK FOREVER
183 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, 5:49:02 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, 5:50:01 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:
Your Name
May 18, 2013, 5:52:10 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.
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, 6:14:35 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.
Bast
May 18, 2013, 6:14:52 PM5/18/13
to
this latest mess of a movie ?
....That its embarassing to them, it MUST be even worse than we say.
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. :-)
Wiseguy
May 19, 2013, 2:09:42 AM5/19/13
to
"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kn8ud8$pmh$1@dont-
email.me:
Why would I defend it? I haven't seen it and don't know when or if I
will.
I've never defended the first one. I have said it is real Star Trek
(because it is produced by Paramount) and have pointed out Your Name's
childish attitude toward anything he doesn't like but neither of those
defends the movie.
And lastly, I have just stated that I didn't really care for ANY of the
Star Trek movies. Overblown plots and special effects don't impress me.
I've seen most of them once and that was enough. I'd watch the animated
series over any of the movies.
email.me:
will.
I've never defended the first one. I have said it is real Star Trek
(because it is produced by Paramount) and have pointed out Your Name's
childish attitude toward anything he doesn't like but neither of those
defends the movie.
And lastly, I have just stated that I didn't really care for ANY of the
Star Trek movies. Overblown plots and special effects don't impress me.
I've seen most of them once and that was enough. I'd watch the animated
series over any of the movies.
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
Sandman
May 19, 2013, 3:37:31 AM5/19/13
to
In article
<YourName-190...@203-118-187-168.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
be better than the prequels.
--
Sandman[.net]
<YourName-190...@203-118-187-168.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > 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.
Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> > 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.
hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
be better than the prequels.
--
Sandman[.net]
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, 7:06:26 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 6:49 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <juqfp8h2mia9h7f1dngs6ml0gs4nr4h...@4ax.com>, Rob Cypher
"Real Star Wars"? "Real Star Trek"? Do you realise how stupid and
immature you sound? Fucking fanboy geeks!
> In article <juqfp8h2mia9h7f1dngs6ml0gs4nr4h...@4ax.com>, Rob Cypher
immature you sound? Fucking fanboy geeks!
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:07:48 AM5/19/13
to
will do nothing but blog and post.
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:09:30 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 7:14 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> Well, you got it partly right ... although you're being extremely
> over-generous saying JJ Abrams has half a mind. Personally I say he
> doesn't even manage to have a single braincell.
He made it in Tinsel Town. You can't even get out of the basement.
> Well, you got it partly right ... although you're being extremely
> over-generous saying JJ Abrams has half a mind. Personally I say he
> doesn't even manage to have a single braincell.
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:11:24 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 7:14 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article
> > <ccf27102-54d8-429e-b412-b0bc4a11b...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article
even if it WERE a bad movie (which I doubt it is) I still would not be
embarassed. It's just a fucking movie.
MITO MINISTER
May 19, 2013, 7:12:45 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 4:37 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-1905130949020...@203-118-187-168.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> In article
> <YourName-1905130949020...@203-118-187-168.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
>
> Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> be better than the prequels.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
>
> Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> be better than the prequels.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
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".
>
> 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
> 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, 9:10:08 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. :-(
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
Bast
May 19, 2013, 11:38:16 PM5/19/13
to
because it was Trek,......all hate this latest one.
So I'll bet next time a Jar Jar Binks/abrams movie comes out, a lot more
will be "evaluating it" at home first.
...Are you listening, Disney ?
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.
ToolPackinMama
May 20, 2013, 1:11:59 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/2013 9:10 PM, Your Name 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. :-(
>
I said it before and I'll say it again: bad Star trek is better than
> 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. :-(
>
good almost anything else.
My hubby and I went to see it on Thursday. We got the senior discount.
We found it highly entertaining.
It's not great art. It was passable as Star Trek. It was a fun night
out. It wasn't the end of Western Civilization LOL.
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 1:13:48 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 12:38 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <knbraj$2u...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> Your Name wrote:
Disney does not give a fuck about what you and your idiot friends
think.
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 1:15:01 AM5/20/13
to
worthless newsgroup?
