Star Trek Uncharted...
- Thread starter Overgeeked
- Start date
Many sources? Then start sharing them. Don't just sit there and say, "I have sources, mwahaha!" Show them. I've pointed to a specific article, written by a business entertainment reporter, in a story that had more likelihood of being read by someone at Paramount and CBS than this book, that most people never heard of, written by a woman no one has ever heard of —*unless you're going to college in the UK.
I actually covered the split (http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/2046/viacom-divides-into-two-companies.html). I also didn't come on here and say, "Here's what The Wrap says, so I win." I presented what was there, why I felt it was definitive in my opinion, and agreed to disagree with those who felt differently.
So I am all ears to hear your sources. Otherwise, I have other things to do, and not continue in this circular discussion. If you would just prefer to be right, then go ahead and declare yourself right, so the rest of us can move on.
Thanks.
If Airlock Alpha counts as "journalism," so does TrekMovie.
Or, hey, we can use that bullshit Wrap article (quoted in SlashFilm)
And I think we can all agree that you are splitting hairs about the split being in 2006.
It was approved by the Viacom board in June 2005 and went into effect Jan 3, 2006.
You're welcome!
Last edited:
I am done talking to you. If you want to disparage other people, when all you have done is ... well, nothing except chat on a message board, then that is up to you.
No one ever said TrekMovie wasn't journalistic. Even my opinion piece doesn't label the entire site — it speaks of a single story.
The Wrap is an industry publication that has more readers than you probably know how to count to. But I am not going to keep responding to your obvious flaming. I assumed incorrectly that you were interested in having a real conversation, but instead, you just snark and post smilies.
Good for you. But you won't be getting response from me anymore.
Have a nice day, Karzak.
No one ever said TrekMovie wasn't journalistic. Even my opinion piece doesn't label the entire site — it speaks of a single story.
The Wrap is an industry publication that has more readers than you probably know how to count to. But I am not going to keep responding to your obvious flaming. I assumed incorrectly that you were interested in having a real conversation, but instead, you just snark and post smilies.
Good for you. But you won't be getting response from me anymore.
Have a nice day, Karzak.
Who's disparaging who now?
Jesus Christ. You asked for my sources. I shared them. What more do you want from me?
I'm having trouble understanding you. I could be wrong here, so bear with me. Are you saying you're not going to reply to me anymore? Next time, be more clear about your intentions, please, because it sounds an awful lot like you cited one source (yourself, no conflict of interest there) and have now decided to have a temper tantrum when not one, not two, not three, but four separate other sources contradict your incorrect statement.
Last edited:
The wheels on the bus just fell off... 
in other news, as of today, Paramount now owns startrekbeyond.com (no surprise there) . Just in time for the start of principle photography. Now that the domain name is secure, look for an official announcement about the films official name very soon.
in other news, as of today, Paramount now owns startrekbeyond.com (no surprise there) . Just in time for the start of principle photography. Now that the domain name is secure, look for an official announcement about the films official name very soon.
It is BS, and the writer at the original website where this 'article' came from probably knows it, too.
TrekMovie has finally started to ask the questions that we tried to ask Gummelt. He returned with "no comment."
Some people commenting said that maybe this deal was confidential and he can't share it with the media. And yes, that could be the case. But that doesn't change the fact that he sought out the media attention, and he did it with a claim that Paramount stumbled onto his concept while looking at his StarTrekBeyond.com domain, liked what they saw, and felt it was worth bringing him in for a pitch.
If in reality this was him negotiating a pitch in exchange for the name, there is nothing wrong with that (in fact, more power to him!) The issue I have is that it really does appear, in my opinion, that how this all came about was misrepresented. He intimates that the quality of his work prompted this pitch, when in reality, it's likely that he negotiated the pitch as consideration of the StarTrekBeyond.com domain, and they would've listened to anything he came and said. He could come and read the phone book, and they would listen, because they agreed to have a meeting.
Not here to plug, but this is the news story we followed up with: http://1701news.com/node/854/fan-gets-unique-chance-pitch-trek-paramount-how.html
Some people commenting said that maybe this deal was confidential and he can't share it with the media. And yes, that could be the case. But that doesn't change the fact that he sought out the media attention, and he did it with a claim that Paramount stumbled onto his concept while looking at his StarTrekBeyond.com domain, liked what they saw, and felt it was worth bringing him in for a pitch.
If in reality this was him negotiating a pitch in exchange for the name, there is nothing wrong with that (in fact, more power to him!) The issue I have is that it really does appear, in my opinion, that how this all came about was misrepresented. He intimates that the quality of his work prompted this pitch, when in reality, it's likely that he negotiated the pitch as consideration of the StarTrekBeyond.com domain, and they would've listened to anything he came and said. He could come and read the phone book, and they would listen, because they agreed to have a meeting.
Not here to plug, but this is the news story we followed up with: http://1701news.com/node/854/fan-gets-unique-chance-pitch-trek-paramount-how.html
I believe that's basically what we all landed on shortly after this news first broke, so... welcome to last week.
