Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach Communicator/Tricorder Props

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^If they start banning people for being whinny asses, then the BBS would sure be empty.

 

[Unicron]

^ True. It's been dealt with.

 

[ancient]

It's amazing how people are willing these days to bend over backwards until they're looking at their own crotch in order to justify all the changes in TMP, but are not willing to grant ST the same favor.

Sorry, but any explanation for why the TMP Klingons are suddenly ALL black and ALL have crazy heads and wear some sort of nutty stupid armor bullshit for no reason, and suddenly decided to cover their ship hulls with Star Wars-esque crap, is pure bullshitonium.

And any behind-the-scenes, never-actually-explained-in-universe explanation as for WHY Starfleet would suddenly make a bunch of totally pointless cosmetic changes to the Enterprise design (such as changing the saucer proportions, or making the engineering hull curvier and 'cooler looking' for no apparent reason) is also pure bullcocky.

And any explanation as to why Starfleet would suddenly radically alter its entire rank/department structure and 'look' at the same time. Also nonsense.

They are excuses for the changes, not the real reason. The designs in TMP were changed to make them 'hip', 'cool' and 'tendy'. (and to make it look impressive on the big-screen)

The same goes for the new movie. TMP sort of succeeded, I guess. It was certainly trendy, anyway.

I'm fine with both TMP's nonsense changes, and the nonsense changes of the new movie. That doesn't mean I'm in love with the changes the new movie has made, but they are perfectly par-for-the-course as far as I see. Yes, TMP offered a few wink-wink 'explanations' about a few of its changes. So will this new movie, by the sound of it.

^If they start banning people for being whinny asses, then the BBS would sure be empty.

Probably starting with people complaining loudly and repeatedly about this movie we haven't seen yet.

 

[Captain X]

So when JJ puts "Star Wars-esqu crap" on the ship, does all the same things in TMP only does it using a shitty 50s retro future flare, keeps the Klingons the same as they have been since ST3, changes the background or everything and tries to pretend this is the way it's always been all along, it's cool, but when the changes were made in TMP, which was set some time after TOS, and had actual explanations, however lame or weak, it's suddenly not cool?

 

[Captain Robert April]

It's the new math.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's amazing how people are willing these days to bend over backwards until they're looking at their own crotch in order to justify all the changes in TMP, but are not willing to grant ST the same favor.

I honestly don't think that the two issues are the same... not even close.

Sorry, but any explanation for why the TMP Klingons are suddenly ALL black and ALL have crazy heads and wear some sort of nutty stupid armor bullshit for no reason, and suddenly decided to cover their ship hulls with Star Wars-esque crap, is pure bullshitonium.

Well, that's interesting. You DO know, of course, that only a few of the Klingons in TMP were played by black actors, don't you? I mean... the Klingon Captain was played by Mark Lenard (sp?).

And the Klingon ship... the "real" one, not the AMT model kit... was quite a bit more subtle than you might think. Watch TMP on a standard-definition TV, and those ships look a heck of a lot like the same ships as we saw on TOS, don't they? Almost as if... gasp... they WERE the same ships, but seen in higher resolution.

As for the Klingon uniform change, well... I didn't have a major difficulty with that, since Starfleet also had changed uniforms in the interim. I actually find it stranger, though, that since then, Klingon uniforms have remained almost unchanged.

So I'm sorry... I usually agree with you, but on this particular point, I have to say, I think you're full of it. No offense.

And any behind-the-scenes, never-actually-explained-in-universe explanation as for WHY Starfleet would suddenly make a bunch of totally pointless cosmetic changes to the Enterprise design (such as changing the saucer proportions, or making the engineering hull curvier and 'cooler looking' for no apparent reason) is also pure bullcocky.

Well, again, I disagree.

It works perfectly... if you accept the "this is an almost totally new Enterprise" line as being "canon." It's not, as you state, "bullcocky."

THIS WAS A NEW SHIP.

Really. Everyone intended it to be a new ship. I think it was Roddenberry who, eventually decided that it should not be the "NCC-1801" (as I recall Andrew Probert recommending) and keep it "1701." So put the blame on him, for changing his mind. I'll just keep the "this is a new ship that was designed to keep the same general appearance as the original." And that's no "bullcocky."

If this ship we're seeing in this film isn't "the Enterprise we know" (and if the classic gets restored at the end)... I'll be perfectly happy. If they try to tell us that this is the same ship we've known for our entire lives, however... THAT, my friend, is "bullcocky."

