Forum for haters of JJ's Star Trek

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Doesn't really reflect well on this place does it, knocking a load of other people for holding a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Star Trek XI was complete fucking shit after all. <snip>

Speaking of perfectly reasonable opinions...

It's gonna be a long year for moderators in here - hang in, M'Sharak.

 

[Dukhat]

Sorry, I should have qualified that comment the same way Captain Mike did, ie. as my opinion and perhaps that of anyone who objected to the film for perfectly legitmate reasons. I don't know if the people on that forum are "demented" or if they just can't quite put their finger on what they really don't like about STXI, but they are allowed to have their opinions regardless of what anyone here might think of them.

I never said that people can't have opinions. I also never said that people have to like the movie, regardless of if they have legitimate reasons or not (although the usual silly reasons I tend to see, like the use of a brewery set, far outweigh the more legitimate faults of the film, IMHO). If a few nutty people want to create their own forum for the sole purpose of vilifying Abrams in order to get their jollies, let them have their fun (while all of us reasonably sane people laugh at their antics).

Rather, what I was questioning in your statement was Nimoy's "likability taking a hit" thing. The way you worded that statement made it sound to me as if you were stating some sort of fact. If that was just an opinion, fine. And as far as I'm concerned, if you want to personally hate Nimoy's guts for being in this film, that's your choice. But his likability (or credibility) taking a hit because of it? No, sorry, that didn't happen.

 

[Patrickivan]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

So a few people didn't like it and instead of coming here and offending those who did, they start their own site.

In return, you start a thread here to bash their opinions?

Nice.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In return, you start a thread here to bash their opinions?

Nah, just a thread to laugh at the obsessive idiots there.

Languatron territory, for sure.

 

[M'Sharak]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

So a few people didn't like it and instead of coming here and offending those who did, they start their own site.

In return, you start a thread here to bash their opinions?

Nice.

I don't know, Patrick.

Daniel's post reads more to me as amusement at the notion that anyone's dislike for a movie—one single movie—could be so great that they'd feel it necessary to build entire websites centered upon that dislike. Does that kind of action not seem just a tiny bit overboard to you?

I do, of course, hope that all will be able to keep this in proper perspective and that no one will feel inclined to take any of it the least bit personally. As for bashing, meh - what little I see here has been mostly mild and pretty evenly distributed.

Again, as long as things are kept in perspective, I don't see that we've got a problem. Right?

 

[UFO]

Sorry, I should have qualified that comment the same way Captain Mike did, ie. as my opinion and perhaps that of anyone who objected to the film for perfectly legitmate reasons. I don't know if the people on that forum are "demented" or if they just can't quite put their finger on what they really don't like about STXI, but they are allowed to have their opinions regardless of what anyone here might think of them.

... If a few nutty people want to create their own forum for the sole purpose of vilifying Abrams in order to get their jollies, let them have their fun (while all of us reasonably sane people laugh at their antics).

Gracious to a fault.

Rather, what I was questioning in your statement was Nimoy's "likability taking a hit" thing. The way you worded that statement made it sound to me as if you were stating some sort of fact. If that was just an opinion, fine. And as far as I'm concerned, if you want to personally hate Nimoy's guts for being in this film, that's your choice. But his likability (or credibility) taking a hit because of it? No, sorry, that didn't happen.

I know what you were questioning which is why apologised and straightened things out. Of course in a perfect world most people wouldn't be so impressed by such comments (IMO) but I am aware that in too many quarters his "likability" probably increased. Actually I don't hate Nimoy's guts. He just seems a lot more fallible that he did before. His being in the film is a separate issue, as I pointed out.

In return, you start a thread here to bash their opinions?

Nah, just a thread to laugh at the obsessive idiots there.

Languatron territory, for sure.

I see. Well, so long as you aren't bashing their "opinions".

 

[Dukhat]

He just seems a lot more fallible that he did before.

Fallible how?

 

[UFO]

He just seems a lot more fallible that he did before.

Fallible how?

His willingness to become involved with that sort of "humour".

 

[horatio83]

At least Nimoy's "I am coming out of retirement once again" shtick clouds his whoreishness well compared to Shatner.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...the notion that anyone's dislike for a movie—one single movie—could be so great that they'd feel it necessary to build entire websites centered upon that dislike. Does that kind of action not seem just a tiny bit overboard to you?

It's a kind of mental illness, really. Dysfunctional at the very least.

 

[Patrickivan]

http://rehashresistance.freeforums.org/star-trek-2009-sucks-f3.html

Is this for real?

And here are the top 100 reasons why STXI sucks (lots of f-words, very little imagination): http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/full-100-reasons-star-trek-xi-sucks.html

Suffice to say, these people are not fans of JJ Abrams' Star Trek!

So a few people didn't like it and instead of coming here and offending those who did, they start their own site.

In return, you start a thread here to bash their opinions?

Nice.

Does that kind of action not seem just a tiny bit overboard to you?

No more so than this site. But I will agree with you that as long as our differences remain civilized here, there shouldn't be any problems.

