I wish I had stopped reading at that utterly arrogant and retarded point in your post, I really wish I did, but then I kept going and saw this:
Holy Christ. I hope to GOD you're joking.
4 Clip descriptions from Empire *Spoiler heavy*
- Thread starter datas_cat_spot
- Start date
Maybe he's not joking so much as simply exaggerating.
Personally, I won't miss the character, as I never knew him. I've never watched TAS, and since it's not canon anyway, it doesn't matter. If Paramount says TAS isn't canon, then it's not canon right? ENT is canon. And so is XI. So April didn't exist. Get over it.
Personally, I won't miss the character, as I never knew him. I've never watched TAS, and since it's not canon anyway, it doesn't matter. If Paramount says TAS isn't canon, then it's not canon right? ENT is canon. And so is XI. So April didn't exist. Get over it.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Logic, is it? I've seen ALL of Trek (multiple times) and while there may some individual inconsistencies within and between series (Enterprise included)--NOTHING but one's PERSONAL OPINION can declare Enterprise "a continuity violation". You didn't like Enterprise. We get it. It didn't conform to your fundamentalist views. But, again, YOU don't get to decide what IS and what IS NOT "canon". Well, you can, FOR YOURSELF--IN YOUR OPINION. But that's it. Simply making multiple assertions that things are "facts" does NOT give such assertions any foundations. Sorry.
1. No, cold logic can declare Enterprise a continuity violation. If the ship depicted, goes to warp as fast and as smooth as the 24the century state of the art Voyager, and faster than a 24 century runabout and 24th century Defiant, that alone makes Enterprise violate any and all continuity. If you then add the description of 22nd century ships from Spock, it's sinched in completely. And that's just the ffing ship, not even talking about all the other continuity violation after continuity violation.
2. I don't have any fundamentalist views.
3. Never claimed anything about canon.
4. It's a fact that we've gotten a whole myriad about information about the 22nd century in the 4 series before Enterprise, and they are facts because they are facts, my assertion of those facts, doesn't change they are facts.
1. What would my fanfiction have to do with anything, continuity violation or no?
2. Please point me to the Star Trek series or episode, where it said that Dana Scully was not an Immortal that lived to the 24th century.
Odd, because you sure act like you do.
You worry too much, and you take the fact that this movie isn't what you wanted it to be far too personally. You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that any alterations to established or assumed "canon" erase what came before.
Chill. Its just a movie. You haven't even seen it yet. From what we've heard, they have explanations for everything.
Please. Star Trek is open to anyone. If anyone wants to sit down and watch any of the five series or ten legitimate movies, they are more than welcome to do so. And if they enjoy them, I welcome them to the Trek fandom circles and will be glad to call them friend.
However, if someone shows no interest in Trek until they watch a diluted and castrated version of Trek that has registries starting with zero, single nacelle ships, neglect of iconic characters like April, a hideously redesigned Enterprise and all the other things wrong with this movie, then they are not a Trek fan. I feel sorry for anyone who gets brainwashed into believing this is the pinnacle of entertainment and that it represents what Star Trek is. Star Trek is something wonderful and meaningful. This movie is loud and insulting.
Get it through your thick skull. YOU (nor any of the other "purists") DON'T get to decide who IS and ISN'T a fan. You simply don't. NO ONE gets to decide who IS or ISN'T a fan apart from the individual who chooses to be one (or not) based on whatever criteria that individual deems appropriate. I remember watching the premier of TNG with a bunch of friends back in university. Some of us were TOS fans from way back (myself included--though no one called it TOS then), some HATED TOS and were highly sceptical and some were largely unfamiliar with TOS (knew it existed, never watched it). I thought the new Enterprise looked hideous. I also found the uniforms of questionable aesthetic taste. The "big three" were not there (save 10 seconds with an old McCoy). But I was excited anyway. I came to appreciate TNG rather quickly, even if I always thought the ship looked hideous (it NEVER grew on me--unlike the Abrams Enterprise). Some of the TOS haters loved TNG--still hated TOS, though. Does that make them "illegitimate Trek fans"? (don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question) Some who were first introduced to Trek via TNG (with the ugly ship and uniforms, as far as I was concerned), went on to explore TOS and, in many cases, came to like it also (perhaps not as well as TNG, but still). Still others of my friends only ever liked DS9. My wife's favourite Trek was Voyager (I still let her live in my house
). Being a Trek fan does not depend on your narrow, fundamentalist definition of fandom (and protest all you like, if you serious think that someone who comes to Trek via the Abrams movie can't be a "true fan", the term applies). And your objections to the validity of the Abrams version are largely ridiculous--bound in irrelevant minutiae like single nacelles and registry numbers (neither of which are "barred" by anything ever presented on screen--I've seen it all more than once, so I defy you to point to onscreen evidence).
