View Single Post
Old April 19 2013, 01:46 AM   #95
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Stone's comments aside, though, what has this article to say on the subject of "Star Trek sustainability" (while omitting any mention of Trek whatsoever)? What's your take on what the article says?
I have to say that I felt I was pretty clear in the post you quoted.
I disagree. The piece was pretty fluffy, giving almost no clue as to the nature of "the most challenging comments" supposed to have been made by Stone, and citing only a couple of statements by the two other directors mentioned as present at the panel. I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
The article was about, in principle, the chase for mass audience approval at the expense of all else...
That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
wherein I extrapulated that to my fears regarding Abrams' involement with "Star Trek."
You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?
your post wrote: View Post
It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI. Star Trek, to me, is more than just naming a spaceship Enterprise and slapping pointy-ears of someone and calling them Spock.

In the end, "fans" of "Star Trek" will get what they deserve rather than what they want. How high can the bar of quality really be raised if the bar of expectation is set at the relatively low level of one CGI'ed action sequence after another.

The best of Treks managed to strive for balance and variety. It is a waste of its genius to limit it to the telling of just one type of story. Too many seem all too willing to equivocate away any standard of excellence beyond that of the special effects. That is sad and ultimately suicidal for the franchise many professed to love.
(emphasis mine)

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
So I have to confess there seems to be a certain ad hominem feel to your response.
Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
Why all of the Bold and Italics formatting tags? If you're going to quote a passage from an article, simply place it in one set of QUOTE tags to set it off from your own remarks; it's a pain to have to edit all of that unnecessary garbage out.
This is I do not ultimately feel is ad hominem because I agree that it was a poor formatting choice on my part. It was done out of an innocent experiment in trying something different. I do, however, disagree as to the severity of inconvienence it caused and feel in choosing to focus on this minutiae rather than the substance of I what wrote to put it on the ad hominem bubble.
What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote