I have to agree. I am old enough to have watched the original series live...and was one who actually sent in letters when it was canceled. I already can't wait for the next movie!
The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
I have to agree. I am old enough to have watched the original series live...and was one who actually sent in letters when it was canceled. I already can't wait for the next movie!
Of course, for any "sociological study" to be of any interest it would have to be conducted by someone with the education and experience to be qualified to conduct it. The ability to spell "sociological" doesn't give one the tools or the temperment - or the protocols for accurate data collection - to conduct any study at all. It simply gives one a catchphrase for attempting to insult and provoke.
Of course, for any "sociological study" to be of any interest it would have to be conducted by someone with the education and experience to be qualified to conduct it. The ability to spell "sociological" doesn't give one the tools or the temperment - or the protocols for accurate data collection - to conduct any study at all. It simply gives one a catchphrase for attempting to insult and provoke.
I was simply noting that the fanbase includes CRA, who is part of the fascination...
GENE IS DEAD! Sorry, but he is. So we have no clue what the hell he would get from the film. Yet his closest relatives, the people that have known him his whole life, say that he would have liked it.
Unless you are his son, or Gene himself, then shut the fuck up about it. Because you don't know. YOU THINK YOU DO. But you don't.
No, you don't. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have little understanding of what's going on or why.
It's quite funny to watch a poster continue to declare that extraordinarily successful creative people are "idiots" and "don't know what the hell they're doing" as they move from success to success, satisfying great numbers of people who are far more discerning, openminded and fully as conversant with and understanding of the details of the subject as the declaiming poster.
There used to be a popular slang phrase for that kind of thinking: "Everybody's out of step but Johnny."
Fascinating.
We've gone from "The Cage" being rejected by NBC for being "too cerebral" to a braindead popcorn flick made by a Michael Bay wannabe being hailed as our salvation.
Ever noticed how some rollercoasters aren't as much fun the second or third time you ride them?
We've gone from "The Cage" being rejected by NBC for being "too cerebral" to a braindead popcorn flick made by a Michael Bay wannabe being hailed as our salvation.
Ever noticed how some rollercoasters aren't as much fun the second or third time you ride them?
Actually I saw it again today and loved it even more.
It's your posts that are braindead, not the film.
^ And this isn't baiting...how?
Exactly so.
The "too cerebral" story was a bit of self-serving mythmaking on Roddenberry's part, BTW, which he honed in retelling it to college audiences that he intended to flatter. If you read Justman and Solow's account of how Star Trek was developed, sold and produced you get a much more detailed and realistic account of why NBC rejected the pilot and why they commissioned a second one. Their problems - and Paramount's - with Roddenberry were never that he was way too bright or forward-thinking for them.
Desilu's reaction was to make a second pilot that would appeal to a wider audience and be less cerebral.
I'm convinced you are not a real Star Trek fan or have never really watched 90% of Star Trek
You're absolutely right. It's been absolutely fascinating to see just how utterly deranged the canon freaks really are. Just fascinating.
But they didn't go braindead stupid with "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
I thought Scotty and his alien tag along was funny. Scotty even brought him along at the end
"GET DOWN!"
"GET DOWN!"
Last edited:
It's clear that you're easily convinced of things that aren't even close to reality.
Like the notion that this movie was actually good.
I take you went back for a second helping of the Kool-Aid?
By what right do you demand anything from the people who run the Star Trek franchise? It can't be based on your financial right. Without even knowing you I can guarantee that the total amount of money you've spent on Star Trek in your entire life essentially adds up to nothing in terms of Trek revenue. It can't be based on your creative right since you're not a contributing writer or artist. Nor do you have an owner's right since Trek is clearly owned by somebody else. So what is it then? Who exactly are you to demand anything?
Inside Star Trek, pp. 59-60
One of the things that annoyed and concerned both studio and network people was the fact that Roddenberry had cast an unsuitable actor as "Number One" based on his personal relationship with her - that's the general meaning of the reference in the above to "Roddenberry's attitudes." The Desilu folks in particular were shocked at the irresponsibility of it, and it sure didn't reassure NBC's people about the judgment of the guy who would be running the show if it were picked up.
Last edited:
Gene Roddenberry was a part-time journeyman TV writer, selling to the occasional show. He needed money. He needed financial security. He came up with this "Star Trek" thing and happened to luck out with Desilu.
All the "joining hands" philosophy stuff was not his main goal. Continued employment was. Sure, many episodes were darned good entertainment. A few even sneaked in a worthy message or two. I was hooked from the show's original debut.
And the franchise was good enough for me to want to pitch to it for ten years down at Paramount. And to Pocket Books.
But it wasn't the end-all be-all of television. It was a job that occasionally turned out pretty darned good. And that's all ANY TV writer can wish for.
And I hope the new Star Trek continues to provide lots of work for writers, artists and technicians ... and more entertainment for us.
--Ted
All the "joining hands" philosophy stuff was not his main goal. Continued employment was. Sure, many episodes were darned good entertainment. A few even sneaked in a worthy message or two. I was hooked from the show's original debut.
And the franchise was good enough for me to want to pitch to it for ten years down at Paramount. And to Pocket Books.
But it wasn't the end-all be-all of television. It was a job that occasionally turned out pretty darned good. And that's all ANY TV writer can wish for.
And I hope the new Star Trek continues to provide lots of work for writers, artists and technicians ... and more entertainment for us.
--Ted
Do you even know the history of this show?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