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 1:32:21 AM5/20/13
to
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-200...@203-118-187-46.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
Going to the movies is a social event. The movie itself is secondary,
Sometimes the movie is liked, sometimes not, it is to be expected.
Of course, I wouldn't expect nerds like you and Bast to understand
anything concerning anything social..I've heard you two live in the
basement.
After reading your remarks and considering your attitude I would have to
say that assessment is accurate.
news:YourName-200...@203-118-187-46.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
Sometimes the movie is liked, sometimes not, it is to be expected.
Of course, I wouldn't expect nerds like you and Bast to understand
anything concerning anything social..I've heard you two live in the
basement.
After reading your remarks and considering your attitude I would have to
say that assessment is accurate.
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 1:42:54 AM5/20/13
to
ToolPackinMama <philn...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kncb3f$sh1$1...@dont-email.me:
That's ridiculous. If you think something is bad, then by
definition...it's bad.
Saying bad Star Trek is better than good something else just shows you
are not capable of logical thought....ironic, huh?
One of the first things Roddenberry told writers was that science
fiction is no different from other genres... there's good writing and
bad writing...just because there are spaceships flying around doesn't
mean the writers can take the day off. This is why most science-fiction
before Star Trek was considered to be for children...the writing was
bad.
Spock's Brain is bad. Not so bad it's good. Not just bad Star Trek.
Just bad.
news:kncb3f$sh1$1...@dont-email.me:
definition...it's bad.
Saying bad Star Trek is better than good something else just shows you
are not capable of logical thought....ironic, huh?
One of the first things Roddenberry told writers was that science
fiction is no different from other genres... there's good writing and
bad writing...just because there are spaceships flying around doesn't
mean the writers can take the day off. This is why most science-fiction
before Star Trek was considered to be for children...the writing was
bad.
Spock's Brain is bad. Not so bad it's good. Not just bad Star Trek.
Just bad.
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, 2:07:41 AM5/20/13
to
In article <kncb3f$sh1$1...@dont-email.me>, ToolPackinMama
Simply slapping a "Star Trek" sticker on a dog poo doesn't make that real
"Star Trek" either. To be part of the same franchise it MUST MUST and MUST
fit with what came before, otherwise you're making something different
(and idiotic pathetic attempts to pretend it's a "alternate timeline" is
simply a lazy writer's excuse for doing want they want rather than doing
it properly).
<philn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 9:10 PM, Your Name 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. :-(
> >
>
> I said it before and I'll say it again: bad Star trek is better than
> good almost anything else.
And I said it before, JJ Abrams' drivel is not "Star Trek", good or bad.
> On 5/19/2013 9:10 PM, Your Name 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. :-(
> >
>
> I said it before and I'll say it again: bad Star trek is better than
> good almost anything else.
Simply slapping a "Star Trek" sticker on a dog poo doesn't make that real
"Star Trek" either. To be part of the same franchise it MUST MUST and MUST
fit with what came before, otherwise you're making something different
(and idiotic pathetic attempts to pretend it's a "alternate timeline" is
simply a lazy writer's excuse for doing want they want rather than doing
it properly).
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*
Sandman
May 20, 2013, 2:51:59 AM5/20/13
to
In article
<00609bc3-ca82-4fb8...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> > hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
> >
> > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > be better than the prequels.
>
> Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
even so. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
<00609bc3-ca82-4fb8...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> > hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
> >
> > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > be better than the prequels.
>
> Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
even so. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 3:03:26 AM5/20/13
to
In article <mr-68510C.08...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
the franchise.
Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
other people's hard work instead. :-(
the franchise.
Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
other people's hard work instead. :-(
Sandman
May 20, 2013, 3:19:04 AM5/20/13
to
In article
<YourName-200...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
> Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> other people's hard work instead. :-(
Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
be more dead.
If anything, JJ can either keep the horse dead (by continuing the train
wreck that was the prequels) or he can do something better. He can not
do something worse. It is not possible.
If the 2009 Star Trek was renamed as Star Wars and released now, it
would be a hundred times better than the prequels.
(yeah, ok, a bit of hyperbole, but I've really come to despise the
prequels).
--
Sandman[.net]
<YourName-200...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > be better than the prequels.
> > >
> > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
> >
> > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > even so. :)
>
> George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> the franchise.
Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > be better than the prequels.
> > >
> > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
> >
> > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > even so. :)
>
> George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> the franchise.
not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
> Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> other people's hard work instead. :-(
Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
be more dead.
If anything, JJ can either keep the horse dead (by continuing the train
wreck that was the prequels) or he can do something better. He can not
do something worse. It is not possible.
If the 2009 Star Trek was renamed as Star Wars and released now, it
would be a hundred times better than the prequels.
(yeah, ok, a bit of hyperbole, but I've really come to despise the
prequels).
--
Sandman[.net]
Bast
May 20, 2013, 3:24:05 AM5/20/13
to
Sitting in a dark room, in a sticky chair, smelling other peoples farts for
two hours,.....nope,...not my idea of a social event.
>
> Sometimes the movie is liked, sometimes not, it is to be expected.
You just MUST go to the neighborhood theater, every weekend, without fail ?
And just hope for the best ?
Geez,....go for a walk in the park.
>
> Of course, I wouldn't expect nerds like you and Bast to understand
> anything concerning anything social..I've heard you two live in the
> basement.
I've also heard that aliens come to earth and make crop circles, but there's
no proof of that either.
>
> After reading your remarks and considering your attitude I would have to
> say that assessment is accurate.
go to the theater.
Then you will see the pathetic sheeple who go to see a movie as a "social
event."
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 4:01:10 AM5/20/13
to
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in news:YourName-2005131903260001
@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
Whether he did or not, if Paramount did not want him to do it they
wouldn't have allowed it. So blame them, not him.
@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
wouldn't have allowed it. So blame them, not him.
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 4:05:31 AM5/20/13
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
news:mr-408D77.09...@News.Individual.NET:
Prequels don't ruin a franchise, whether you like them or not. They
only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can ruin a
franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
Enterprise was a prequel, ST 2009 was a sequel.
news:mr-408D77.09...@News.Individual.NET:
only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can ruin a
franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
Enterprise was a prequel, ST 2009 was a sequel.
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 4:09:01 AM5/20/13
to
"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:knciuv$q87$1...@dont-email.me:
No, that's your basement.
>
>
>
>>
>> Sometimes the movie is liked, sometimes not, it is to be expected.
>
>
> Huh ?
> You just MUST go to the neighborhood theater, every weekend, without
> fail ? And just hope for the best ?
> Geez,....go for a walk in the park.
>
>
Stop making up quotes, it's childish.
>
>
>>
>> Of course, I wouldn't expect nerds like you and Bast to understand
>> anything concerning anything social..I've heard you two live in the
>> basement.
>
>
> Yup, I've heard that too.
> I've also heard that aliens come to earth and make crop circles, but
> there's no proof of that either.
>
>
Your responses show that you are brainless. That's proof. Stop proving
it.
>>
>> After reading your remarks and considering your attitude I would have
>> to say that assessment is accurate.
>
>
>
>
> I think better proof would be to hold a mirror to your face, next time
> you go to the theater.
> Then you will see the pathetic sheeple who go to see a movie as a
> "social event."
>
>
>
You're pathetic.
news:knciuv$q87$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
>>
>> Sometimes the movie is liked, sometimes not, it is to be expected.
>
>
> Huh ?
> You just MUST go to the neighborhood theater, every weekend, without
> fail ? And just hope for the best ?
> Geez,....go for a walk in the park.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Of course, I wouldn't expect nerds like you and Bast to understand
>> anything concerning anything social..I've heard you two live in the
>> basement.
>
>
> Yup, I've heard that too.
> I've also heard that aliens come to earth and make crop circles, but
> there's no proof of that either.
>
>
it.
>>
>> After reading your remarks and considering your attitude I would have
>> to say that assessment is accurate.
>
>
>
>
> I think better proof would be to hold a mirror to your face, next time
> you go to the theater.
> Then you will see the pathetic sheeple who go to see a movie as a
> "social event."
>
>
>
Sandman
May 20, 2013, 5:04:08 AM5/20/13
to
In article <XnsA1C61F736697...@69.16.185.252>,
Well, then JJ Abrams can't, either. I was responding to YourName that
claimed that JJ Abrams would destroy the "real Star Wars", whatever that
means.