Yes, my apologies in intruding in your world filled with "I know it all, and I won't bother to confirm or get to the bottom, just stick with my original assumption, and stick to it no matter what."
I hope I don't hit a unicorn or anything on my way out.
You repeated stuff that was already discussed a week ago, then shamelessly presented an article you wrote about it as "news." My calling a kettle black because it was painted black a week ago does not make it any less black now.
What constitutes a "know-it-all" ? Someone who takes the time to humor whiny bloggers pretending to be legitimate journalists and provide them with multiple sources to verify information?
Or someone who only showed up here to defend an actual, ridiculously unvetted, unchecked story about Hollywood casting from 14 years ago who now defaults to insults because he's not getting his way?
Remind me again, from which accredited university or institute of higher learning did you earn your degree in journalism?
Except it's not news when you just sit around and yak about it. Just because you think something is something, doesn't mean it's something. That's not how it works.
Like today's Supreme Court decision. Should CNN and all the other news outlets not report on the decision, because some anonymous blowhard on a message board two weeks ago said that the Supreme Court was going to find in favor of the Obama administration?
News isn't a couple guys sitting at a bar, having a beer and shooting the shit. News is actually pursuing information, verifying information, and presenting that information in a balanced medium. That's how it works.
So just because you were sitting around with a couple drinks and declaring the way the world runs, doesn't mean that you are right.
What about the blowhard that said the Supreme Court couldn't possibly side with the Obama administration? That person is now wrong ... but you're suggesting that news outlets shouldn't cover it, because the blowhard gallery already has spoken out?
Seriously, I see your role is to just irritate people. Sorry, but I'm not buying into it. Get a job or something, or find something to occupy your time. Or continue to sit around and irritating people. But don't involve me in your bullshit.
Like today's Supreme Court decision. Should CNN and all the other news outlets not report on the decision, because some anonymous blowhard on a message board two weeks ago said that the Supreme Court was going to find in favor of the Obama administration?
News isn't a couple guys sitting at a bar, having a beer and shooting the shit. News is actually pursuing information, verifying information, and presenting that information in a balanced medium. That's how it works.
So just because you were sitting around with a couple drinks and declaring the way the world runs, doesn't mean that you are right.
What about the blowhard that said the Supreme Court couldn't possibly side with the Obama administration? That person is now wrong ... but you're suggesting that news outlets shouldn't cover it, because the blowhard gallery already has spoken out?
Seriously, I see your role is to just irritate people. Sorry, but I'm not buying into it. Get a job or something, or find something to occupy your time. Or continue to sit around and irritating people. But don't involve me in your bullshit.
Probably not. Unless something else happens, or people find a new avenue to discuss, I think we all kind of have to move on from it.
I also hope that there were some lessons learned, however. I was just telling a friend that I do feel bad for the reporter. She might be great at corroborating what people tell her for bigger, more controversial stories. But the ones that a lot of even experienced reporters get burned on are the softer, more feature-y stories like this one, where you don't think there could be anything controversial. So the level of attention put into it is greatly diminished, and that's where mistakes can be made.
I don't know if the reporter knew the whole story before publishing or not. But this is where some deeper questions would've been warranted, especially with how the domain name played into it all.
If this is what you've done, you have failed to demonstrate it here.
CBS still owns Star Trek. I've explained it thoroughly to you and also, I might add, without resorting to the outright hostility you have repeatedly shown me.
We're done.
Maltz! jol-Yichu!
I'm not here to win you over. Never have been. I don't even know who you are.
You have not shown ANY evidence of this, outside of a footnote in a book written by a professor in the United Kingdom, while ignoring a full story in an industry trade publication that states otherwise.
And I showed you hostility? You have been quite rude to me, even forcing some people who probably would've preferred to never have done so otherwise to defend me.
The answer to the Star Trek ownership question is the same as it was before this thread even started: No one really knows, maybe not even Paramount and CBS. I can only present what I have information on, and I have done that. You claim the opposite, and present some obscure, unsourced passage in a book, and then claim that this is definitive, beyond what I presented.
Sorry, while I don't think The Wrap is the be-all, end-all of the ownership discussion (especially without Paramount or CBS being attributed to that information), I certainly don't think the "proof" you provided with the claim you had "other sources" holds any water.
It seems your only job here is to flame. Go find someone else. I'm done with you.
That's like the fourth time you've said that. If you're done, then walk away.
I hope he is getting better.
He could've made the mistake, too. Hell, I could've made the mistake. No matter how meticulous you are (unless you're meticulous to the point of questioning everything, big and small), any reporter really can fall victim to it.
When that happens, you just have to lick your wounds, and be sure you put measures in place to try and prevent it in the future —*basically, learn from your mistakes.
Just like this reporter, instead of harping about the fact that I was wrong in my opinion because she vetted the story, she should have paid more attention to the fact that she didn't share any of those attempts to vet in her story, and seemed to really accept what this guy said at face value.
It's happened to just about anyone in the reporting industry. It doesn't make this reporter a bad reporter (I do not regularly read that site, so I don't know what her other reporting is like). All I know is this story, and the wish that more questions were asked.
Similar threads
