Dumb and Bizarre Trek Novel Moments...

[KRAD]

^ Hating the idea of the new movie is completely different. Heck, I'm on record saying that doing a reboot of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is far from the wisest approach that could've been taken.

But that's not the same thing as hating a movie that you haven't actually seen.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Actually, people who don't like the new movie give themselves a bad name just by existing, since they don't actually know jack-shit about the new movie because they haven't seen it. I find it impossible to take anyone who claims to hate the movie right now in any way, shape, or form seriously, since the opinion isn't an informed one.

Well that too.

^ I hate the idea of the new movie with a passion. I have always strongly disliked JJ's work. I feel it is the completely wrong direction, just regurgitating the past. Playing it safe. I want new ideas. Occasionally I have made some negative comments about it as well..but I figure at this point the thing is made and it is going to come out whether I like it or not. I'm attempting to steer clear of the arguments about it for the most part unless I really have something worthwhile to say about it.

Let it succeed or fail, I won't be a part of it and I fully realize that bitching on a message board about it won't accomplish a damned thing. I also realize that there isn't any reason to rain on the parade of those who are excited about it.

I advise the rest of the haters to do the same, saves some wear and tear on your blood pressure at the very least! Of course I don't expect anybody to actually to take my advice, but there it is.

Wait your avdocating tolerance of other people's opinions on this board .

 

[Trent Roman]

Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before I do not define Trek success by how many people watch it or how big a franchise it becomes. I never have, and I never will. Trek's success is tied entirely to how well it works for me. So I don't care if less people watched Lil Enterprise, because it didn't matter to me ... I stopped watching pretty early on, and hadn't seen much VOYAGER either. They didn't work for me, and whenever I'd 'check in' I'd see more of the same old crap that wasn't working for me. So check all your notions about success when countering my position on anything.

Well then, could you provide a complete list of your opinions and system of values that we might know how we are supposed to be conducting evaluations whilst in your august presence? Also, what is the correct way to genuflect to your evidently absolute authority--just palms against the floor, or do we touch our forehead to the floor too?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

I'm not sure how I feel about whether going back and redoing TOS with a new cast is a good idea or not. But I do know it was inevitable. Ever since the "Should they recast?" debates started up in fandom a couple of decades ago, I took the long view and figured that, no matter how much any one of us might argue that it was a bad idea, sooner or later somebody would do it. I actually didn't expect it to happen this soon, but I considered it axiomatic that it would happen.

I also think it's a given that someday, somebody will do a full reboot of the Trek universe, not just an alternate timeline but a completely distinct continuity that reinvents the universe from the ground up. After all, the 1960s assumptions on which ST was built will seem increasingly obsolete in the decades to come. We'll have advances in nanotech, genetics, robotics, and materials science that will make ST's core assumptions seem hopelessly antiquated (as some of them already do). And we'll have space-based telescopes so powerful that we'll be able to make maps of planets hundreds of light-years away. So the idea of a ship going anywhere in space without knowing in advance what they'll find there will no longer be tenable once the public gets used to oohing and ahhing over pretty pictures of faraway planets.

So actually, I think I'd prefer it if they had done a full restart like that. But I'm certain that eventually one will be done. Maybe in another 40 years, or maybe sooner.

 

[Sci]

Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.

The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?

I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?

I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.

Yes, and you chose to disagree with his premise in order to attempt to invalidate his conclusion.

Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it.

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You expressed disagreement with the premise of Trek as popular myth, and others disagreed with your reasons for disagreeing with that premise. You then switched gears and started talking about your personal opinion of the quality of recent Trek, which has nothing to do with its popularity, as Christopher quite correctly pointed out. And now, upon his pointing it out, you are attempting to change the topic again.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

 

[Semah]

Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before I do not define Trek success by how many people watch it or how big a franchise it becomes. I never have, and I never will. Trek's success is tied entirely to how well it works for me.

Wait...what?

 

[Stevil2001]

As far as recasting goes, I'm just glad the new Captain Kirk isn't an Elvis impersonator this time.