And I think you mean that prequels can't ruin the originals - the
franchise as such is the sum of all its parts, and if some of those
parts are bad, it certainly can ruin the franchise as a whole. The
original movies aren't ruined though.
> They only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can
> ruin a franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
"midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
--
Sandman[.net]
Well, then JJ Abrams can't, either. I was responding to YourName that
claimed that JJ Abrams would destroy the "real Star Wars", whatever that
means.
And I think you mean that prequels can't ruin the originals - the
franchise as such is the sum of all its parts, and if some of those
parts are bad, it certainly can ruin the franchise as a whole. The
original movies aren't ruined though.
> They only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can
> ruin a franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
"midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
--
Sandman[.net]
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 7:30:09 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 4:03 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <mr-68510C.08515820052...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <00609bc3-ca82-4fb8-b695-06eff61bd...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
J.J..Abrams accepted such a job.
He doesn't go around crying because he can't "make his own franchise".
He is a director. He is hired to direct. His bosses liked what he did
in TREK 2009. Abrams pleased his bosses and he makes a ton of money.
That is the ONLY standard in Hollywood, everything else being
subjective bullshit. And you are still in the basement.
> In article <mr-68510C.08515820052...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <00609bc3-ca82-4fb8-b695-06eff61bd...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> > > > hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
>
> > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > even so. :)
>
> George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> the franchise.
>
> Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> other people's hard work instead. :-(
No, these "reboot fools" are offered a job by the powers that be.
>
> > > > Seriously - JJ Abrams can not destroy something that George Lucas
> > > > hasn't already driven hard into the ground.
>
> > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > even so. :)
>
> George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> the franchise.
>
> Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> other people's hard work instead. :-(
J.J..Abrams accepted such a job.
He doesn't go around crying because he can't "make his own franchise".
He is a director. He is hired to direct. His bosses liked what he did
in TREK 2009. Abrams pleased his bosses and he makes a ton of money.
That is the ONLY standard in Hollywood, everything else being
subjective bullshit. And you are still in the basement.
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.
Bast
May 20, 2013, 2:09:25 PM5/20/13
to
"prequel" ?
The fact is, that as an alternate universe,..... it's just a
bastardization/exploitation for profit.
And a bit late for the writers to save it by claiming it was all a dream
sequence.
Wiseguy
May 20, 2013, 2:33:15 PM5/20/13
to
"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:kndop0$cgi$1...@dont-email.me:
A prequel tells the story of what happens before another series or
movie.
This wasn't a re-telling, it was a revisit with time travel.
If they had just started the movie in the past and showed how the
characters got together then it would have been a prequel.
Changing the past so they can go through "the present" differently is
not a prequel to TOS.
news:kndop0$cgi$1...@dont-email.me:
movie.
This wasn't a re-telling, it was a revisit with time travel.
If they had just started the movie in the past and showed how the
characters got together then it would have been a prequel.
Changing the past so they can go through "the present" differently is
not a prequel to TOS.
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 5:05:51 PM5/20/13
to
In article <mr-408D77.09...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
(supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-200...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > be better than the prequels.
> > > >
> > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
> > >
> > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > even so. :)
> >
> > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > the franchise.
>
> Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> be more dead.
<snip>
> In article
> <YourName-200...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > be better than the prequels.
> > > >
> > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
> > >
> > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > even so. :)
> >
> > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > the franchise.
>
> Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> be more dead.
Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
(supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 5:09:35 PM5/20/13
to
In article <knciuv$q87$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
Sounds almost exactly like every other "social event" I can think of - the
only difference being instead of a dark room, it's a noisy room. :-)
wrote:
only difference being instead of a dark room, it's a noisy room. :-)
Your Name
May 20, 2013, 5:11:04 PM5/20/13
to
In article <mr-D0D09C.11...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
> that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
> "midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
> entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
Only to brainless dumbasses who can't bother to think for themselves.
>
> Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
> that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
> "midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
> entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
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.
