• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Letter to Moonves

in your opinion that's what you think not everybody will agree with what you say about JJ Abrams Trek you know that don't you?
 
in your opinion that's what you think not everybody will agree with what you say about JJ Abrams Trek you know that don't you?
Yeah, that's my opinion. And you've got yours. Difference is you keep getting your back up whenever anyone says the least bit uncomplimentary thing about nuTrek. Get over it, man.
 
Les Moonves doesn't think there is a market for TOS in 3D but is over the moon about 3D sporting events. That pretty much summarizes his opinion on the subject. As long as he's in charge, Star Trek is dead on TV.

This is BS!!
 
3D != All Star Trek.

Moonves said he didn't think Star Trek in 3D was compelling. That has nothing to do with the thousands of hours of TV that will be produced in 2D before 3D becomes popular(if it ever does).
 
Wow, i just wasted some time reading a good portion of this topic, but must have missed the page where everyone agrees that the OP is just spam or trolling, and either not really serious or in fact, on 'shrooms.
 
Wow, i just wasted some time reading a good portion of this topic, but must have missed the page where everyone agrees that the OP is just spam or trolling, and either not really serious or in fact, on 'shrooms.

O.k., I'm sorry. In the beginning there was the content of that letter up here which I believed was a concept so good that Star Trek could come back based on it and not interfere in anything else at all and it was. I had it up for some time then took it down thinking someone was going to steal it. It was a concept I was holding out as a universe of my own but the great mouth of Roddenberry finally lured me in and now I'm writing an Enterprise novel with that concept in it. I don't care what happens to Star Trek anymore as long as I can make some money on it. :cardie:
 
Wow, i just wasted some time reading a good portion of this topic, but must have missed the page where everyone agrees that the OP is just spam or trolling, and either not really serious or in fact, on 'shrooms.

No, it's actually the OP's "I hate Ronald D. Moore" thread that contains those qualities.:)
 
Wow, i just wasted some time reading a good portion of this topic, but must have missed the page where everyone agrees that the OP is just spam or trolling, and either not really serious or in fact, on 'shrooms.

No, it's actually the OP's "I hate Ronald D. Moore" thread that contains those qualities.:)

Thanks for the heads up :) Now where is that filter function so i never have to read his posts again...... or read the word "xortex" ever again :(
 
I appreciate the question, Temis. I don't know. I've moved two or three times since then. It's not like I didn't know it was a meaningless waste of time. That's why i brought it here to the Star Trek court of appeals. Robert Scorpio liked it. That's all I can expect. I also understand how he feels about STXI and although I didn't see it, not on principle, but just because I don't have the time or money or desire really, I feel that if it was anything like Armeggedon, my favorite movie, it had to have good direction, nostalgia and Great production values. Of course there is a difference between a well crafted (written) script and a good story. I didn't go see Nemisis because it was a ridiculous story and UC was a bad/boring story too. Now if they outsource the next movies story, there is a very good chance I'll drop everything and go see it.
 
'There's an elephant loose in the building.' Mathiew Perry. He's talking about Star Trek at least.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top