If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... - Page 29

BillJ · December 23 2011, 07:06 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

snowman1701 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

It's complicated because there is an apparent delineation between the 'insular' fans and those of who who simple 'like' it with no apparent explanation.

There is no such delineation between people who watch the majority of sitcoms. Obviously in order for such a delineation to subsist the medium must be presenting something to forge the separation between you and I.

Not as simple as you seem to be painting it.

Seriously? There has to be a reason?

Why are you so hellbent on defining who should or shouldn't be a fan? Do you not want the unclean, dumber masses enjoying your TV show?

It's a TV show. It's there for entertainment. And as luck would have it, it entertains many of us here. Stop overthinking this, cupcake.

But none of this explains why you are putting so much effort into explaining that it is simple entertainment and nothing of value beyond this. In fact, your efforts belie your claims.

There's just something about blatant idiocy that brings out our inner nerd.

RoJoHen · December 23 2011, 07:06 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

It's complicated because there is an apparent delineation between the 'insular' fans and those of who who simple 'like' it with no apparent explanation.

Okay...

I like Star Trek because I enjoy the actors and the characters. I enjoy the stories. I enjoy the space battles. I enjoy the humor. I enjoy a lot of things about Star Trek. I've been watching Star Trek since I was a little kid. I also like that it explores the human condition and attempts to show the hope of the future. I like all of those things.

Okay

Did I just win?

trek_futurist · December 23 2011, 07:07 AM

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

snowman1701 wrote:

Seriously? There has to be a reason?

Why are you so hellbent on defining who should or shouldn't be a fan? Do you not want the unclean, dumber masses enjoying your TV show?

It's a TV show. It's there for entertainment. And as luck would have it, it entertains many of us here. Stop overthinking this, cupcake.

But none of this explains why you are putting so much effort into explaining that it is simple entertainment and nothing of value beyond this. In fact, your efforts belie your claims.

Nobody has said that is has no value beyond entertainment. You're putting words in people's mouths again.

It's a TV show. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. But it can also explore science and morality and the human condition. You do get that it's possible to have both, right?

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Can't that be done with much less effort? jersey shore entertains people.

RoJoHen · December 23 2011, 07:08 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

But none of this explains why you are putting so much effort into explaining that it is simple entertainment and nothing of value beyond this. In fact, your efforts belie your claims.

Nobody has said that is has no value beyond entertainment. You're putting words in people's mouths again.

It's a TV show. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. But it can also explore science and morality and the human condition. You do get that it's possible to have both, right?

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Because the people in charge wouldn't make it if they didn't think it would be profitable. The same is true of every TV show.

MasuPu'a · December 23 2011, 07:09 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

If this is your reasoning, why not watch anything else that is generally considered 'entertaining'? Why star trek? I don't get it. Especially if its 'insular' fan base annoys most of you.

I don't watch Star Trek because the masses tell me it's entertaining. I watch Star Trek because I find it entertaining. Why do YOU watch Star Trek?

TV and movies are meant to entertain. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Different people are entertained by different things. If a TV show also happens to teach morals or life lessons, great, but that's not the reason I watch them.

Star Trek is just a TV show. You seem intent on elevating into something more. Just because you get more out of it doesn't make it anything other than a TV show.

If your view of it is this simplistic, what are you here to discuss? Anything?

Honestly, I'm wondering what exactly you are here to discuss. You started a thread constructed out of fallacious arguments formed solely from opinion, seemingly tailored specifically to piss people off as you also leave no room for disagreement and start everything off with an imaginary label of 'real' Trek fans. Your stance seems to be a rather self-righteous "I'm right and everyone who disagrees are fake Trek fans who are too stupid to understand real sci-fi." Even when people point out the flaws in your reasoning, you continue to argue with more opinion-based arguments. When that doesn't work you fall back to throwing out red herrings that muddle up this pointless debate even further.

What are you here to discuss? Because so far I haven't seen you 'discuss' anything.

trek_futurist · December 23 2011, 07:10 AM

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

Nobody has said that is has no value beyond entertainment. You're putting words in people's mouths again.

It's a TV show. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. But it can also explore science and morality and the human condition. You do get that it's possible to have both, right?

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Because the people in charge wouldn't make it if they didn't think it would be profitable. The same is true of every TV show.

Profit can be had with much less effort and financial sacrifice. Day time talk shows entertain people.

trek_futurist · December 23 2011, 07:11 AM

MasuPu'a wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

I don't watch Star Trek because the masses tell me it's entertaining. I watch Star Trek because I find it entertaining. Why do YOU watch Star Trek?

TV and movies are meant to entertain. Entertainment is entirely subjective. Different people are entertained by different things. If a TV show also happens to teach morals or life lessons, great, but that's not the reason I watch them.

Star Trek is just a TV show. You seem intent on elevating into something more. Just because you get more out of it doesn't make it anything other than a TV show.

If your view of it is this simplistic, what are you here to discuss? Anything?

Honestly, I'm wondering what exactly you are here to discuss. You started a thread constructed out of fallacious arguments formed solely from opinion, seemingly tailored specifically to piss people off as you also leave no room for disagreement and start everything off with an imaginary label of 'real' Trek fans. Your stance seems to be a rather self-righteous "I'm right and everyone who disagrees are fake Trek fans who are too stupid to understand real sci-fi." Even when people point out the flaws in your reasoning, you continue to argue with more opinion-based arguments. When that doesn't work you fall back to throwing out red herrings that muddle up this pointless debate even further.

What are you here to discuss? Because so far I haven't seen you 'discuss' anything.