And any explanation as to why Starfleet would suddenly radically alter its entire rank/department structure and 'look' at the same time. Also nonsense.

Not so much. We'd seen two prior uniform changes, with coloration changes, just during TOS, hadn't we. We saw different rank stripes.

During TOS, things were simplified. I have no problem with moving "medical" from blue to green, while leaving sciences with blue. I have no problem moving command from gold to white, and leaving "operations" as gold. I have no problem moving security from red to purple, and leaving the unrelated Engineering with red. I have no problem, in other words, with adding a higher "resolution level" to the color-keying scheme... which is, after all, ALL that they did.

They are excuses for the changes, not the real reason. The designs in TMP were changed to make them 'hip', 'cool' and 'tendy'. (and to make it look impressive on the big-screen).

I don't think so, but I think you're correct... in a sense. These changes weren't made because some "trekkian reality" demanded them to be made. They were made because the folks working on the movie needed to actually do something in order to justify their paychecks (and to justify their egos, too, I'm sure).

The trick is that, once again, nothing that they did required you to forget what had come before, and pretend that "everything was always like we saw it in TMP."

The same goes for the new movie. TMP sort of succeeded, I guess. It was certainly trendy, anyway.

Actually, TMP was a success mainly due to the hype... but few people, even at the time, thought it was a particularly GOOD MOVIE. And some of those changes (ego-driven or paycheck driven, take your pick) were LAUGHED at by the audiences. I mean, how many times in just a day or two did Kirk change clothes???

I'm fine with both TMP's nonsense changes, and the nonsense changes of the new movie. That doesn't mean I'm in love with the changes the new movie has made, but they are perfectly par-for-the-course as far as I see. Yes, TMP offered a few wink-wink 'explanations' about a few of its changes. So will this new movie, by the sound of it.

It might. Or, it might not. I was very hopeful, initially. But based upon the information that's been filtering out, my confidence level is decreasing, not increasing. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Maurice]

It's the new math.

"Base eight is just like base ten really... if you're missing two fingers."

 

[Gepard]

So when JJ puts "Star Wars-esqu crap" on the ship, does all the same things in TMP only does it using a shitty 50s retro future flare, keeps the Klingons the same as they have been since ST3, changes the background or everything and tries to pretend this is the way it's always been all along, it's cool, but when the changes were made in TMP, which was set some time after TOS, and had actual explanations, however lame or weak, it's suddenly not cool?

No, he's saying they're equal levels of "this-is-a-phony-baloney-excuse-but-that's-okay-because-it's-a-movie," not that ST is better somehow. You're the one trying to set one revision up as the superior work.

Honestly, it's like people in this forum can't even read.

 

[ancient]

It's amazing how people are willing these days to bend over backwards until they're looking at their own crotch in order to justify all the changes in TMP, but are not willing to grant ST the same favor.

I honestly don't think that the two issues are the same... not even close.

Well, for one thing, the motivations for the changes seen in TMP and STXI are exactly the same, imo.

And they can both be explained away if one wishes to do so.

Though in both cases, I do wish they'd been faithful to TOS. I wish they were, but am not broken up by them not. (this is, of course just my personal opinion, but a consistant one.)

Sorry, but any explanation for why the TMP Klingons are suddenly ALL black and ALL have crazy heads and wear some sort of nutty stupid armor bullshit for no reason, and suddenly decided to cover their ship hulls with Star Wars-esque crap, is pure bullshitonium.

Well, that's interesting. You DO know, of course, that only a few of the Klingons in TMP were played by black actors, don't you? I mean... the Klingon Captain was played by Mark Lenard (sp?).

Of course. I was refering to the klingons, not the actors.

And the Klingon ship... the "real" one, not the AMT model kit... was quite a bit more subtle than you might think. Watch TMP on a standard-definition TV, and those ships look a heck of a lot like the same ships as we saw on TOS, don't they? Almost as if... gasp... they WERE the same ships, but seen in higher resolution.

Which is a fine way to rationalize the changes.

As for the Klingon uniform change, well... I didn't have a major difficulty with that, since Starfleet also had changed uniforms in the interim.

So? Besides, it's still a pretty silly design, if you think about it.

I actually find it stranger, though, that since then, Klingon uniforms have remained almost unchanged.

Agreed 100%

So I'm sorry... I usually agree with you, but on this particular point, I have to say, I think you're full of it. No offense. Well, again, I disagree.

Disagreement is inevitable. Don't fight it.

It works perfectly... if you accept the "this is an almost totally new Enterprise" line as being "canon." It's not, as you state, "bullcocky."

