What really worries me...

[MattJC]

I don't think you would want to see the point someone else is making Matt, no matter how good their arguments. No offense mate, but I think you need to either lighten up a bit or at least try to listen to what other people have to say, because it doesn't seem to me you're doing that at all. At least it looks that way to me.

Sure the ship isn't an actor, everyone knows that, but the analogy is fitting.

It's not the same damn ship. They and you should stop trying to convince people that it is.

And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

 

[Tom Servo]

2) MattJC, wow dude, I have said it before and so have so many others... chill. Star Trek is not a perfectly woven tapestry where everything fits together. There are always inconstancies and changes to the set, make up, etc.

You want a straight remake of TOS. Fine, but try selling that to a studio and getting money to make it. For that matter, try to see if you will make any money on it.
2008 is not 1966, Abrams is not Gene and Star Trek is going to be different. I just hope that it is a good different...

I don't want a remake/reboot/reimagination or whatever you want to call it.
I also don't want to be told this movie is one thing but then it turns to be something else altogether.
That is a bait and switch.

Are you going to protest in front of the movie theaters that show this film? That is a serious question...

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

It's not the same damn ship. They and you should stop trying to convince people that it is.

And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

Bravo. Your deft analysis once again wonders me with its amazing wording, fine dramatic tone analysis, critique of acting and its overall value of a film. All of which is incredible, considering you haven't seen the film yet.

 

[Aragorn]

Are you going to protest in front of the movie theaters that show this film? That is a serious question...

Protest? He's going to see this movie more times than the rest of us combined so he point to as many things as possible to tell us how right his self-fulfilling prophecy was.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

2) MattJC, wow dude, I have said it before and so have so many others... chill. Star Trek is not a perfectly woven tapestry where everything fits together. There are always inconstancies and changes to the set, make up, etc.

You want a straight remake of TOS. Fine, but try selling that to a studio and getting money to make it. For that matter, try to see if you will make any money on it.
2008 is not 1966, Abrams is not Gene and Star Trek is going to be different. I just hope that it is a good different...

I don't want a remake/reboot/reimagination or whatever you want to call it.
I also don't want to be told this movie is one thing but then it turns to be something else altogether.
That is a bait and switch.

Are you going to protest in front of the movie theaters that show this film? That is a serious question...

Sure, all around the world: LA, Paris, London, Berlin..... this is a serious mission he's got ahead of him. Mock him not!

I've been reading too much Pao-Pao

 

[Qonos]

It's not the same damn ship. They and you should stop trying to convince people that it is.

And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

I know I'm going to get a warning or some words from Sharak on this but I really think it's overdo..


What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion? You're like a 5 year old at the toy store who is balling because mommy said you couldn't have a cap gun.

It's a story setting, an element that is up to the art director, they don't have to justify it to canon, because it's one artist interpretation of a scene. If you have two artists working on a sunset it comes out different because they both interpret things differently. Jefferies interpreted the bridge of the Enterprise one way.. Whoever came up with the bridge for the new movie came up with this interpretation.

 

[MattJC]

And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

I know I'm going to get a warning or some words from Sharak on this but I really think it's overdo..


What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion? You're like a 5 year old at the toy store who is balling because mommy said you couldn't have a cap gun.

It's a story setting, an element that is up to the art director, they don't have to justify it to canon, because it's one artist interpretation of a scene. If you have two artists working on a sunset it comes out different because they both interpret things differently. Jefferies interpreted the bridge of the Enterprise one way.. Whoever came up with the bridge for the new movie came up with this interpretation.

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

 

[Tom Servo]

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

I know I'm going to get a warning or some words from Sharak on this but I really think it's overdo..


What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion? You're like a 5 year old at the toy store who is balling because mommy said you couldn't have a cap gun.

It's a story setting, an element that is up to the art director, they don't have to justify it to canon, because it's one artist interpretation of a scene. If you have two artists working on a sunset it comes out different because they both interpret things differently. Jefferies interpreted the bridge of the Enterprise one way.. Whoever came up with the bridge for the new movie came up with this interpretation.

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

Its wrong according to YOU!

 

[MattJC]

I know I'm going to get a warning or some words from Sharak on this but I really think it's overdo..


What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion? You're like a 5 year old at the toy store who is balling because mommy said you couldn't have a cap gun.

It's a story setting, an element that is up to the art director, they don't have to justify it to canon, because it's one artist interpretation of a scene. If you have two artists working on a sunset it comes out different because they both interpret things differently. Jefferies interpreted the bridge of the Enterprise one way.. Whoever came up with the bridge for the new movie came up with this interpretation.

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

Its wrong according to YOU!

It's wrong period.

 

[Tom Servo]

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

Its wrong according to YOU!

It's wrong period.

Do you understand your opinion isnt fact? It being wrong is your opinion.

 

[Aragorn]

What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion?

He does this exact same thing on other Star Trek boards. What does that tell you?

 

[T'Aerwynd]

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

Ok, except ... (whispers) ... nobody is doing a prequel to TOS. What's being done is an entirely new Trek franchise. It's a reboot, as it were, not a prequel. Batman Begins was not a prequel to Batman. Star Trek XI is not a prequel to the Original Series.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

I don't want a remake/reboot/reimagination or whatever you want to call it.
I also don't want to be told this movie is one thing but then it turns to be something else altogether.
That is a bait and switch.

...

It's not the same damn ship. They and you should stop trying to convince people that it is.

...

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

...

It's the WRONG interpretation if you're going to do a prequel to TOS.

...

It's wrong period.

Matt, you're doing it again.

If you are unable to participate in a discussion of this or that aspect of the movie or its production or its place in the larger universe of Trek without completely derailing it, then -- quite simply -- you shouldn't participate. You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you wish, for whatever reason you wish, but when you repeat it over and over and over to the extent that you ruin the discussion for everyone else, then you're going too far.

Since this is the second thread I've had to close this week because of your disruption, you're going to get a warning for it. This does not make me happy.

Do you know why that is? You were actually doing pretty well, there, for a while. A word was enough to get you to back off and get a little perspective on things, or at least to relax and allow others to continue the discussion. Words aren't working again, lately; you're getting too carried away and losing your perspective, so you put me in the position of having to use something a little stronger.

And Robin Curtis is NOT Kirsty Alley. What's your point?

They're trying to pass off this piece of shit as a prequel to TOS, when doesn't even look like TOS.

I know I'm going to get a warning or some words from Sharak on this but I really think it's overdo..

What is wrong with you? Are you mentally defective somewhere? Is it so hard for you to let go and enjoy life that you have to take A MINOR DETAIL and blow it way out of proportion? You're like a 5 year old at the toy store who is balling because mommy said you couldn't have a cap gun.

[...]

You're right. While the rest of your post was fine and addressed the topic of discussion, such as it had become, this first part is the sort of thing I'd really rather not see here. Under the circumstances, since you're relatively new and have been participating in discussions without trouble, and since it isn't an outright flame, I won't issue a warning for it. However, that's not a license to go out and do it again; I don't want to see anything like it any more.

I said it above, and I'll say it again: address the content of the post, and not the character of the person posting it. Post, not poster.

Sorry to those who have participated productively and civilly in the discussion, but this thread will remain closed.