Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek - Page 43

BillJ · January 29 2013, 08:09 PM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

Well, I gave you a reason why you're completely wrong about Spock (and the episodes for reference) and so have others, several times, yet you choose to completely ignore them.

I haven't ignored them, I just disagree and genuinely don't see Spock/Uhura as a moving love story but as crass titillation for the casual audience that would absolutely not have existed if Star Trek was still popular.

Moving love story? No where did I ever say that (not sure anyone else did either). I said it's not out of character for Spock.

BillJ · January 29 2013, 08:12 PM

DalekJim wrote:

The Stig wrote:

If you're going to be an elitist prick

Could you be any more of a Top Gear fan? You're acting so loutish and faux-alpha male that I flat out refuse to talk to you anymore. Can't be good for my brain at all.

You're acting like an immature prick. Acting like you're better than other folks because you're above liking a popcorn action flick. Which you originally liked, btw.

* Just give me the infraction for flaming now. No need to post that I'm getting one.

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 08:13 PM

BillJ wrote:

You're acting like an immature prick.

And you personally insult other people for not liking the same romance plotlines that you do. I'm glad that another human being's feelings are less important to you than your shipping duties in a fandom.

Nagisa Furukawa · January 29 2013, 08:13 PM

DalekJim wrote:

It probably speaks volumes that I've always thought Luke was cooler than Han. Han doesn't even do anything in Jedi! A total spare part.

I think the difference between Hamill and Ford between Star Wars and Return of the Jedi speaks volumes. In Star Wars, Hamill is stumbling around, not knowing how to deliver half his lines, while Ford is cool and assured and gives a remarkably confident performance. By Jedi? Hamill's learned how to fucking act and is actually trying while Ford is snoozing through a paycheck. It's (one of the reasons) I've got way more respect for Hamill than Ford.

DalekJim wrote:

No offence but your inarticulate, cosey, nostalgic, twee, gut-reactions are of no real use if you aren't able to explain them.

Precisely. It's like people trying to justify the existence of ghosts by relating an experience their mom had when she was a little girl. Completely pointless and more than a little embarrassing.

Kirk looking at the Enterprise wasn't "magical". It was a scene lazily pasted from Star Wars.

JoeZhang · January 29 2013, 08:14 PM

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

Precisely. It's like people trying to justify the existence of ghosts by relating an experience their mom had when she was a little girl. Completely pointless and more than a little embarrassing.

Eh? That analogue is dreadful - they aren't anything alike at all.

Nagisa Furukawa · January 29 2013, 08:17 PM

JoeZhang wrote:

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

Precisely. It's like people trying to justify the existence of ghosts by relating an experience their mom had when she was a little girl. Completely pointless and more than a little embarrassing.

Eh? That analogue is dreadful - they aren't anything alike at all.

It's trying to justify that something is good/real not because of actual feeling, but because of something immaterial that can't be explained or justified; it just "is." No, you're right, a better comparison would be people who justify something based on "faith" except that's WAY more than a little embarrassing.

BillJ · January 29 2013, 08:18 PM

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

Precisely. It's like people trying to justify the existence of ghosts by relating an experience their mom had when she was a little girl. Completely pointless and more than a little embarrassing.

There's never entertainment that you like on an emotional level?

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 08:20 PM

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

It's trying to justify that something is good not because of actual feeling, but because of something immaterial that can't be explained or justified.

Yup. JJ Abrams' vision of Trek is "magical"? What the fuck? Did he have a unicorn as his Director of Photography or something?

The Stig · January 29 2013, 08:22 PM

So wait, I can't be engaged on any level except intellectual? Or if I am, since it can't be quantified, that engagement is invalid?

I don't think you understand what entertainment means.

BillJ · January 29 2013, 08:23 PM

DalekJim wrote:

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

It's trying to justify that something is good not because of actual feeling, but because of something immaterial that can't be explained or justified.

Yup. JJ Abrams' vision of Trek is "magical"? What the fuck? Did he have a unicorn as his Director of Photography or something?

One day you'll grow up and realize just how wrong you are. I hope you're real life personality is nothing like the one you present on-line or else you'll grow old a very lonely and bitter individual.

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 08:26 PM

BillJ wrote:

One day you'll grow up and realize just how wrong you are. I hope you're real life personality is nothing like the one you present on-line or else you'll grow old a very lonely and bitter individual.

Well, you can probably guess how much I value your subjective taste and intelligence.

Then again, as a society we do sometimes value that which is scarce...

Nagisa Furukawa · January 29 2013, 08:29 PM

BillJ wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

It's trying to justify that something is good not because of actual feeling, but because of something immaterial that can't be explained or justified.

Yup. JJ Abrams' vision of Trek is "magical"? What the fuck? Did he have a unicorn as his Director of Photography or something?

One day you'll grow up and realize just how wrong you are. I hope you're real life personality is nothing like the one you present on-line or else you'll grow old a very lonely and bitter individual.

So because he doesn't think a work of fiction is "magical" (a meaningless term), he's going to be unsuccessful in his personality life?? WTF? What's with all this venom?!?!

Also, it's "your" real life personality.

JoeZhang · January 29 2013, 08:31 PM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

One day you'll grow up and realize just how wrong you are. I hope you're real life personality is nothing like the one you present on-line or else you'll grow old a very lonely and bitter individual.

Well, you can probably guess how much I value your subjective taste and intelligence.

Then again, as a society we do sometimes value that which is scarce...

Not media students however with their favourite saying "Want to supersize?".

The Stig · January 29 2013, 08:31 PM

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

BillJ wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Yup. JJ Abrams' vision of Trek is "magical"? What the fuck? Did he have a unicorn as his Director of Photography or something?

One day you'll grow up and realize just how wrong you are. I hope you're real life personality is nothing like the one you present on-line or else you'll grow old a very lonely and bitter individual.

So because he doesn't think a work of fiction is "magical" (a meaningless term), he's going to be unsuccessful in his personality life?? WTF? What's with all this venom?!?!

Not so much, no. Presentation is everything. Jim's is terrible and as they say: "Garbage in, garbage out."

BillJ · January 29 2013, 08:31 PM

JoeZhang wrote:

Remember Spock is an emotionless Vulcan, highly logical in all his dealings.

January 29 2013, 08:22 PM	#639
The Stig Rear Admiral Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek So wait, I can't be engaged on any level except intellectual? Or if I am, since it can't be quantified, that engagement is invalid? I don't think you understand what entertainment means. __________________ Some say that he can only type with his eyelashes and that he thinks YouTube is a self-service tyre repair shop. All we know is, he's called The Stig.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US