Rabid Hoojib
May 20, 2013, 5:56:30 PM5/20/13
to
STAR
WARS
WARS
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 8:45:40 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 3:09 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
> >news:mr-408D77.09...@News.Individual.NET:
>
> >> In article
> >> <YourName-2005131903260...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Wiseguy wrote:
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
> >news:mr-408D77.09...@News.Individual.NET:
>
> >> In article
embarassment. The people at Paramount are NOT walking around in fear
of bumping into obsessed taunting fan-boys. They have NOT ruined a
franchise. On the contrary, a third film is in the works. That is NOT
RUINATION. That is SUCCESS.
And you are in the basement.
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 8:47:07 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 6:05 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <mr-408D77.09190420052...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>
>
>
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <YourName-2005131903260...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
not, from your basement vantage point, care for what he does but by
commercial and even critical standards Abrams is a success. You are
not.
> In article <mr-408D77.09190420052...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>
>
>
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <YourName-2005131903260...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> > YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > > even so. :)
>
> > > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > > the franchise.
>
> > Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> > not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
> <snip>
>
> Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
> (supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
> Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
No. He has hands of GOLD as far as Hollywood is concerned. You may
>
> > > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > > even so. :)
>
> > > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > > the franchise.
>
> > Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> > not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
> <snip>
>
> Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
> (supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
> Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
not, from your basement vantage point, care for what he does but by
commercial and even critical standards Abrams is a success. You are
not.
MITO MINISTER
May 20, 2013, 8:49:17 PM5/20/13
to
On May 21, 6:05 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <mr-408D77.09190420052...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
>
>
>
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <YourName-2005131903260...@203-118-187-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> > YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > > even so. :)
>
> > > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > > the franchise.
>
> > Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> > not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
> <snip>
>
> Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
> (supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
> Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
Why do you obsess over Abrams? What's he to you? He's just a guy
>
> > > > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would still
> > > > > > be better than the prequels.
>
> > > > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>
> > > > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it was,
> > > > even so. :)
>
> > > George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually created
> > > the franchise.
>
> > Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> > not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
> > > Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
> > > actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around butchering
> > > other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
> <snip>
>
> Believe me, JJ Abrams can, and likely will. Everything else he
> (supposedly) makes is a disasterous mess, why would his version of "Star
> Wars" suddenly be something that actually fits and makes sense?
earning a living in a tough business. Why do you even give a fuck? If
you don't like his work just watch something else, like your extensive
library of POLICE ACADEMY director's cuts in HD 3D.
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.
Sandman
May 21, 2013, 1:03:58 AM5/21/13
to
Sandman
May 21, 2013, 1:04:45 AM5/21/13
to
In article
<YourName-210...@203-118-187-144.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Whatever man, you just lost all credibility and anything you have to
say is totally irrelevant to anything related to reality. Sorry, man,
that was hilarious.
--
Sandman[.net]
<YourName-210...@203-118-187-144.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
> Believe me, JJ Abrams can
> > Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted. George
> > Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse expected it to
> > be more dead.
>
Whatever man, you just lost all credibility and anything you have to
say is totally irrelevant to anything related to reality. Sorry, man,
that was hilarious.
--
Sandman[.net]
Bast
May 21, 2013, 1:30:20 AM5/21/13
to
Your Name
May 21, 2013, 1:38:30 AM5/21/13
to
In article <mr-E99806.07...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
As I said, it's only a "problem" for the brainless dumbasses ... which
you've just proven you are, not that it's a surprise. :-\
you've just proven you are, not that it's a surprise. :-\
Sandman
May 21, 2013, 1:41:17 AM5/21/13
to
In article
<YourName-210...@203-118-187-254.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
I thought idiots on usenet were extinct - didn't you guys move to the
web forums years ago? What happened?
Man, this was hilarious. "brainless dumbasses"!! Hahaha!
--
Sandman[.net]
<YourName-210...@203-118-187-254.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
> > > > that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
> > > > "midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
> > > > entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
> > >
> > > Only to brainless dumbasses who can't bother to think for themselves.
> >
> > Hahahahaha!!!!
>
> As I said, it's only a "problem" for the brainless dumbasses ... which
> you've just proven you are, not that it's a surprise. :-\
Hahahahaha!!!
> > > > Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
> > > > that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
> > > > "midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
> > > > entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
> > >
> > > Only to brainless dumbasses who can't bother to think for themselves.
> >
> > Hahahahaha!!!!
>
> As I said, it's only a "problem" for the brainless dumbasses ... which
> you've just proven you are, not that it's a surprise. :-\
I thought idiots on usenet were extinct - didn't you guys move to the
web forums years ago? What happened?
Man, this was hilarious. "brainless dumbasses"!! Hahaha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
May 21, 2013, 2:05:03 AM5/21/13
to
In article <knf0ln$6qv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish (except one guy who
wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play with). ;-)
wrote:
>
> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99� bins.
July?!? Geez, they were in the bargain bins last week before it even hit
> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99� bins.
cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish (except one guy who
wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play with). ;-)
Wiseguy
May 21, 2013, 2:25:00 AM5/21/13
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
news:mr-5F1835.07...@News.Individual.NET:
"Your Name" couldn't handle the complexity of a web forum.
news:mr-5F1835.07...@News.Individual.NET:
Wiseguy
May 21, 2013, 2:26:14 AM5/21/13
to
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-210...@203-118-187-193.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
Merrick Baldelli
May 21, 2013, 8:03:42 AM5/21/13
to
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.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
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.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . 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
Bast
May 21, 2013, 3:42:25 PM5/21/13
to
....No one will want this one in their home library, not even die-hard
trekkies.
I'm still amazed to hear how much even people who liked the 2009 one, are
saying this 2013 one, really stinks.
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". :-(
Your Name
May 21, 2013, 6:00:49 PM5/21/13
to
In article <kngic9$fbn$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <knf0ln$6qv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> > <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99� bins.
> >
> > July?!? Geez, they were in the bargain bins last week before it even hit
> > cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish (except one guy who
> > wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play with). ;-)
>
> I'm referring to the 2013 movie.
<snip>
So was I. :-)
wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <knf0ln$6qv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> > <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99� bins.
> >
> > July?!? Geez, they were in the bargain bins last week before it even hit
> > cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish (except one guy who
> > wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play with). ;-)
>
> I'm referring to the 2013 movie.
So was I. :-)
Wiseguy
May 21, 2013, 6:54:34 PM5/21/13
to
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-220...@203-118-187-122.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
thinks differently from you is wrong? That anyone who likes something
you don't is wrong? That anything you don't like should be destroyed?
That you, and only you, are always right? That the only other right
people are those who agree with you? (Are there any people in that
group?)
I call it stupidity. What do you call it?
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
MITO MINISTER
May 22, 2013, 1:54:36 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 7:54 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote innews:YourName-220...@203-118-187-122.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <kngic9$fb...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote innews:YourName-220...@203-118-187-122.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <kngic9$fb...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
> > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >> > In article <knf0ln$6q...@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >> > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99¢ bins.
>
> >> > July?!? Geez, they were in the bargain bins last week before it
> >> > even hit cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish
> >> > (except one guy who wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play
> >> > with). ;-)
>
> >> I'm referring to the 2013 movie.
> > <snip>
>
> > So was I. :-)
>
> What mental defect do you have that causes you to think that anyone who
> thinks differently from you is wrong? That anyone who likes something
> you don't is wrong? That anything you don't like should be destroyed?
> That you, and only you, are always right? That the only other right
> people are those who agree with you? (Are there any people in that
> group?)
>
> I call it stupidity. What do you call it?
I call "THE BASEMENT SYNDROME".
>
> >> >> By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99¢ bins.
>
> >> > July?!? Geez, they were in the bargain bins last week before it
> >> > even hit cinemas ... and still nobody was buying the rubbish
> >> > (except one guy who wanted a cheap frisbee for his dog to play
> >> > with). ;-)
>
> >> I'm referring to the 2013 movie.
> > <snip>
>
> > So was I. :-)
>
> What mental defect do you have that causes you to think that anyone who
> thinks differently from you is wrong? That anyone who likes something
> you don't is wrong? That anything you don't like should be destroyed?
> That you, and only you, are always right? That the only other right
> people are those who agree with you? (Are there any people in that
> group?)
>
> I call it stupidity. What do you call it?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages