Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
OK, let's try and sort all of this out.
The new Star Trek film franchise isn't a David Lynch Dune movie.
I am aware of that.
It's just the first example I could think of where the lead actor was signed to play in an anticipated sequel that ended up not being made.
Here's where the trouble started.
Timewalker, it's a legitimate comparison you're making between
Dune and
Trek because of the signed actor in a film that was never made angle, but at the same time
M-Red's point about Trek being different because it's from an existing proven movie franchise and Abrams already having two new profitable and critically acclaimed films under his belt is true too, and doesn't apply to Lynch's
Dune. I don't see why that merited a roll-eyes or was considered a "rude" comment to make.
That escalation led to this response, which was equally hostile:
Then you should acknowledge that it's a poor example before you employ it as a counter-point.
Which led to this:
Oh, do excuse my exercising my right to post.
I don't see anywhere where he's claiming you don't have a right to post, he's just questioning the applicability of your
Dune example to this situation, which is perfectly legitimate.
Then we got to this exchange with
Hela:
Newsflash: Not everyone owns the DVDs. The last time I bought any Star Trek movies or episodes was when they were on VHS.
...And that's CBS's fault, therefore they should do even more to make it available to you?
I have no idea who you're addressing, or why your post seems so hostile.
She's addressing the fact that CBS obviously can't tailor its merchandising to fit the needs of every individual Star Trek fan, which again, is a perfectly legitimate comment and not "hostile" in the slightest.
It's also unfair, as pointed out, to wonder why people might be taking a hostile tone —even though
Hela didn't— in response to you using the roll-eyes emoticon and saying things like "Newsflash." Those words and emoticons have meanings and obviously are going to provoke a response, so you can't act surprised and play innocent when they do, like you did in your final post.
That's why
M-Red made the following (edited) commentary to you, which would be hostile but legitimate if it had been what he originally said instead of an edit which came too late. This would have just received a verbal warning like you're getting.
Timewalker, you're the one throwing around the rolling eyes emoticon and typing NEWSFLASH to other people's benignly stated posts.
And then when people respond, you act like a victim.
At least demonstrate some intellectual honesty. If you wanna be snarky, that's fine. But don't act Offended ZOMG You're HOSTILE ROLL MY EYES if someone actually says something back.
M-Red, I appreciate you editing your comments, but unfortunately, what you originally wrote was visible both to the staff and to the person you were targeting your comment at, so you have received an
infraction for flaming.
Comments to PM, for everyone.
...too much censorship and scrutiny here! But, when I get home, look out!
