Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by Richard Baker, Dec 30, 2015.
We've had six months to realize they're not doing that.
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization [Star Trek Copyright] no matter how well intentioned that interference [infringement] may be, the results are invariably disastrous"
Jean Luc Picard, 2364
How can the High Lord Infringer call himself a champion of the True Fan, and forget/ignore the Prime Directive?
Man, it's been that long already? Time flies when you're deep in schadenfreude.
Where would this thread be if they did? Barren, lifeless.
"So how do you deal with getting served a lawsuit by CBS? Celebrate with Sushi!"
This is my favorite old chestnut.
Exactly. The "haters" wouldn't exist in such large quantities if their wasn't so MUCH readily available material to mock.
"But Captain, you were in command when the Titanic hit the iceberg and sank"
"That old chestnut?"
Without the ramblings of Alec and RMB we'd still be at 300 pages............I'm hoping Alec awakes from his hibernation soon and pushes us into the promised land of 1000+.
This thread is sponsored by Jameson..........
Oh gawd, I just read some of the twitter exchange betwixt Galanter and Burnett and I cannot now unclench my buttocks so uncomfortable to read was it. I actually felt a bit sorry for Burnett in the end as Galanter repeatedly allowed him to make a fool of himself. It was part 'get grandad away from the internet' and part 'get drunk grandad away from the internet'. The more it went on the angrier Burnett appeared to get and the dumber his tweets became.
"Hey buddy, it isn't wise to stand on the railroad tracks when a train is coming!"
"That old chestnut?"
RMB has retreated now and blocked Dave............#wuss
What? An member of the Axanar team blocking somebody on social media because they argued and disagreed with them?
As an OLD Star Trek fan, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of the JJ Abrams Star Trek films having so little respect for the material because (and IMO) as far as TOS goes, those films DID incorporate many aspects of TOS (and I am talking TOS here - not TNG or the later Star Trek entries.) If you can honestly sit here and try to claim every TOS episode was written with a 'socially relevant theme in mind'; or that TOS never had a good dose of just plain action or adventure - or pretty women in skimpy costumes; I would have to ask which version of TOS you were watching because if you can't acknowledge the above - you WEREN'T watching Star Trek (1966-69) produced by Gene Roddenberry and Desilu/Paramount.
yes, in later years - GR tried lie hell to play up all the 'socially relevant' aspects of Star trek, and yes they were occasionally there; but all the OTHER things I mentioned were there as well and made up what Star Trek (1966-69) was. Yes, TNG (and the later series) became VERY popular but TNG RETCONNED so much from TOS is was ridiculous. In 1987 many Star Trek fans didn't consider TNG very 'Star Trek'; but to many of the new fans the show added TNG did become their litmus test of what 'Star Trek' was - and that's fine.
However, the thing you need to remember about the JJ films ins that they ARE NOT based on the TNG era - and I think that's a thing many TNG fans don't want to reconcile. They want a 'kinder/gentler' TOS era; but TOS was never that and I for one am happy JJ didn't incorporate TNG era values into a film series based on the TOS era. I also realize that a lot of TOS fans do like to feel that TOS was 'at it's best' when it dealt with social issues directly; and they don't see either of the two (a third is coming but it's not due until July 11, 2016) JJ Star Trek outings really dealing with that aspect; or they don't like the changes to James T. Kirk as a result of his father dying before Kirk ever got a chance to know/be raised by him or the changes to Mr. Spock because of the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his human mother <---- And that's IMO fair to dislike 'JJ Trek' for those changes as well. But IMO - overall for me - JJ did capture a large portion of what I liked about TOS; and has respected Star Trek canon to a large degree given the sweeping changes this alternate universe/timeline has.
The thing to remember: Like all 'new' Star trek - JJ Abram's Star Trek HAS brought ne fans into the Star trek franchise, and I'm sure many of them see that version as 'their' Star Trek, much like the TOS TV version of Star Trek is what I most enjoy and consider 'Star Trek', as well as the TNG/DS9VOY/ENT fans who consider one of those shows their favorite version of 'Star Trek' (with all the aspects from a given series that entails, which fans of other Star Trek series may not like or want to include as 'Star Trek'.)
I'm sure TNG fans will get another 'dose' of this as the new CBS 'All Access' series makes its way into viewers homes and we'll see another set of new fans to which THIS series becomes their 'Star Trek' and fans of other series will be pointing out the retcons and changes they call 'Not Trek™' as these new fans say "Hey it's 'Star Trek' to me; I like it..."
"That old chestnut?"
Could someone with a better memory than me clarify my belief that every time Burnett has had a major social media meltdown (like the one he's just had on Twitter at the hands of Dave Galanter) it's been just after he's received bad news regarding the lawsuit or just before bad news about the lawsuit is about to be made public?
Because, if so, we should all stand by....
I found the whole thing to be fairly cringeworthy, on both sides.
A bit shy of that, actually.
I have already apologized twice for that poorly worded, hasty, off topic, and not well thought out post. If I had the privileges I would delete it. I'd appreciate it if we could move past it.
RMB is as stupid and obtuse as Terry is arrogant and abrasive.
(and if you think he's bad here, there's a convo of his from 2/28 - 2/29 w/him, AP and another guy that I won't even link too)
Separate names with a comma.