Sorry that you are philosophically illiterate.

archeryguy1701 · December 23 2011, 07:11 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

But none of this explains why you are putting so much effort into explaining that it is simple entertainment and nothing of value beyond this. In fact, your efforts belie your claims.

Nobody has said that is has no value beyond entertainment. You're putting words in people's mouths again.

It's a TV show. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. But it can also explore science and morality and the human condition. You do get that it's possible to have both, right?

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Can't that be done with much less effort? jersey shore entertains people.

Oh for crying out loud.... If Jersey Shore entertained me, I would be watching that. It doesn't. Star Trek does.

I can not seriously believe you're now arguing that entertainment value and discussion of "higher" topics are mutually exclusive.

No wonder us Trekkies have such a horrible reputation in the real world.

BillJ · December 23 2011, 07:13 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Because the people in charge wouldn't make it if they didn't think it would be profitable. The same is true of every TV show.

Profit can be had with much less effort and financial sacrifice. Day time talk shows entertain people.

Not all people. This seems to be your biggest problem, you think people should be this soulless, homogenized group. Imagine a world where all that aired were talk shows. Pretty dull.

MasuPu'a · December 23 2011, 07:15 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

MasuPu'a wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

If your view of it is this simplistic, what are you here to discuss? Anything?

Honestly, I'm wondering what exactly you are here to discuss. You started a thread constructed out of fallacious arguments formed solely from opinion, seemingly tailored specifically to piss people off as you also leave no room for disagreement and start everything off with an imaginary label of 'real' Trek fans. Your stance seems to be a rather self-righteous "I'm right and everyone who disagrees are fake Trek fans who are too stupid to understand real sci-fi." Even when people point out the flaws in your reasoning, you continue to argue with more opinion-based arguments. When that doesn't work you fall back to throwing out red herrings that muddle up this pointless debate even further.

What are you here to discuss? Because so far I haven't seen you 'discuss' anything.

Sorry that you are philosophically illiterate.

Considering that you ignored everything I said and decided to retort with an insult; I guess you just proved my point.

BillJ · December 23 2011, 07:16 AM

This ones headed for a shut down

trek_futurist · December 23 2011, 07:17 AM

snowman1701 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

Nobody has said that is has no value beyond entertainment. You're putting words in people's mouths again.

It's a TV show. It's main purpose is to provide entertainment and make money. But it can also explore science and morality and the human condition. You do get that it's possible to have both, right?

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Can't that be done with much less effort? jersey shore entertains people.

Oh for crying out loud.... If Jersey Shore entertained me, I would be watching that. It doesn't. Star Trek does.

I can not seriously believe you're now arguing that entertainment value and discussion of "higher" topics are mutually exclusive.

No wonder us Trekkies have such a horrible reputation in the real world.

If it is merely a matter of entertainment, as a few of you suggest, why not promote something that leads to the path of least resistance for ratings? Such as another cop show. Another forensics show. Another day time talk show. These garner much higher ratings than star trek ever has (hence the longevity of shows like jerry springer). With the exception of the 2009 namesake, of course. *raises eyebrow*

trek_futurist · December 23 2011, 07:19 AM

BillJ wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

RoJoHen wrote:

Because the people in charge wouldn't make it if they didn't think it would be profitable. The same is true of every TV show.

Profit can be had with much less effort and financial sacrifice. Day time talk shows entertain people.

Not all people. This seems to be your biggest problem, you think people should be this soulless, homogenized group. Imagine a world where all that aired were talk shows. Pretty dull.

Would you care to describe the differences between star trek and day time talk shows, since they are both merely for 'entertainment' and nothing more?

BillJ · December 23 2011, 07:20 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

snowman1701 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Can't that be done with much less effort? jersey shore entertains people.

Oh for crying out loud.... If Jersey Shore entertained me, I would be watching that. It doesn't. Star Trek does.

I can not seriously believe you're now arguing that entertainment value and discussion of "higher" topics are mutually exclusive.

No wonder us Trekkies have such a horrible reputation in the real world.

If it is merely a matter of entertainment, as a few of you suggest, why not promote something that leads to the path of least resistance for ratings? Such as another cop show. Another forensics show. Another day time talk show. These garner much higher ratings than star trek ever has (hence the longevity of shows lie jerry springer). With the exception of the 2009 namesake, of course. *raises eyebrow*

Sometimes being unique can be enough to keep you on the air.

RoJoHen · December 23 2011, 07:21 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

snowman1701 wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

If it's possible to have both, then how is its main purpose to provide entertainment?

Can't that be done with much less effort? jersey shore entertains people.

Oh for crying out loud.... If Jersey Shore entertained me, I would be watching that. It doesn't. Star Trek does.

I can not seriously believe you're now arguing that entertainment value and discussion of "higher" topics are mutually exclusive.

No wonder us Trekkies have such a horrible reputation in the real world.

If it is merely a matter of entertainment, as a few of you suggest, why not promote something that leads to the path of least resistance for ratings? Such as another cop show. Another forensics show. Another day time talk show. These garner much higher ratings than star trek ever has (hence the longevity of shows lie jerry springer). With the exception of the 2009 namesake, of course. *raises eyebrow*

You're absolutely right. And that's exactly why there is no Trek on TV right now and why there probably won't be for a very long time.

Trek used to be popular and make money, and then it got less popular with each subsequent TV series. It is no longer worth the investment to make more Trek shows.

December 23 2011, 07:16 AM	#431
BillJ Vice Admiral Location: Greater Cincinnati	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... This ones headed for a shut down __________________ J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US