• 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!

Things that really took you by surprise

trevanian said:
Aragorn said:
JarodRussell said:
Dude, this thread is about "things that really took you by surprise", and I posted what took me by surprise. Don't jump to conclusions so damn easily.
Click to expand...

You're the new Captain Robert April here. What other conclusions can be made about every single one of your posts?
Click to expand...

Truth in content is the obvious one.
Click to expand...
Indeed? Perhaps you'll be able to indicate in which scene it was that "Uhura blew her way onto the Enterprise", taking him so much by surprise? I mean, if there is truth in that content as you say, then you should no doubt be able to point it out promptly. The scene in question wasn't in the movie I saw -- was it in the one you watched?

Oh, and Aragorn? Jarod hasn't been here very long and may have no idea whom you mean when you say Captain Robert April. Besides, it wasn't a particularly good insinuation to be making, anyway.
 
Shazam! said:
M'Sharak said:
Indeed? Perhaps you'll be able to indicate in which scene it was that "Uhura blew her way onto the Enterprise", taking him so much by surprise?
Click to expand...
Technically, I guess she blew her way off the Enterprise but it's not a given that she would've been given the Enterprise assignment if she hadn't been seeing Spock.
Click to expand...

Actually she was expecting and she was more than likely going to get the Enterprise thanks to her Academy performance.

It was only because Spock didn't want it to look like he was doing her a personal favor that he changed her assignment in the first place, only to correct it later after she confronted him.
 
Since I went in spoiler-rich and knew in advance all the canon deviations and revisions, none of that took me by surprise. (Though I was breathless with horror when I first heard about Vulcan going all kablooey.)
What did catch me off guard and gave me a serious WTF? moment was when the Kelvin suddenly started sprouting little turret-guns all over the place.
It was totally non-Trek looking tech and it made me blink. Several times.
 
SheliakBob said:
What did catch me off guard and gave me a serious WTF? moment was when the Kelvin suddenly started sprouting little turret-guns all over the place.
It was totally non-Trek looking tech and it made me blink. Several times.
Click to expand...

DS9 started it with the station's upgrades (first seen in 'Way of the Warrior'), then Enterprise continued it with the phase cannons, so there are multiple precedents.
 
trevanian said:
I didn't see the movie (not exactly news), but I was defending a poster who is one of the lone voices of reason in this wilderness, so of course jackals have a tendency to feed on him.
Click to expand...

And, of course, you know that he's the "voice of reason" on this subject, thanks to you not having even seen the movie to find out if his claim about Uhura is true or not. Uh-huh. Fortunately, since I have seen–and disliked!–the movie, I can say with more authority than you can that Jarod Russell is posing bullshit. The only evidence for his assertion is that Uhura has to argue with Spock to be assigned to the Enterprise, and the subtext of that scene is that a.) Uhura deserved to be on the Enterprise on her merits, and b.) Spock was deliberately transferring her to a less prestigious ship to cover up their relationship. It's 180 degrees from what Jarod is claiming.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, by the way, and say I knew there was reason I made an example out of your posts (amongst others) on TV Tropes' "Serious Business" page. You'd make a fine entry for "Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch," too. You might want to read the start of the latter article as well, and pay attention to the part about verifying that a Wall Banger moment actually happened. Because otherwise, us "jackals" might think you look foolish.
 
I looked as far as the SERIOUS BUSINESS page, but since you couldn't even spell the name of the magazine correctly, I didn't bother going on to the other link. Somebody else can factcheck that one for you.

If you think that is a worthwhile example for the SB page, fine and dandy, knock yourself out; but to me, if you were going to cite an incongruity over poster credibility from here, you could use other posters with professional credits linked far more closely to Trek -- at least one of whom has made thousands of posts that were more about spinning a topic than actually dealing with it factually.
 
I edited the page to correct the typo, and I'll be sure to add "Cinefex" to my Firefox dictionary. Frankly, it's a good thing I even remembered which magazine it was you freelanced (?) for, given that all I ever saw on the subject was one or two posts many months ago and in passing. Which, at any rate, has no bearing on the second link I provided, which remains unbefouled by my typo-ridden and therefore somehow irrelevant entries.