THIS WAS A NEW SHIP.

Really. Everyone intended it to be a new ship. I think it was Roddenberry who, eventually decided that it should not be the "NCC-1801" (as I recall Andrew Probert recommending) and keep it "1701." So put the blame on him, for changing his mind. I'll just keep the "this is a new ship that was designed to keep the same general appearance as the original." And that's no "bullcocky."

Yes well, it's not that I don't agree with your theories, but they're still, wel...fanon excuses.

If this ship we're seeing in this film isn't "the Enterprise we know" (and if the classic gets restored at the end)... I'll be perfectly happy. If they try to tell us that this is the same ship we've known for our entire lives, however... THAT, my friend, is "bullcocky."

I agree, but I doubt that's the case.

These changes weren't made because some "trekkian reality" demanded them to be made. They were made because the folks working on the movie needed to actually do something in order to justify their paychecks (and to justify their egos, too, I'm sure).

There-in is the heart of my POV.

The trick is that, once again, nothing that they did required you to forget what had come before, and pretend that "everything was always like we saw it in TMP."

I agree, but that's not really my point.

The same goes for the new movie. TMP sort of succeeded, I guess. It was certainly trendy, anyway.

Actually, TMP was a success mainly due to the hype... but few people, even at the time, thought it was a particularly GOOD MOVIE.

But the 70's 'stashes and pastel, science-lab look were still trendy, even if the movie had a bloated TV script and was snooze-inducing.

And some of those changes (ego-driven or paycheck driven, take your pick) were LAUGHED at by the audiences. I mean, how many times in just a day or two did Kirk change clothes???

I'm fine with both TMP's nonsense changes, and the nonsense changes of the new movie. That doesn't mean I'm in love with the changes the new movie has made, but they are perfectly par-for-the-course as far as I see. Yes, TMP offered a few wink-wink 'explanations' about a few of its changes. So will this new movie, by the sound of it.

It might. Or, it might not. I was very hopeful, initially. But based upon the information that's been filtering out, my confidence level is decreasing, not increasing. Your mileage may vary.

I hope I'm right and not you. Either way, I survived TMP and it's...I'll just call them radical changes, so I'm not too worried either way. If the movie really does turn out to be crap I'll be happy to tear it a new one. Until then...

 

[ancient]

So when JJ puts "Star Wars-esqu crap" on the ship, does all the same things in TMP only does it using a shitty 50s retro future flare, keeps the Klingons the same as they have been since ST3, changes the background or everything and tries to pretend this is the way it's always been all along, it's cool, but when the changes were made in TMP, which was set some time after TOS, and had actual explanations, however lame or weak, it's suddenly not cool?

I don't recall ever saying anything like that.

I said I was fine with both. Even though in-universe both are pretty much nonsense.

And that I like the look of TOS better than both.

And that the sky still hasn't fallen.

 

[Captain X]

No, he's saying they're equal levels of "this-is-a-phony-baloney-excuse-but-that's-okay-because-it's-a-movie," not that ST is better somehow. You're the one trying to set one revision up as the superior work.

Honestly, it's like people in this forum can't even read.

Yeah, it's kind of like all those people who have missed where I pointed out that they keep trying to compare TMP and ST11 like they're the same thing, even though they really aren't. So what if things are changed in both movies? One is still set after what had been rpeviously established to take place. I'm not saying that some of the changes weren't lame or didn't stretch my willing sense of disbelief, I'm just pointing out that TMP, unlike ST11, didn't try to go back and redo everything, didn't try to pretend this is how everything was all along (they actually wasted a good chunck of time explaining how everything had been changed), or any of the bullshit JJ Abrams and crew are currently pushing.

 

[ancient]

No, he's saying they're equal levels of "this-is-a-phony-baloney-excuse-but-that's-okay-because-it's-a-movie," not that ST is better somehow. You're the one trying to set one revision up as the superior work.

Honestly, it's like people in this forum can't even read.

Yeah, it's kind of like all those people who have missed where I pointed out that they keep trying to compare TMP and ST11 like they're the same thing, even though they really aren't. So what if things are changed in both movies? One is still set after what had been rpeviously established to take place. I'm not saying that some of the changes weren't lame or didn't stretch my willing sense of disbelief, I'm just pointing out that TMP, unlike ST11, didn't try to go back and redo everything, didn't try to pretend this is how everything was all along (they actually wasted a good chunck of time explaining how everything had been changed), or any of the bullshit JJ Abrams and crew are currently pushing.

