Why "Star Trek" is not right...

[F. King Daniel]

I still remember the fuss then Captain Archer asked T'Pol if Vulcan had blue skies, and she replied "sometimes".

 

[Expo67]

You all seem to be forgetting that Spock is one of Starfleet's greatest scientific minds. Perhaps the whole Red Matter thing was entirely his theory and was the only person brave enough and with enough scientific knowledge to take on that mission.

I don't think it's much of a stretch, or much of a plothole, for that matter, but the "haters" have nothing better to do, apparently.

6, you know I don't like to see that term used. Please avoid doing so in the future.

And this?

What do you care? Your only purpose lately seems to be to annoy other posters. Obviously you hate the film. I am offering an explanation, and a plausible one at that, as to why Spock is the guy piloting the ship. Spock is a formidable scientist. You are a troll.

Think of someone whatever you will, but there are things to be expressed and things to be kept to yourself. If I see you calling anyone this again in any thread in this forum, there'll be a warning in it for you.

With all due respect, Number6 does make a serious point. I've noticed such hateful comments toward J.J. Abrams and the 2009 prequel/reboot on this board for some time now, and I can honestly say that it is not even funny. It is downright distateful, disgusting, disrespectful, and just plain rude.

As I posted before, I don't understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward the director of the film and the film, itself. If people don't like the movie, that's all well and good. It doesn't mean that fans, purists, or whatever they want to brand themselves as, have to slander it and the director at every turn.

For fans of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of tolerance and I.D.I.C., those who are being disrespectful certainly don't practice what they preach.

 

[UFO]

...

With all due respect, Number6 does make a serious point.

That reminds me of a "Two and a Half Men" rerun where the little chap is lamenting the fact that whenever he puts "With all due respect" in front of something, it never seems to work!

I've noticed such hateful comments toward J.J. Abrams and the 2009 prequel/reboot on this board for some time now, and I can honestly say that it is not even funny. It is downright distateful, disgusting, disrespectful, and just plain rude.

As I posted before, I don't understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward the director of the film and the film, itself. If people don't like the movie, that's all well and good. It doesn't mean that fans, purists, or whatever they want to brand themselves as, have to slander it and the director at every turn.

Can you link to an example? Obviously I would prefer it not to be one of mine! Er, not that there are any of mine of course (fingers crossed).

For fans of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of tolerance and I.D.I.C., those who are being disrespectful certainly don't practice what they preach.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that tolerance is an answer to every problem. A point of view you seem to share, given your comments above.

 

[Kelso]

Well, I liked Vulcan when it had orange skies instead of the "down to earth" blue skies.

Well, I liked Vulcan when it had Styrofoam rocks instead of the "down to Earth" real rocks.

 

[UFO]

Well, I liked Vulcan when it had orange skies instead of the "down to earth" blue skies.

True, but something tells me that's not going to be an issue in the foreseeable future.

I still remember the fuss then Captain Archer asked T'Pol if Vulcan had blue skies, and she replied "sometimes".

That's it. I'm throwing out my Enterprise DVDs!

 

[Expo67]

...

With all due respect, Number6 does make a serious point.

That reminds me of a "Two and a Half Men" rerun where the little chap is lamenting the fact that whenever he puts "With all due respect" in front of something, it never seems to work!

I've noticed such hateful comments toward J.J. Abrams and the 2009 prequel/reboot on this board for some time now, and I can honestly say that it is not even funny. It is downright distateful, disgusting, disrespectful, and just plain rude.

As I posted before, I don't understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward the director of the film and the film, itself. If people don't like the movie, that's all well and good. It doesn't mean that fans, purists, or whatever they want to brand themselves as, have to slander it and the director at every turn.

Can you link to an example? Obviously I would prefer it not to be one of mine! Er, not that there are any of mine of course (fingers crossed).

For fans of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of tolerance and I.D.I.C., those who are being disrespectful certainly don't practice what they preach.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that tolerance is an answer to every problem. A point of view you seem to share, given your comments above.

I don't watch 'Two and a Half Men', so I can't comment on that statement. Besides, I don't like Charlie Sheen, period.

Just check out the threads and posts about the 2009 prequel/reboot and you'll see what I am talking about.

True, but it is also a matter of civility. When fans flammed Space:1999 at a Star Trek convention in the mid-Seventies, Gene Roddenberry chastised the audience stating, "Hey, don't be like that! Just because it is not Star Trek doesn't mean that it is bad."

See my point?

 

[BillJ]

For fans of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of tolerance and I.D.I.C., those who are being disrespectful certainly don't practice what they preach.