Of course, this has no bearing on the issue that you didn't watch the film, you don't know what you're talking about on this subject and you are a supposed professional who should know better than to express your disdain for the new film and all who enjoy it by use of your usual petulant foot-stamping. I would hate to think that your dismissal of the entry over a technicality was somehow an attempt to dodge the subject.

As for your not-so-subtle reference to Dennis...it is a wiki, you know. You're just as capable of editing it as I am.
 
Ghoul Malakai said:
I edited the page to correct the typo, and I'll be sure to add "Cinefex" to my Firefox dictionary. Frankly, it's a good thing I even remembered which magazine it was you freelanced (?) for, given that all I ever saw on the subject was one or two posts many months ago and in passing. Which, at any rate, has no bearing on the second link I provided, which remains unbefouled by my typo-ridden and therefore somehow inaccurate entries.

Of course, this has no bearing on the issue that you didn't watch the film, you don't know what you're talking about on this subject and you are a supposed professional who should know better than to express your disdain for the new film and all who enjoy it by use of your usual petulant foot-stamping. I would hate to think that your dismissal of the entry over a technicality was somehow an attempt to dodge the subject.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm dodging anything.

I've stated repeatedly that I will try to watch the movie in its entirety when it hits dvd, provided it is available on 'buy one get one free' rental night, and also that I expect the experience will trigger a dual review: a trek minded one, and a 'if this was just another space pic' one.

But is it closeminded of me to think that any such reviews will be met with anything other than, 'of course he was going to write it that way?' I got the same reaction when I finally saw CASINO ROYALE on homevid, even though my objections to that film were as much about things that surprised me as the things I knew to be mistakes going in.

Said review won't come up in this subforum, because I just got to reading a PM from the mod who says that rescinding a warning another poster got for defending a post of mine in a different thread [the one titled something like 'moments that make you cringe'] is not going to happen.

I've been bummed enough by the bias in this forum's alleged moderating, but when they start the guilt-by-association thing, it is clearly more like a witch-hunt to stamp out dissenting views. So you won't see informed or uninformed views from me in this forum here ever again unless the mods are switched out.
 
trevanian said:
But is it closeminded of me to think that any such reviews will be met with anything other than, 'of course he was going to write it that way?' I got the same reaction when I finally saw CASINO ROYALE on homevid, even though my objections to that film were as much about things that surprised me as the things I knew to be mistakes going in.
Click to expand...

While I agree it would never win you any friends here, it would at least stop you from doing things like defending Jarod as posting "truth in content" when he's demonstrably not.

It is possible, though, to write a negative review of the film and the stupid arguments around here without pissing off half the posters in the forum; I did it with my "I don't like Star Trek" thread from a ways back, which offended very few and received positive reactions from most posters and the staff. The fact is, most people here like the film, and it's frankly stupid to not tailor your critique to the audience with that in mind. It's not that you dislike the movie, it's that you (in the general "you," as this seems to be a common thread with the critics) are tactless and holier-than-thou about your opinions. Are you really so surprised that the reaction to such is hostile?
 
If it's quite all right, could we get back to "things (in the movie) which really took (us) by surprise" now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

trekfan_1
Are you surprised at the IMDB ratings for all Trek Series ? (TNG 1st, DIS last)
2 3
Replies
49
Views
1K
Oddish
Oddish
The Lensman
Trailer for "The Phoenician Scheme", Wes Anderson's new film, is up
Replies
1
Views
727
The Nth Doctor
The Nth Doctor
F
48-years-later fridge logic re Ben Kenobi
Replies
3
Views
164
Reverend
Reverend
Skipper
Ok, just to be clear, was it implied that literal orgies were happening in "Naked Now" or am I being malicious?!?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
4K
DonIago
D
JesterFace
Did DS9 and VOY really "wreck" TNG season 7?
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Riley
Riley
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top