 

[foravalon]

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You expressed disagreement with the premise of Trek as popular myth, and others disagreed with your reasons for disagreeing with that premise. You then switched gears and started talking about your personal opinion of the quality of recent Trek, which has nothing to do with its popularity, as Christopher quite correctly pointed out. And now, upon his pointing it out, you are attempting to change the topic again.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

I'm sorry but this entire conversation and the context in which it's taking place hilarious and ironic in ways I can't begin to express.

 

[Christopher]

As far as recasting goes, I'm just glad the new Captain Kirk isn't an Elvis impersonator this time.

"This time?"

 

[trevanian]

Well, if that's so, then why did you post the following?



It was your choice to speak of Trek's popularity, which you must surely agree is a totally different subject from its success in your own mind. So if you're only concerned about your own personal perceptions of it and have no interest in any other standard, you should avoid casting your discussions in terms of things like popularity. In fact, if you have no interest in any opinions other than your own, you should avoid posting those opinions on a public discussion board where they will no doubt prompt others to voice opinions other than your own.

Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.

The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?

I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?

I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.

Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it. So if you don't like where I'm coming from, then please do whatever they do that makes it so my posts don't show up in your field of view.

Otherwise kindly shut the hell up or post something useful. I'm really tired of your posturing.

You know its posts like this that give people who don't like the new movie a bad name.

I thought it was the folks assailing people with positions like this that were giving out the bad name-thing.

 

[Semah]

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You expressed disagreement with the premise of Trek as popular myth, and others disagreed with your reasons for disagreeing with that premise. You then switched gears and started talking about your personal opinion of the quality of recent Trek, which has nothing to do with its popularity, as Christopher quite correctly pointed out. And now, upon his pointing it out, you are attempting to change the topic again.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

I'm sorry but this entire conversation and the context in which it's taking place hilarious and ironic in ways I can't begin to express.

Tune in for "Dumb and bizarre thread moments" coming to a forum near you.

 

[trevanian]

Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.

The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?

I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?

I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.

Yes, and you chose to disagree with his premise in order to attempt to invalidate his conclusion.

Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it.

Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You expressed disagreement with the premise of Trek as popular myth, and others disagreed with your reasons for disagreeing with that premise. You then switched gears and started talking about your personal opinion of the quality of recent Trek, which has nothing to do with its popularity, as Christopher quite correctly pointed out. And now, upon his pointing it out, you are attempting to change the topic again.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

You guys keep setting up whole new playing fields, ferchrissake! I've had issues on the popularity/success crap before with that guy, so that is what I fastened onto to deal with him. I went the whole sarcastic route because I'm seriously tired of going over the same shit again and again.

 

[trevanian]

Get this straight (once and for all, because I know I've written this in response to YOU before I do not define Trek success by how many people watch it or how big a franchise it becomes. I never have, and I never will. Trek's success is tied entirely to how well it works for me. So I don't care if less people watched Lil Enterprise, because it didn't matter to me ... I stopped watching pretty early on, and hadn't seen much VOYAGER either. They didn't work for me, and whenever I'd 'check in' I'd see more of the same old crap that wasn't working for me. So check all your notions about success when countering my position on anything.

Well then, could you provide a complete list of your opinions and system of values that we might know how we are supposed to be conducting evaluations whilst in your august presence?

That would be telling.

Also, it'd be irrelevant to the forum. It IS relevant to making a point with somebody I'm tired of restating stuff to. To the rest of ya, apologies for the digression.

 

[JD]

Okay, I'll try small words and small sentences.

The poster I replied to used the popular myth line. Got it so far? I chose to reply to his post that used the popularity line. Fol-low?

I was replying to that, so I employed it to make specific reference to his premise. Still following me?

I was disagreeing (sorry about the number of syllables -- dis-a-gree-ing) with the poster over his view. That is what often happens on forums.