I'm not convinced that Abrams is doing that at all. I think there will be some winks and minor explanations in the movie. It is a time-travel story, so right there is the perfect 'out' for the redesign.

The redesign may or may not be crap, I'm still holding out final judgement on that.

It seems to be that you've confused me not agreeing with me not understanding your rants.

I understand your (and Cary's) gripe perfectly fine. You don't like Abrams going back and messing with a time period we've already seen, and having it look totally different. Even if, I assume, there is some time-travel excuse. Presumably, you like everything to line up within canon in such a way that -even if something is implausible- it can still be swept under the rug with fanon or behind-the-scenes rationalizations. Which is why the entire look of the franchise being drastically redesigned in TMP is A-Ok for you.

I got all that. And, believe it or not, I wish they'd not changed the look too. But only because I like the old look. Not because I need it to be set in the 'real' Star Trek. I'm fine with a new Trek universe, I consider it the same as the Batman Begins reboot - totally new look, slightly altered origin, same old Bats. I didn't really like the more 'real world' look of Batman Begins, but liked the movie anyway.

If you just can't accept Abrams's redo, fine. That's your taste, that's you. I understand your POV. You can rant away and I still won't be able to conjure any outrage towards the idea of a visual reboot.

 

[number6]

No, he's saying they're equal levels of "this-is-a-phony-baloney-excuse-but-that's-okay-because-it's-a-movie," not that ST is better somehow. You're the one trying to set one revision up as the superior work.

Honestly, it's like people in this forum can't even read.

Yeah, it's kind of like all those people who have missed where I pointed out that they keep trying to compare TMP and ST11 like they're the same thing, even though they really aren't. So what if things are changed in both movies? One is still set after what had been rpeviously established to take place. I'm not saying that some of the changes weren't lame or didn't stretch my willing sense of disbelief, I'm just pointing out that TMP, unlike ST11, didn't try to go back and redo everything, didn't try to pretend this is how everything was all along (they actually wasted a good chunck of time explaining how everything had been changed), or any of the bullshit JJ Abrams and crew are currently pushing.

I'm not convinced that Abrams is doing that at all. I think there will be some winks and minor explanations in the movie. It is a time-travel story, so right there is the perfect 'out' for the redesign.

The redesign may or may not be crap, I'm still holding out final judgement on that.

It seems to be that you've confused me not agreeing with me not understanding your rants.

I understand your (and Cary's) gripe perfectly fine. You don't like Abrams going back and messing with a time period we've already seen, and having it look totally different. Even if, I assume, there is some time-travel excuse. Presumably, you like everything to line up within canon in such a way that -even if something is implausible- it can still be swept under the rug with fanon or behind-the-scenes rationalizations. Which is why the entire look of the franchise being drastically redesigned in TMP is A-Ok for you.

I got all that. And, believe it or not, I wish they'd not changed the look too. But only because I like the old look. Not because I need it to be set in the 'real' Star Trek. I'm fine with a new Trek universe, I consider it the same as the Batman Begins reboot - totally new look, slightly altered origin, same old Bats. I didn't really like the more 'real world' look of Batman Begins, but liked the movie anyway.

If you just can't accept Abrams's redo, fine. That's your taste, that's you. I understand your POV. You can rant away and I still won't be able to conjure any outrage towards the idea of a visual reboot.

Nicely said.. Dismissing it as "bullshit" without having seen it in any kind of context is premature, and as I've said, every Trek film and series has taken artistic liberties with the look and the flavour of the Trek universe. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I am looking forward to seeing what they do with it, just as I did when Meyer, Bennett, Nimoy, Hurley, Lucas, Black,Coon, Behr, Moore, Piller, Frakes, Fontana, Taylor, Braga and Berman took the reigns. It this film tells a good, compelling story, I'll be there for the ride. If it doesn't, I have some 740 hours of previous Trek to keep me happy.

 

[Captain X]

I'm not convinced that Abrams is doing that at all. I think there will be some winks and minor explanations in the movie. It is a time-travel story, so right there is the perfect 'out' for the redesign.

There's nothing minor about what Abrams has done in the movie, and to be honest the time-travel story is a lame cop-out aimed at getting who he preceives as Star Trek fans to watch the movie. And since this is supposed to be an AU, it makes it just that much more lame.

The redesign may or may not be crap, I'm still holding out final judgement on that.

I've seen enough of it to make that call.

It seems to be that you've confused me not agreeing with me not understanding your rants.