Get it through your thick skull. YOU (nor any of the other "purists") DON'T get to decide who IS and ISN'T a fan. You simply don't. NO ONE gets to decide who IS or ISN'T a fan apart from the individual who chooses to be one (or not) based on whatever criteria that individual deems appropriate. I remember watching the premier of TNG with a bunch of friends back in university. Some of us were TOS fans from way back (myself included--though no one called it TOS then), some HATED TOS and were highly sceptical and some were largely unfamiliar with TOS (knew it existed, never watched it). I thought the new Enterprise looked hideous. I also found the uniforms of questionable aesthetic taste. The "big three" were not there (save 10 seconds with an old McCoy). But I was excited anyway. I came to appreciate TNG rather quickly, even if I always thought the ship looked hideous (it NEVER grew on me--unlike the Abrams Enterprise). Some of the TOS haters loved TNG--still hated TOS, though. Does that make them "illegitimate Trek fans"? (don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question) Some who were first introduced to Trek via TNG (with the ugly ship and uniforms, as far as I was concerned), went on to explore TOS and, in many cases, came to like it also (perhaps not as well as TNG, but still). Still others of my friends only ever liked DS9. My wife's favourite Trek was Voyager (I still let her live in my house
I admire your persistence but it should be pretty obvious by now that it's a waste of time trying to reason with W0rmh0le.
No, TNG is Roddenberry Trek, which makes it Trek in its purist form. Even Berman Trek can still be classified as pure Trek, as Berman was worked with Gene himself.
Abrams Trek has no connection to Gene at all, aside from a poser running thinngs who thinks he is Gene. Say what you want about Berman, he knew he wasn't Gene.
Show me one canon registry number higher than two digits (meaning you can't use NX-01, NX-02, NX-09, NX-01-A) that started with a zero and I will shut up on the matter forever.
Perhaps you're right. Well, I'm off to worship at the shrine of Abrams. Catch y'all later.Get it through your thick skull. YOU (nor any of the other "purists") DON'T get to decide who IS and ISN'T a fan. You simply don't. NO ONE gets to decide who IS or ISN'T a fan apart from the individual who chooses to be one (or not) based on whatever criteria that individual deems appropriate. I remember watching the premier of TNG with a bunch of friends back in university. Some of us were TOS fans from way back (myself included--though no one called it TOS then), some HATED TOS and were highly sceptical and some were largely unfamiliar with TOS (knew it existed, never watched it). I thought the new Enterprise looked hideous. I also found the uniforms of questionable aesthetic taste. The "big three" were not there (save 10 seconds with an old McCoy). But I was excited anyway. I came to appreciate TNG rather quickly, even if I always thought the ship looked hideous (it NEVER grew on me--unlike the Abrams Enterprise). Some of the TOS haters loved TNG--still hated TOS, though. Does that make them "illegitimate Trek fans"? (don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question) Some who were first introduced to Trek via TNG (with the ugly ship and uniforms, as far as I was concerned), went on to explore TOS and, in many cases, came to like it also (perhaps not as well as TNG, but still). Still others of my friends only ever liked DS9. My wife's favourite Trek was Voyager (I still let her live in my house
I admire your persistence but it should be pretty obvious by now that it's a waste of time trying to reason with W0rmh0le.
Two things:
One--you really don't understand what a rhetorical question is, do you.
Two--I don't have to show you any examples for registry numbers. You are the one making the claim it is illegitimate, therefore the burden of proof lies on you to show that such numbers are NOT ALLOWED based on anything shown or said onscreen. Until and unless you do that, your "protest" is simply another example of the frustrated "purist" world view and is irrelevant.
Enjoy your bitter little world where you can feel "pain" over a movie you haven't even watched yet. Must be a joyous world to live in.
Bye-bye.
Because such registries have never been done before in Star Trek's 42 year history, it is logical to assume they are not allowed. Otherwise, why haven't the been done before?
I would like to submit that the statements like the previous two are why it isn't considered cool to be a Trekkie, and why folks make fun of Trek fans. Just a thought why the fan base has been dying the past decade or so.
Because April was only seen once in Trek's 42 year history, and that was in a cartoon which TPTB said isn't part of actual canon, it is logical to assume he doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, why haven't we seen him before in live action?
Because we have never seen starfleet personnel use the bathroom, it is logical to assume humans of the future don't use toilets.
Oh ok, makes perfect sense. here's another one for you.
Because warp technology has never been explained using correct scientific terms, it's logical to assume that harry potter side-along apparated each ship to their destination.
You understand my jest now?
Because April was only seen once in Trek's 42 year history, and that was in a cartoon which TPTB said isn't part of actual canon, it is logical to assume he doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, why haven't we seen him before in live action?
April is mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology, books which only represent that which is canon in Star Trek. If he's there, then he is canon.
We've never seen anyone use the bathroom, but we know that humans to use the toilet. There was a Voyager episode where several bathrooms on the ship had gone offline and there were line-ups at the few which were still operational.
You realize, of course, that going by this particular line of reasoning, the only things that are "allowed" are things we've seen before.
Me, I'd rather see new things. You know, strange new worlds.
Because April was only seen once in Trek's 42 year history, and that was in a cartoon which TPTB said isn't part of actual canon, it is logical to assume he doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, why haven't we seen him before in live action?
Great post!
Terrible come back from a man who can't admit that he's had his own argument used against him. Please grow up
And please refrain from employing such lofty and mature personal jabs as "please grow up", while we're at it.
Terrible come back from a man who can't admit that he's had his own argument used against him. Please grow up