But you have to admit, that anyone here who says anything even remotely perceived as negative towards the new movie, risks getting gang banged here. Christ- you can preface your comment with "I loved the new movie" and still get reamed here.

But in the end- meh. Whatever, I guess.

 

[Sindatur]

I've seen alot of these conversations where someone says something negative about ST09 or JJAbrams and they get bashed for it.

Typically, though, it's not because something negative was said, but, rather it's when someone even mentions JJAbrams, and it results in a Bashing of JJ, calling him Jar Jar and railing on and on about what a greedy Hollywood whore he is, and how he F'ed up Trek, and everything he's ever put out is compelte trash.... and often times, that tangent has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation where JJ was mentioned. Likewise with the film itself, you can say something bad about it without a problem, but, when you drone on and on, at the mere mention of the movie, in a totally unrelated rant, just because the movie was mentioned, then, yea, it gets blowback.

Now, I won't say, there's never been an attack on someone who brought forth a complaint in a civil manner, and I agree that's totally wrong for Posters to do, but, typically, it's because of the unnecessary unrelated endless tired rant that comes out of nowhere for no reason, other than to bash. I've never seen a post that said "I loved the new movie, but...JAR JAR...F'ed Up...Greedy...raped my childhood...", but, obviously the "I loved the new movie" part was completely disingenuous in this example.

 

[Dukhat]

He just seems a lot more fallible that he did before.

Fallible how?

His willingness to become involved with that sort of "humour".

Not trying to be picky here, but could you be a little more specific instead of using buzzwords with unclear contexts? Because I'm not sure how being Spock again for this movie constitutes anything to do with humor, as I understand the term.

 

[Set Harth]

He just seems a lot more fallible that he did before.

Fallible how?

His willingness to become involved with that sort of "humour".

Shatner did it.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I've seen alot of these conversations where someone says something negative about ST09 or JJAbrams and they get bashed for it.

Typically, though, it's not because something negative was said, but, rather it's when someone even mentions JJAbrams, and it results in a Bashing of JJ, calling him Jar Jar and railing on and on about what a greedy Hollywood whore he is, and how he F'ed up Trek, and everything he's ever put out is compelte trash.... and often times, that tangent has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation where JJ was mentioned. Likewise with the film itself, you can say something bad about it without a problem, but, when you drone on and on, at the mere mention of the movie, in a totally unrelated rant, just because the movie was mentioned, then, yea, it gets blowback.

Now, I won't say, there's never been an attack on someone who brought forth a complaint in a civil manner, and I agree that's totally wrong for Posters to do, but, typically, it's because of the unnecessary unrelated endless tired rant that comes out of nowhere for no reason, other than to bash. I've never seen a post that said "I loved the new movie, but...JAR JAR...F'ed Up...Greedy...raped my childhood...", but, obviously the "I loved the new movie" part was completely disingenuous in this example.

You forgot to include the people who will start ranting about how much they don't like the movie in conversations that have nothing to do with it.

 

[Sindatur]

You forgot to include the people who will start ranting about how much they don't like the movie in conversations that have nothing to do with it.

Oh...My bad...

 

[UFO]

Fallible how?

His willingness to become involved with that sort of "humour".

Not trying to be picky here, but could you be a little more specific instead of using buzzwords with unclear contexts? Because I'm not sure how being Spock again for this movie constitutes anything to do with humor, as I understand the term.

I can see you've lost the "thread" of our conversation. It started here with my response to Captain Mike's post. His comment was just about Nimoy's appearance on SNL, not his character in the movie. I have also mentioned that I wasn't talking about the movie twice since then, by the way, because people seemed to be lumping it all together.

Fallible how?

His willingness to become involved with that sort of "humour".

Shatner did it.

OK, maybe I would go with the old "two wrongs make a right" excuse (no I wouldn't!), assuming I thought the two situations were equally mean, cynical and premeditated, (which I don't). And, doesn't everyone expect better from Nimoy?

 

[horatio83]

Christ- you can preface your comment with "I loved the new movie" and still get reamed here.

Yep. If you dare to claim that the movie works in many way and features great actors, an exciting and emotional story, lovely effects and so on but dare to point out that it was slightly fluffy and stupid the fanboys will get mad at you.

 

[Dukhat]

I can see you've lost the "thread" of our conversation. It started here with my response to Captain Mike's post. His comment was just about Nimoy's appearance on SNL, not his character in the movie. I have also mentioned that I wasn't talking about the movie twice since then, by the way, because people seemed to be lumping it all together.

Umm, wha?

Nimoy's likability certainly did take a hit! That is part of STXI tainting previous Trek. It was completely unnecessary. I used to think he had more class. As you can tell, I'm over it now though.

I understand after reading the initial conversation that the likability thing was indeed in reference to the SNL skit. So what does that have to do with STXI? Sounds like you were talking about the movie.

However, I'm starting to sound accusatory, and that was not my intention, so I think I'll just let it drop.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep. If you dare to claim that the movie works in many way and features great actors, an exciting and emotional story, lovely effects and so on but dare to point out that it was slightly fluffy and stupid the fanboys will get mad at you.

Are you under the impression that this is why some posters are weary of you? It's not.