I tend to equate the two, because if someone understands my "rants", then at the very least they wouldn't continue to say things that indicate a lack of understanding of my position, like say continuing to compare ST11 with TMP.

I understand your (and Cary's) gripe perfectly fine. You don't like Abrams going back and messing with a time period we've already seen, and having it look totally different.

And that shows me that you don't really understand, because I have no problem with someone going back and doing something TOS era, and even making a few minor (as in adding detail, not redesigning everything) changes to update the look of everything while staying respectful to the source matrial. No, what sticks in my craw are the drastic changes he made to the story and the universe.

Even if, I assume, there is some time-travel excuse. Presumably, you like everything to line up within canon in such a way that -even if something is implausible- it can still be swept under the rug with fanon or behind-the-scenes rationalizations.

I like things to be consistant. I'm most definitely not the guy who tries to rationalize or sweep thigns under the rug. In fact, I tend to be quite vocal if I think TPTB fraked up somewhere. I am, however, more forgiving of minor mistakes than I am of totally fraking everything up like Abrams is.

Which is why the entire look of the franchise being drastically redesigned in TMP is A-Ok for you.

The only thing really drastically changed in TMP was the ship, and that is my main problem for the first through the third movie. To me they either should have gone with what they were already starting to build for the failed Phase Two series, which had a lot more of the old ship left in it, and saved the Probert design for ST4, or they should have done as Mr. Probert suggested and simply had it be a completely new ship. Honestly, pretty much everything else could easily be explained as changes made between the end of TOS and when TMP took place. So why that should be a negative talking point against TMP and yet a positive talking point for Abrams-Trek, I'm bemused to say the least.

I got all that. And, believe it or not, I wish they'd not changed the look too. But only because I like the old look. Not because I need it to be set in the 'real' Star Trek.

And that I don't get and doubt I ever will. It either is or it isn't Star Trek. Galaxy Quest was a good movie too, but it never tried to say it was anything more than a parody, and frankly that's what ST11 comes off as, only in this case the parody is set to replace the real thing.

I'm fine with a new Trek universe, I consider it the same as the Batman Begins reboot - totally new look, slightly altered origin, same old Bats.

I have a couple issues with that. First off, Star Trek has a much longer extended continuity that spans mulitple series and movies, and Batman doesn't. Batman has many versions, and has been rebooted many times since it was first created, Star Trek has not. Secondly, while I like the new Batman, he is not the "same old Bats".

I didn't really like the more 'real world' look of Batman Begins, but liked the movie anyway.

Stragglign off topic here, but I did, and I actually preferred the look of Begins to TDK.

If you just can't accept Abrams's redo, fine. That's your taste, that's you. I understand your POV. You can rant away and I still won't be able to conjure any outrage towards the idea of a visual reboot.

Ditto to you I guess.

 

[Tigger]

Honestly, it's like people in this forum can't even read.

Never let logic get in the way of emotion. It makes arguing much less interesting.


Abrams has been far more flamboyant about the changes he has wrought. And he was wrought them on a period of time that while we have not seen, we believe we know what it looked like - and we believe it didn't look anything like this.

Abrams should have publicly announced he was rebooting the show. Then it would have been like the motion picture version of Lost in Space - all about the SFX.

If it proved successful like the BSG reboot did, it could go off in it's own "river of continuity" and if it didn't, then it would be still more proof to Paramount that the only people who still watch Star Trek started with TOS and that's what they want to see going forward. By setting TNG so far forward of TOS, it was in it's own way a "reboot" and it worked out okay.Maybe lightning would have struck twice...

 

[ancient]

I'm not convinced that Abrams is doing that at all. I think there will be some winks and minor explanations in the movie. It is a time-travel story, so right there is the perfect 'out' for the redesign.

There's nothing minor about what Abrams has done in the movie, and to be honest the time-travel story is a lame cop-out aimed at getting who he preceives as Star Trek fans to watch the movie. And since this is supposed to be an AU, it makes it just that much more lame.

Which you have stated repeatedly, but which I still don't care about.

The redesign may or may not be crap, I'm still holding out final judgement on that.

I've seen enough of it to make that call.

Not me. I'm going to watch the movie.

I tend to equate the two, because if someone understands my "rants", then at the very least they wouldn't continue to say things that indicate a lack of understanding of my position, like say continuing to compare ST11 with TMP.

SIGGGGGH. You haven't heard a word I said. I'm sorry, I've made an effort to understand and sympathize with your POV but you remain blind to any opinion but your own. I have explained in great detail how they are similar. Please read my posts, when you get the chance.

