Post 1979 Trek....

[Warped9]

Warped9, I think you should change your sig back and the whiners should grow a thicker skin.

yup

Done.

 

[Wingsley]

Nothing like going full circle...

 

[Warped9]

Nothing like going full circle...

 

[Neopeius]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek.

This is amusing really. I mean, c'mon. How can pre '79 Trek not be the real thing? TOS established it all. It is the real deal. You may prefer what came later, but it cannot be any more "real" than the original.

I suppose someone could, in the same way, argue that The Cage is real Star Trek and everything after it isn't.

Or that Trek didn't start until Shore Leave, or ended before it.

 

[True Trek Fan]

I think there is an obvious change in direction for the Star Trek franchise ever since Wrath of Khan. The original charaters were older, the uniforms were altered and you got the feeling watching this film that Trek has now been altered from the series in many respects. Now I enjoyed the post 1979 Trek films and some of the series that followed yet many times they did not have the same story quality as the original series, and so I thought there would never be a new Trek that lives up to the past. However to my surprise I cam across James Cawley's Star Trek New Voyages/Phase II and I have been really impressed, dare I say blown away. Its not the acting (sorry James) or the sets (although I love the sets!) that work for me, as much as it is the stories that really echo back to the original. Its too bad Paramount is too stupid to pick up on this web phenomena and give this guy major financing to make more episodes. I look forward to watching Blood and Fire, part 2.

 

[Cakes488]

I have modified my sig. I dropped the added line, "Contemporary Trek has failed." That part really set some people off. Even though I dropped it I still stand by my perspective that overall I feel contemporary Trek has failed. Not in a commercial sense, obviously, yet in an overall critical sense.

I strongly feel that you should be able to put whatever the hell you want in your signature -- it is your signature isn't it?!! And be damned to what others think and say! It is after all just your opinon....anyone who really cares that deeply needs another hobby. See I don't have that problem since I'm signature-less...I have nothing important to say to da woirld...but I guess you've already noticed that LOL LOL.

How about this:

My favorite STAR TREK era: 1964-1979


That way the point is made without coming across as "after 1979, there was no Star Trek". You have admitted that Star Trek does exist after 1979. There are episodes in various ST series that you liked. But what you enjoy the most is the pre 1980 era. And that's fine, nothing wrong with that. As T'Bonz stated, it's choosing the tone. Positive on what you like versus negative on what you don't like or believe in.

Gosh Gary you're so level headed and rational, calm and cool and dare I say it soooo logical!!
Are you available for private counseling sessions?

 

[Cakes488]

I have modified my sig. I dropped the added line, "Contemporary Trek has failed." That part really set some people off. Even though I dropped it I still stand by my perspective that overall I feel contemporary Trek has failed. Not in a commercial sense, obviously, yet in an overall critical sense.

There's also the matter that when you like something there's a possessive aspect to it. I try (and sometimes falter) to avoid getting defensive over my preferences. I've found I don't gain anything from getting upset over someone not likeing something I like.
.

Honestly I strongly feel that you should be able to put whatever the hell you want in your signature -- it is your signature isn't it?!! If people have a problem with it...that's exactly it: their problem. It is after all just your opinon....anyone who really cares that deeply needs another hobby. See I don't have that problem since I'm signature-less...I have nothing important to say to da woirld...but I guess you've already noticed that LOL LOL.

How about this:

My favorite STAR TREK era: 1964-1979


That way the point is made without coming across as "after 1979, there was no Star Trek". You have admitted that Star Trek does exist after 1979. There are episodes in various ST series that you liked. But what you enjoy the most is the pre 1980 era. And that's fine, nothing wrong with that. As T'Bonz stated, it's choosing the tone. Positive on what you like versus negative on what you don't like or believe in.strongly feel that you should be able to put whatever the hell you want in your signature -- it is your signature isn't it?!! And be damned to what others think and say! It is after all just your opinon....anyone who really cares that deeply needs another hobby. See I don't have that problem since I'm signature-less...I have nothing important to say to da woirld...but I guess you've already noticed that LOL LOL.

Gosh Gary you're so level headed and rational, calm and cool and dare I say it soooo logical!!
Are you available for private counseling sessions?

 

[barnaclelapse]

I think your opinion is your own, man. You're entitled to it, but I really don't give a damn past that.

If you want to put it in your signature, that's fine, too. It's not like your using a huge font or some picture that crashes my computer every time it tries to load.