Now it is going to get tricky. You are going to have to try to understand that if I have an opinion that differs from yours, or another poster's, and I have something to say to you, I am going to say it (sorry, that sentence was long.) I may or may not value somebody else's opinion here, that isn't your position to judge. That is my interpretation of the value of their information or viewpoint, regardless of how they came by it. So if you don't like where I'm coming from, then please do whatever they do that makes it so my posts don't show up in your field of view.

Otherwise kindly shut the hell up or post something useful. I'm really tired of your posturing.

You know its posts like this that give people who don't like the new movie a bad name.

I thought it was the folks assailing people with positions like this that were giving out the bad name-thing.

 

[foravalon]

... And now, upon his pointing it out, you are attempting to change the topic again.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

You guys keep setting up whole new playing fields, ferchrissake! I've had issues on the popularity/success crap before with that guy, so that is what I fastened onto to deal with him. I went the whole sarcastic route because I'm seriously tired of going over the same shit again and again.

Well then, could you provide a complete list of your opinions and system of values that we might know how we are supposed to be conducting evaluations whilst in your august presence?

That would be telling.

Also, it'd be irrelevant to the forum. It IS relevant to making a point with somebody I'm tired of restating stuff to. To the rest of ya, apologies for the digression.

It's all good Trev, this forum has had no shortage of its breakdowns in communications. One definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again, hoping to achieve different results. On boards like these, one can see the practice of such behavior from some posters eliciting similar results in other posters fairly often. To put it another way:


"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."



Your opinions are valued sir, and you're entitled to the way you choose to express them, as are we all. I do applaud the maturity or your latest post and appreciate it.

 

[Kirk1980]

Can we go back to talking about stupid things about books, not stupid things about ourselves...please?

 

[TerriO]

There are times when I swear disagreeing with Christopher should be deemed an Olympic sport. So many people do it.....

As for "Dumb and Bizarre Trek novel moments"? Whatever it was that sucked me into writing these things. Although sneaking a Golden Snitch from Harry Potter into a story and having it turn into a flying smiley face had to have been the most drug-induced concept to ever enter any of the writers' minds.

Oh, wait. I did that, didn't I?

Actually, people who don't like the new movie give themselves a bad name just by existing, since they don't actually know jack-shit about the new movie because they haven't seen it. I find it impossible to take anyone who claims to hate the movie right now in any way, shape, or form seriously, since the opinion isn't an informed one.

Thanks for the insult.

You know my thoughts on the subject. You know the information that's informed those thoughts. And you're trying to tell me I give myself a bad name just by existing because my opinion somehow isn't informed? Purely because I don't have every single nugget of information about the plot before I make a decision on whether or not I'm going to like the film? By that definition, everyone is going into this film with an uninformed opinion, including the people who already say they like it. Do they give themselves a good name, even though they "don't actually know jack-shit about the new movie because they haven't seen it"? Somehow, I don't think you thought of that one, didja? You've managed to insult both sides of the coin, DeCandido. I want to see how you get out of this.

No smilies, because I'm absolutely serious.

 

[RonG]

There are times when I swear disagreeing with Christopher should be deemed an Olympic sport. So many people do it.....

hey TerriO, why the CLB-hatin'? It's just differnces of opinion...

As for "Dumb and Bizarre Trek novel moments"? Whatever it was that sucked me into writing these things.

Again - why the bitterness?

 

[captcalhoun]

TerriO and CLB never get along AFAIK.

 

[TerriO]

There are times when I swear disagreeing with Christopher should be deemed an Olympic sport. So many people do it.....

hey TerriO, why the CLB-hatin'? It's just differnces of opinion...

It's called an observation of the facts. Granted, I'm not one of Christopher's fans, and he and I have had more than our share of fights in the past, but you can't deny there are a fair number of people who disagree with him just on principle, or because he's breathing, or because...well, we don't have enough time for all of the reasons.

As for "Dumb and Bizarre Trek novel moments"? Whatever it was that sucked me into writing these things.

Again - why the bitterness?

Um, that was sarcasm.

You want bitter? There are definitely subjects I can get bitter about, but this? Not at all.