Star Trek: 1966-2008 R.I.P.

[MattJC]

^ He's not going to say that, whether it actually is or isn't. It's about PR as much as anything else.

I'm asking him to tell me in a private message on that messageboard.
This isn't PR.

$50.00 says if he told you that, you would rush back here to tell everyone he told you. THAT is PR.

Only if someone asked me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

He's not going to tell you in private, Matt.

And you know this, how?

By the application of a little common sense, I'd imagine.

 

[Lord Garth]

I majored in Communication when I was in college, one of the courses I took was Public Relations.

If that won't do, 10 years in the Adult World. EDIT: Or what Dennis said.

 

[MattJC]

He's not going to tell you in private, Matt.

And you know this, how?

By the application of a little common sense, I'd imagine.

And you'd be ok with him not telling the truth about what this movie is and isn't, wouldn't you?

 

[jep316]

The way I see we have 2 choices.

1-We accept Star Trek XI as a new chapter of the 40plus year old franchise...or

2-Just admit that Star Trek has ran it's course and just enjoy the repeats of the series and movies.

For me I vote for #1.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And you know this, how?

By the application of a little common sense, I'd imagine.

And you'd be ok with him not telling the truth about what this movie is and isn't, wouldn't you?

I don't have an obsessive fascination with the notion that there are cut-and-dried definitions for those words that would yield answers that any three people could agree on.

In other words, I think that what you're concerned with here is trivial nonsense, and I don't care.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

While I disagree with the notion of this new movie being the end of Star Trek I think that the title should read "Star Trek: 1966-2009" because that's when the movie comes out. Since the movie hasn't been released to the public yet I think the worst you can say is that it's a sign of doom for Star Trek.

 

[MattJC]

By the application of a little common sense, I'd imagine.

And you'd be ok with him not telling the truth about what this movie is and isn't, wouldn't you?

I don't have an obsessive fascination with the notion that there are cut-and-dried definitions for those words that would yield answers that any three people could agree on.

In other words, I think that what you're concerned with here is trivial nonsense, and I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't respond to me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And you'd be ok with him not telling the truth about what this movie is and isn't, wouldn't you?

I don't have an obsessive fascination with the notion that there are cut-and-dried definitions for those words that would yield answers that any three people could agree on.

In other words, I think that what you're concerned with here is trivial nonsense, and I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't respond to me.

If you don't want to read what other people think of your opinions, don't post them.

 

[MattJC]

I don't have an obsessive fascination with the notion that there are cut-and-dried definitions for those words that would yield answers that any three people could agree on.

In other words, I think that what you're concerned with here is trivial nonsense, and I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't respond to me.

If you don't want to read what other people think of your opinions, don't post them.

Who said I didn't want to read what other people thought of my opinions?

 

[Broccoli]

I don't have an obsessive fascination with the notion that there are cut-and-dried definitions for those words that would yield answers that any three people could agree on.

In other words, I think that what you're concerned with here is trivial nonsense, and I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't respond to me.

If you don't want to read what other people think of your opinions, don't post them.

OH NO! We are caught in an infinite loop! The internets will destroy itself!

 

[Lord Garth]

This is too good. I haven't enjoyed a Trek thread this much in about five years.

 

[ElScoob]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at coming on here tonight and seeing this type of reaction. I stumbled across the news elsewhere before arriving here on my usual rounds, and after reading what I read, I knew folks would be up in arms.

You know, I can't get too excited about the fact that stuff we're hearing doesn't line up with what's gone before. I just really can't. It doesn't upset me.

I suppose some small part of me held some (admittedly fanciful) notion that maybe they'd cross all the Ts and dot all the Is to make sure that this could fit in seamlessly with all that's been done in the past. Maybe that part of me's a little disappointed.

But mainly I'm just not that fazed by it. I'm even looking forward to what goes down with the movie. I think seeing a reimagined Star Trek will be fun. So it doesn't fit in with what's gone before. Big deal. I've got my TOS DVDs. They'll still work just fine after the movie comes out.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I really don't see this as a General Trek thread. It seems much more like a complaining about the new movie thread (which is perfectly fine, generally, but not in here).

When Enterprise came out, Trek is dead because of Enterprise threads typically were posted in the Enterprise forum, so I'm going to go down that road and close this.