To be fair... Roddenberry created IDIC to peddle cheap jewelery.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

With all due respect, Number6 does make a serious point. I've noticed such hateful comments toward J.J. Abrams and the 2009 prequel/reboot on this board for some time now, and I can honestly say that it is not even funny. It is downright distateful, disgusting, disrespectful, and just plain rude.

Yes, they can be any or all of those but, as opinions on the movie for which this forum is a place of discussion, they are allowed - we have no rule against saying unkind things about the movie or about those who made it.

As I posted before, I don't understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward the director of the film and the film, itself. If people don't like the movie, that's all well and good. It doesn't mean that fans, purists, or whatever they want to brand themselves as, have to slander it and the director at every turn.

If you read enough threads here, you'll see all sorts of reasons (ranging from the well-considered to the utterly absurd, and covering the full spectrum in between) given for disliking the movie and, by extension, for disliking the work of the filmmakers or the filmmakers themselves. Again, there is no requirement for posting here which says that only those who liked the movie may do so; this is just as much a forum for its critics.

For fans of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of tolerance and I.D.I.C., those who are being disrespectful certainly don't practice what they preach.

So you have said elsewhere (more than once, perhaps); however, strict adherence to any philosophy espoused by or attributed to Gene Roddenberry is also not a requirement for posting in this forum. Allow me to point out here, though, that an important part of tolerance is allowing room yourself for opinions with which you may not agree. Now, you're welcome to criticize or to offer rebuttals to statements made by other people--that's part of what this forum is for--but making personal criticisms of or insinuations about the TrekBBS members holding those differing opinions is something to be avoided, and if you'll look again, you'll see it was that about which I was making a reminder above.

If you'd like to discuss this side matter further, feel free to take it to PM, but in this thread at least, let's get back to discussing the main topic, shall we?

 

[Expo67]

Even though I don't concur entirely with what you've said, as you wish. So be it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's the way this board works.

People are extremely and sometimes meanly critical of the people who make television shows and movies here. Rick Berman comes in for more "disrespectful" abuse than J.J. Abrams ever will.

 

[Expo67]

That's the way this board works.

People are extremely and sometimes meanly critical of the people who make television shows and movies here. Rick Berman comes in for more "disrespectful" abuse than J.J. Abrams ever will.

Coming from you, that is practically a revelation. Pretty impressive.

 

[Captain Mike]

That's the way this board works.

People are extremely and sometimes meanly critical of the people who make television shows and movies here. Rick Berman comes in for more "disrespectful" abuse than J.J. Abrams ever will.

Coming from you, that is practically a revelation. Pretty impressive.

No that is Dennis. He is generally a intuitive poster on this board although he can be a smartass at times...

EDIT: although he is correct on some occassions.

 

[Expo67]

That's the way this board works.

People are extremely and sometimes meanly critical of the people who make television shows and movies here. Rick Berman comes in for more "disrespectful" abuse than J.J. Abrams ever will.

Coming from you, that is practically a revelation. Pretty impressive.

No that is Dennis. He is generally a intuitive poster on this board although he can be a smartass at times...

EDIT: although he is correct on some occassions.

I don't doubt that for one minute. Most political liberals who have a strong contempt for authority are.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No that is Dennis. He is generally a intuitive poster on this board although he can be a smartass at times...

Unfair! When am I not a smartass?

 

[Expo67]

No that is Dennis. He is generally a intuitive poster on this board although he can be a smartass at times...

Unfair! When am I not a smartass?

Good question. When are you not?

 

[M'Sharak]

Coming from you, that is practically a revelation. Pretty impressive.

No that is Dennis. He is generally a intuitive poster on this board although he can be a smartass at times...

EDIT: although he is correct on some occassions.

I don't doubt that for one minute. Most political liberals who have a strong contempt for authority are.

Please note that there's also no rule here against being a smartass (I, for one, would have been in trouble long ago if there were) but I will request that you check your politics at the door. There are forums on this board which would be appropriate venues for political discussion, but this forum is not one of them. I don't ask for all that much from people who post here, but on that particular point I do insist.

 

[Expo67]

Fair enough.

 

[Captain Mike]

Out of the "nitpicking" and self induced PRO and CON "speculation" on the plotholes of the movie, I came up with one bold thought. Just where was the "moral" and "thought provoking" elements of this film???? You convince me that it was downright "Star Trek"...and I will give it major thought....

 

[number6]

Do you really need our help to be able to have a major thought?

 

[Captain Mike]

Do you really need our help to be able to have a major thought?

Nope,...just the kind of reply I thought you would have on that instead of staying on topic...