And that shows me that you don't really understand, because I have no problem with someone going back and doing something TOS era, and even making a few minor (as in adding detail, not redesigning everything) changes to update the look of everything while staying respectful to the source matrial. No, what sticks in my craw are the drastic changes he made to the story and the universe.

...Which is exactly what I just said. I even agreed to a certain extent. What the hell?!

I like things to be consistant. I'm most definitely not the guy who tries to rationalize or sweep thigns under the rug. In fact, I tend to be quite vocal if I think TPTB fraked up somewhere. I am, however, more forgiving of minor mistakes than I am of totally fraking everything up like Abrams is.

Again, rinse, wash, repeat.

The only thing really drastically changed in TMP was the ship, and that is my main problem for the first through the third movie. To me they either should have gone with what they were already starting to build for the failed Phase Two series, which had a lot more of the old ship left in it, and saved the Probert design for ST4, or they should have done as Mr. Probert suggested and simply had it be a completely new ship. Honestly, pretty much everything else could easily be explained as changes made between the end of TOS and when TMP took place. So why that should be a negative talking point against TMP and yet a positive talking point for Abrams-Trek, I'm bemused to say the least.

...Still haven't actually read my posts. Amazing.

And that I don't get and doubt I ever will. It either is or it isn't Star Trek.

And you get to be the one to decide? No, I'm sorry, but Abrams's movie IS Trek.

Galaxy Quest was a good movie too, but it never tried to say it was anything more than a parody, and frankly that's what ST11 comes off as, only in this case the parody is set to replace the real thing.

I hope the movie doesn't end up this way.

I have a couple issues with that. First off, Star Trek has a much longer extended continuity that spans mulitple series and movies, and Batman doesn't. Batman has many versions, and has been rebooted many times since it was first created, Star Trek has not. Secondly, while I like the new Batman, he is not the "same old Bats".

Meh. Whatever. This is just splitting hairs.

I didn't really like the more 'real world' look of Batman Begins, but liked the movie anyway.

Stragglign off topic here, but I did, and I actually preferred the look of Begins to TDK.

I didn't bother to see TDK yet.

 

[Captain X]

Which you have stated repeatedly, but which I still don't care about.

So why should I care what you think?

Not me. I'm going to watch the movie.

Then why are you practically gushing about what you've seen in the STXI forum? I've had people claim they haven't made their mind up yet, but to be frank that's a bullshit PC response. People have seen the inside and the outside of the ship, they've seen the shuttles, they've seen the uniforms, and they've reacted to it, either positively or negatively.

SIGGGGGH. You haven't heard a word I said.

Yes, I have, now stop whining that I haven't because I don't abide that shit.

I'm sorry, I've made an effort to understand and sympathize with your POV

No, you've gushed about your own POV, which is fine, but don't claim you're making any great effort to "understand and sympathize" with my opinions and viewpoint when it's really obvious that you haven't.

but you remain blind to any opinion but your own.

No, I'm not "blind" to other opinions, I just disagree with yours.

I have explained in great detail how they are similar.

And I've pointed out in great detail how they really aren't.

Please read my posts, when you get the chance.

Oh look, more patronization, that'll totally make me agree with you.

...Which is exactly what I just said. I even agreed to a certain extent. What the hell?!

No, you said that I'm ok with anything as long as it's "explained" somehow in-universe, and I explained that wasn't the case.

Again, rinse, wash, repeat.

Again, rinse, wash, repeat.

...Still haven't actually read my posts. Amazing.

...Still haven't figured out condescending to me doesn't work. Amazing.

And you get to be the one to decide?

Yes, I'm the King of the Trekkies, kneel before your Zod. It's called having an opinion - other people have them too.

No, I'm sorry, but Abrams's movie IS Trek.

Sort of like Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, TAS, and other such nuggets that are generall swept under the rug as things we'd rather forget happened. That's part of why I'm pissed.

I hope the movie doesn't end up this way.

Based on the attitude I've seen in the interviews and the trailer, yeah, it's going to suck like a massive hull breech.

Meh. Whatever. This is just splitting hairs.

No, not really, but for someone who doesn't want to recognize the difference because they just want a reboot (worked for Batman and BSG, after all) I can see why you might see it that way.

I didn't bother to see TDK yet.

The city looks nothing like it did in Batman Begins.

 

[Unicron]

* sighs * Seeing as how people are still being nasty to each other, even after my comments and two infractions, I'm closing this thread.