Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek - Page 45

Captain Mike · January 29 2013, 09:21 PM

My Name Is Legion wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Spock and Uhuru are shagging now because this Twilight-esque cross-species mopey business about a sexy ancient creature romancing a young woman is in vogue now

No.

YES

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 09:21 PM

RoJoHen wrote:

Well, that was helpful...

As an actual Star Wars quote, it's the most on-topic this thread has been in some time.

RoJoHen · January 29 2013, 09:22 PM

And yet it didn't even remotely address my questions.

Captain Mike · January 29 2013, 09:23 PM

Nerys Myk wrote:

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

JoeZhang · January 29 2013, 09:24 PM

Captain Mike wrote:

Nerys Myk wrote:

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Ah.. the 'true fan' gambit where you get to define what a 'normal fan' is or like as long as that fan likes what you like?

BillJ · January 29 2013, 09:24 PM

DalekJim wrote:

Well, I'm gonna report your vileness...

It's all good.

But I'm just really confused how someone who got an 'A' on a Hitchcock dissertation could miss the incredibly obvious clues in regards to Spock's character?

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 09:24 PM

RoJoHen wrote:

And yet it didn't even remotely address my questions.

I've already been called a "prick" by 2 militant Spock/Uhura shippers for giving my views so I can't be bothered any more. Nothing I say will satisfy you so it is best to just leave it and get back to Star Wars.

BillJ wrote:

But I'm just really confused how someone who got an 'A' on a Hitchcock dissertation could miss the incredibly obvious clues in regards to Spock's character?

I haven't missed anything. I've said that I find Spock more interesting when he isn't a traditionally romantic hero, but an asexual man of logic and science as those are rarer in TV/film. You then bought up rare examples of him acting romantic on the old show, which I don't like either. Then you called me a prick.

BillJ · January 29 2013, 09:25 PM

JoeZhang wrote:

Captain Mike wrote:

Nerys Myk wrote:

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Ah.. the 'true fan' gambit where you get to define what a 'normal fan' is or like as long as that fan likes what you like?

What is the definition of a 'normal fan', Captain Mike?

Do I qualify?

Captain Mike · January 29 2013, 09:29 PM

BillJ wrote:

JoeZhang wrote:

Captain Mike wrote:

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Ah.. the 'true fan' gambit where you get to define what a 'normal fan' is or like as long as that fan likes what you like?

What is the definition of a 'normal fan', Captain Mike?

So sorry I struck your TBBS'ers nerve on what a true fan is...I meant normal movie goer....my bad.

Tom Servo · January 29 2013, 09:29 PM

Captain Mike wrote:

Nerys Myk wrote:

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Well Im sure Paramount cared so much about that...since they gave JJ Abrams $150 Million to make another one.

JoeZhang · January 29 2013, 09:30 PM

BillJ wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

Well, I'm gonna report your vileness...

It's all good.

But I'm just really confused how someone who got an 'A' on a Hitchcock dissertation could miss the incredibly obvious clues in regards to Spock's character?

Eh? How can you get an A on a dissertation? I can't think of any UK Universities that use the A-F standard because of AQA guidance.

Captain Mike · January 29 2013, 09:30 PM

BillJ wrote:

JoeZhang wrote:

Captain Mike wrote:

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Ah.. the 'true fan' gambit where you get to define what a 'normal fan' is or like as long as that fan likes what you like?

What is the definition of a 'normal fan', Captain Mike?

Do I qualify?

Is that all Bill????

Tom Servo · January 29 2013, 09:32 PM

Captain Mike wrote:

Nerys Myk wrote:

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

but yet it was a "popcorn actiuon movie" that most normal fans don't give a rats ass about...

Well Im sure Paramount cared so much about that...since they gave JJ Abrams $150 Million to make another one.

Captain Mike wrote:

BillJ wrote:

JoeZhang wrote:

Ah.. the 'true fan' gambit where you get to define what a 'normal fan' is or like as long as that fan likes what you like?

What is the definition of a 'normal fan', Captain Mike?

So sorry I struck your TBBS'ers nerve on what a true fan is...I meant normal movie goer....my bad.

Well the normal movie goer gave much more of a shit about this film, compared to any previous ones.

DalekJim · January 29 2013, 09:32 PM

[QUOTE=JoeZhang;7611427]

BillJ wrote:

Eh? How can you get an A on a dissertation? I can't think of any UK Universities that use the A-F standard because of AQA guidance.

I got an A on my dissertation and I've friends in the 2 or so years above me who also got graded on that scale so it isn't a new thing.

Neroon · January 29 2013, 09:33 PM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

I think what your missing DalekJim is exactly what The Stig is talking about in his post. There is a moment of childhood magic that no review or dissertation can take away from fans of the original series. When I watched the movie it was like being a kid sitting in front of our old floor-model 25" color TV again.

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

Infraction for trolling, comments to PM

The Stig wrote:

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

I think what your missing DalekJim is exactly what The Stig is talking about in his post. There is a moment of childhood magic that no review or dissertation can take away from fans of the original series. When I watched the movie it was like being a kid sitting in front of our old floor-model 25" color TV again.

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

If you're going to be an elitist prick, own it. You can't preface an offensive statement with 'no offense' and calmly assume that your hands are clean.

I hate to break it to you (that's a lie, I'm enjoying it quite a bit) but we're talking about entertainment. It is, by definition, a gut-reaction affair. We can go round and round on the mechanics behind it but at the end of the day these movies, television shows, books, comics, and games exist to produce an emotional response.

Infraction for flaming, comments to PM

BillJ wrote:

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.

Infraction for flaming, comments to PM

January 29 2013, 09:22 PM	#663
RoJoHen Awesome Location: Wherever life takes me	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek And yet it didn't even remotely address my questions. __________________ I am the Quintessential Admiral. Get ready to grow your EQUINOX BEARD!

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US