Star Trek Fundamentalism

[Captain X]

But that still doesn't answer my question, and frankly it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is about this movie. Basically what you're saying is that if it was ok for them to screw up before (which it wasn't, and is the reason people still discuss and complain about the mistakes to this day), that it should be ok for JJ to have free reign to basically do whatever the frak he wants with the franchise. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[number6]

Paramount gave JJ the keys to the candy store. He basically already does have free reign to do whatever he wants with the franchise. There are going to be bits and pieces of continuity that are going to be added and there are others that will be forgotten. Since the writers of the movie are fans of the novels as well, who knows what they'll add to the Canon.. But it is theirs to do it.

 

[Captain X]

Doesn't make it right though, which is what I'm saying.

 

[Plumster]

Doesn't make it right though, which is what I'm saying.

It is right and it is proper.

Your apparent version of Trek bored the pants off the viewing public.

Why?

It was a naval gazing exercise.

This is why there is a NEW version of Trek and not an OLD version of Trek.

Are you saying that the format should be limited to whatever you and few thousand zealots think Trek is?

I hope not - as that makes you part of the problem.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm starting to think that Plumster is Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Plumster]

I'm starting to think that Plumster is Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Naval gazing?" Good one.

 

[Plumster]

"Naval gazing?" Good one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Anal retentive Alert - condition red.

navel-gazing

Negative or excessive self-contemplation, often the focus is on you and not others, when making a point or offering an opinion.
Canadians often engage in navel-gazing, always second-guessing themselves about their identity; the proud statement of their Canadian uniqueness nearly always includes a slight against Americans for their excessive patriotism.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, but naval-gazing is so appropriate.

Apparently Abrams is going to give some combat fighter-gazing instead.

 

[Plumster]

Yeah, but naval-gazing is so appropriate.

Apparently Abrams is going to give some combat fighter-gazing instead.

I can't wait for him to be anointed into the Trek hall of fame.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

snort they need sombrero's

*nods* Really. Customized for the Trek XI forum.

I mean, it's not like we won't have plenty of opportunity to use them.

Someone wanna get this thread bomb over to the Boyz in Blue Warp Nacelles?

 

[M'Sharak]

It was a naval gazing exercise.

"Naval gazing?" Good one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Anal retentive Alert - condition red.

navel-gazing

...

No men with plumed hats, brass buttons and epaulets, standing upon the poop decks of their respective flagships and peering at each other through spyglasses? How disappointing. Harrumph!

 

[Captain X]

It is right and it is proper.

No it's not.

Your apparent version of Trek bored the pants off the viewing public.

I think you're sadly mistaken, about a great many things.

Why?

It was a naval gazing exercise.

Uh, what?

This is why there is a NEW version of Trek and not an OLD version of Trek.

No, there's a new version because JJ Abrams decided to fuck around with the "old" version instead of making an actual TOS movie like he said he was poing to.

Are you saying that the format should be limited to whatever you and few thousand zealots think Trek is?

Are you?

What I'm saying is that a TOS movie should actually be a TOS movie and not a reboot.

I hope not - as that makes you part of the problem.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ You don't do well with hints from mods, do you?

 

[Captain Brylcream]

I don't think the last few years of Trek were boring, or rubbish, I mean, we all watch them don't we? If they sucked that much we'd be doing something else with our lives instead of aruging back and forward over our views of it.

I am, curious and excited to see whats going to happen with the movie, but wiping away all the continuity and canon, I don't see the point or why it SHOULD be done. Continuity helped make the universe that Star Trek was in that little bit more realistic, with a definable history.

If that makes me a curmudgeon sitting in basement. Then so be it, I'm off to grab a shovel and start digging one.

 

[Captain X]

^ You don't do well with hints from mods, do you?

Back in school the teachers never cared that it was just me responding to something someone else said, either.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ You don't do well with hints from mods, do you?

Why should he? Where are your "hints" to Plumster and Polaris and their ilk?

This thread should NEVER have been allowed to stay open. If it IS to stay opne, then fairness demands that you allow those who are being trolled to fight back.

 

[ancient]

Bitching about the bitchers is unacceptable.

Only the bitchers get to bitch. And bitch. And bitch some more.

 

[Captain X]

Bitching about the bitchers is unacceptable.

Only the bitchers get to bitch. And bitch. And bitch some more.

The difference is that the bitchers bitch about a movie, and the people who bitch about the bitchers are breaking the old "discuss the post, not the poster" rule.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Originally Posted by Captain X
Doesn't make it right though, which is what I'm saying.

Its just as right as B&B, GR, or Harve Bennett placing their own mark on Star Trek. When did this become a matter of right and wrong? Anyone who is seeing it in those terms has lost perspective. Its a fictional universe, subject to be reinvented when it becomes stale and predicable.

Paramount the proper owners of the thing are free to hand the keys over and say: "Go take it for a spin, if like how you ride'r maybe you keep her warm for a few years." and I say good on them!

Sharr