If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

How do you know the writer of that book is not, as you describe it, 'spinning'?

Basically it's a matter of hearsay and who you choose to trust. I see no reason for Roddenberry to lie. He has every reason to keep the network execs on his side, and lying would not achieve this.

Herb Solow had nothing to gain from lying and was quite complimentary on Roddenberry's skills as a producer and he's not the first to say Roddenberry was a slimey fucker.

Just ask D.C. Fontana or David Gerrold what they think of Roddenberry...

Or Alexander Courage. Or Robert Justman.

[trek_futurist]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Trek Core means.
Doesn't mean these qualities are always good, it is e.g. unbearable to watch a movie like TMP.

Unbearable to people with short attention spans who need an explosion every 10 minutes to maintain interest.

Star trek, the motion picture is an amazing film with a fairly large following (see IMDB).

Just because those who liked this film do not chime in here, does not mean they don't exist.

And a lot of people hate st 2009. Again, look at reviews all over the internet, youtube videos and comments, to see that the number of people who hate this film is underreported.

[BillJ]

Or ask the woman Roddenberry was married to at the time he was banging both Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols.

There was a hell of a lot of smoke around this guy...

[MasuPu'a]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Unbearable to people with short attention spans who need an explosion every 10 minutes to maintain interest.

Says the person who thinks that Nemesis determines whether someone is a real Trek fan or not. That movie was nothing but explosions and pointless battles. Case in point; that ridiculous dune buggy chase scene.

[archeryguy1701]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Unbearable to people with short attention spans who need an explosion every 10 minutes to maintain interest.

Star trek, the motion picture is an amazing film with a fairly large following (see IMDB).

Just because those who liked this film do not chime in here, does not mean they don't exist.

And a lot of people hate st 2009. Again, look at reviews all over the internet, youtube videos and comments, to see that the number of people who hate this film is underreported.

And? But? So? Therefore? The fact that lots of people likes or dislikes a movie proves nothing. In fact, lots of people don't like all of the Trek movies or any of the series either. Following the assumption that the number of people who dislike something is proportional to whether or not it's any good, Star Trek, in its entirety, is a steam pile of crap.

[BillJ]

I know of at least one person who frequents these boards that cites The Motion Picture and Star Trek 2009 as his two favorite Trek films.

[Nerys Myk]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Complete and utter non-sense.

It makes Uhura look like a whore and minimizes sulu's role down to virtually nothing.

TNG, DS9 and VOY exemplified racial diversity a lot better.

It's one thing to like the movie for being a special effects extravaganza, but to be snow blinded into this misconception is just ridiculous.

Uhura was the third lead. More important than McCoy in that story. She had more to do that film than the entire run of TOS and Six movies. No other show or movie has has a black woman that important and prominent in the cast or story. Not sure why you would call her a "whore". She was shown to be a intelligent, forceful and highly competent officer. Let me guess, her being in a relationship Spock translates to "whore" in your worldview.

Sulu's role was pretty much what is always is. He drives the ship Plus, he got a nice fight scene with the Romulans.

[trek_futurist]

snowman1701 wrote:

---

Did you read the excerpt you posted at all? Or better yet, did you understand what you posted? T

Read my follow up comments on it to see that I understood it better than you, apparently.

[BillJ]

Trek_futurist has lost me. He idolizes Roddenberry, yet calls Uhura in the new film a whore. Talk about a double standard.

[trek_futurist]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Uhura was the third lead.

I keep forgetting that hollywoods idea of 'lead' for women is them acting all bitchy and menstrual while being swooning with affection for some guy. So in that sense you are right.

But seriously, what am I missing here? I don't see any depth at all in these characters. You people have to be making this stuff up, there is nothing involved in these characters, nothing developmentally viable (kirk is the same at the end of the film as in the beginning). Nothing to make me care whether they live or die.

Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.

[BillJ]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

I keep forgetting that hollywoods idea of 'lead' for women is them acting all bitchy and menstrual while being swooning with affection for some guy. So in that sense you are right.

But seriously, what am I missing here? I don't see any depth at all in these characters. You people have to be making this stuff up, there is nothing involved in these characters, nothing developmentally viable (kirk is the same at the end of the film as in the beginning). Nothing to make me care whether they live or die.

Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.

Whether I agree with how they used time travel or not, the way they presented it is the most accurate based on current scientific theories. A lack of scientific accuracy is one of the things you say you hate about the new film.

Your stances are very much in contradiction to the information we have about the film in particular and Star Trek in general.

[trek_futurist]

MasuPu'a wrote:

---

Says the person who thinks that Nemesis determines whether someone is a real Trek fan or not. That movie was nothing but explosions and pointless battles. Case in point; that ridiculous dune buggy chase scene.

In reality the film was about 25 minutes of action, the rest was exposition, character development and plot movement.

Star trek 2009 on the other hand, was the complete opposite. It seems to me that 'character scenes' if we can call this pitiable attempt at acting, character scenes, were gap fillers between the films real motivation, action, explosions and retarded humor that wasn't funny at all.

[trek_futurist]

[QUOTE=BillJ;5471032]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

[
Whether I agree with how they used time travel or not, the way they presented it is the most accurate based on current scientific theories.

*laughs hysterically*

It sounds like you are parroting mister bob orci. Who, I am confident to say, doesn't know what he is talking about in this regard.

[archeryguy1701]

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Read my follow up comments on it to see that I understood it better than you, apparently.

The writers of Star Trek made some shit up to make their ships fly. A physicist came along 30 years later and makes up some other shit on how he pretends it would work. You're giving them way more credit than there is to be had.

trek_futurist wrote:

---

Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.

Which brings up an excellent question. If these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, seperate from the prime universe characters, why care about them acting differently at all? What's at stake? What's the point of getting your knickers in a twist about it? It's really stupid.

[BillJ]

[QUOTE=trek_futurist;5471053]

BillJ wrote:

---

*laughs hysterically*

It sounds like you are parroting mister bob orci. Who, I am confident to say, doesn't know what he is talking about in this regard.

Based on what you've written in this thread, you have no clue what you're talking about either. So it all evens out.