Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Trek » [OT NEWS] Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator E-mail to friend

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35188 is a reply to message #35160] Thu, 31 January 2013 17:15   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:4f958141-8441-4645-9839-d39cac3b8afd@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: > On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> Your Name wrote: >>> In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote: >> >>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >> >>>> > An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> > Kirk's toupée ? >> >>>> Well why not. >>>> Bald people could identify with it. >> >>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>> Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few.  :-) >> >> Not to start a new argument. >> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >> >> Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >> their > own >> rights. >> But never quite like the original. >> ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. >> >> That was the mistake trek 2009 made > > TREK 2009 was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of TREKKIES, TREKKERS and > the casual fan. > Which has nothing to do with what Bast said. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35196 is a reply to message #35188] Thu, 31 January 2013 22:34   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 1, 7:15 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:4f958141-8441-4645-9839-d39cac3b8afd@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > >> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> Your Name wrote: >>>> In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote: > >>>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> > >>>> >> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >> Kirk's toupée ? > >>>> > Well why not. >>>> > Bald people could identify with it. > >>>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few.  :-) > >>> Not to start a new argument. >>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. > >>> Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >>> their >> own >>> rights. >>> But never quite like the original. >>> ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. > >>> That was the mistake trek 2009 made > TREK 2009 was NO MISTAKE - it was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of TREKKIES, TREKKERS and the casual fan, which proves, in this CASE, that TRYING to be like the original and actually SUCCEEDING is a great idea - NIMRODS! TRY TO BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL! JJABRAMS did it and the world has beat a path to his door. Meanwhile BASTerd is in a below ground-level dwelling, subsisting on hand-outs from a female ancestor only one generation removed. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35226 is a reply to message #35196] Fri, 01 February 2013 01:39   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:38e3515b-0552-4344-9c50-69f34b48f112@ab8g2000pbd.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 1, 7:15 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote >> innews:4f958141-8441-4645-98 > 39-d39cac3b8afd@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Your Name wrote: >>>> > In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote: >> >>>> > <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >> >>>> >>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation >>>> >>> of Kirk's toupée ? >> >>>> >> Well why not. >>>> >> Bald people could identify with it. >> >>>> > Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> > Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. >>>> >  :- > ) >> >>>> Not to start a new argument. >>>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >> >>>> Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >>>> their >>> own >>>> rights. >>>> But never quite like the original. >>>> ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. >> >>>> That was the mistake trek 2009 made >> > > TREK 2009 was NO MISTAKE - it was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of > TREKKIES, TREKKERS and the casual fan, which proves, in this CASE, > that TRYING to be like the original and actually SUCCEEDING is a great > idea - NIMRODS! > > TRY TO BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL! JJABRAMS did it and the world has beat a > path to his door. > > Meanwhile BASTerd is in a below ground-level dwelling, subsisting on > hand-outs from a female ancestor only one generation removed. > > > Hardly. Where do you get this number, from your own mind? If you're going to make up statistics, do it more realistically, and maybe someone will believe you. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35227 is a reply to message #35196] Fri, 01 February 2013 01:40   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:38e3515b-0552-4344-9c50-69f34b48f112@ab8g2000pbd.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 1, 7:15 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote >> innews:4f958141-8441-4645-98 > 39-d39cac3b8afd@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Your Name wrote: >>>> > In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote: >> >>>> > <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >> >>>> >>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation >>>> >>> of Kirk's toupée ? >> >>>> >> Well why not. >>>> >> Bald people could identify with it. >> >>>> > Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> > Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. >>>> >  :- > ) >> >>>> Not to start a new argument. >>>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >> >>>> Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >>>> their >>> own >>>> rights. >>>> But never quite like the original. >>>> ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. >> >>>> That was the mistake trek 2009 made >> > > TREK 2009 was NO MISTAKE - it was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of > TREKKIES, TREKKERS and the casual fan, which proves, in this CASE, > that TRYING to be like the original and actually SUCCEEDING is a great > idea - NIMRODS! > > TRY TO BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL! JJABRAMS did it and the world has beat a > path to his door. > > Meanwhile BASTerd is in a below ground-level dwelling, subsisting on > hand-outs from a female ancestor only one generation removed. > > > It's the Star Trek fans (fanatics) who are described as living in the basement. You can't even get that right. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35244 is a reply to message #35227] Fri, 01 February 2013 04:15   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 1, 3:40 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:38e3515b-0552-4344-9c50-69f34b48f112@ab8g2000pbd.googlegroups.com: > > > > > >> On Feb 1, 7:15 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote >>> innews:4f958141-8441-4645-98 >> 39-d39cac3b8...@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: > >>>> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> > Your Name wrote: >>>> > > In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> > > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> > >> MITO MINISTER wrote: > >>>> > > <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> > >>>> > >>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation >>>> > >>> of Kirk's toupée ? > >>>> > >> Well why not. >>>> > >> Bald people could identify with it. > >>>> > > Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> > > Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. >>>> > >  :- >> ) > >>>> > Not to start a new argument. >>>> > But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> > If that makes me a "purist", so be it. > >>>> > Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >>>> > their >>>> own >>>> > rights. >>>> > But never quite like the original. >>>> > ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. > >>>> > That was the mistake trek 2009 made > >> TREK 2009 was NO MISTAKE - it was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of >> TREKKIES, TREKKERS and the casual fan, which proves, in this CASE, >> that TRYING to be like the original and actually SUCCEEDING is a great >> idea - NIMRODS! > >> TRY TO BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL! JJABRAMS did it and the world has beat a >> path to his door. > >> Meanwhile BASTerd is in a below ground-level dwelling, subsisting on >> hand-outs from a female ancestor only one generation removed. > > It's the Star Trek fans (fanatics) who are described as living in the > basement. You can't even get that right. You caught the reference! Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35245 is a reply to message #35159] Fri, 01 February 2013 04:27   Daniel47@teranews.com Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Bast wrote: > Your Name wrote: >> In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> >> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> >>>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> Kirk's toupée ? >>> >>> Well why not. >>> Bald people could identify with it. >> >> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, Captain >> Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) > > > Not to start a new argument. > But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. > If that makes me a "purist", so be it. Not to start a new argument. I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or NG), ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my breath!!) Daniel Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35248 is a reply to message #35196] Fri, 01 February 2013 08:15   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER wrote: > On Feb 1, 7:15 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote >> innews:4f958141-8441-4645-9839-d39cac3b8afd@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jan 31, 9:03 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Your Name wrote: >>>> > In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> > <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote: >> >>>> > <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >> >>>> >>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >>> Kirk's toupée ? >> >>>> >> Well why not. >>>> >> Bald people could identify with it. >> >>>> > Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> > Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) >> >>>> Not to start a new argument. >>>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >> >>>> Next Generation & DS9 had it's moments, and were passable shows in >>>> their >>> own >>>> rights. >>>> But never quite like the original. >>>> ....Of course they never TRIED to be the original. >> >>>> That was the mistake trek 2009 made >> > > TREK 2009 was NO MISTAKE - it was a huge success BELOVED by 95% of > TREKKIES, TREKKERS and the casual fan, which proves, in this CASE, > that TRYING to be like the original and actually SUCCEEDING is a great > idea - NIMRODS! > > TRY TO BE LIKE THE ORIGINAL! JJABRAMS did it and the world has beat a > path to his door. > > Meanwhile BASTerd is in a below ground-level dwelling, subsisting on > hand-outs from a female ancestor only one generation removed. Where are you coming up with those numbers ? I know it can't be from talking to your friends,...as I doubt you have any. Now just calm down, and quit self massaging while looking at your abrams poster. He's stealing most of his ideas from Batman movies, so don;t give me this original bull Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35249 is a reply to message #35245] Fri, 01 February 2013 08:22   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: > Bast wrote: >> Your Name wrote: >>> In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> > >>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> > >>>> > An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> > Kirk's toupée ? >>>> >>>> Well why not. >>>> Bald people could identify with it. >>> >>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, Captain >>> Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) >> >> >> Not to start a new argument. >> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. > > Not to start a new argument. > I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or NG), > ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! > > But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my > breath!!) > > Daniel Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who never saw the original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS in public Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35250 is a reply to message #35187] Fri, 01 February 2013 08:33   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187-26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>> hours >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two hours >>>> >>>> wasted. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see it >>>> >>>> (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything else on a >>>> >>>> Friday / Saturday night), they're making more movies in this new >>>> >>>> butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek is >>>> >>>> dead. :-( >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they know >>>> >>> before they saw it? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might give >>>> >> them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >> And if they should pass. >>>> >> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > And of course, your opinion would match their opinion automatically >>>> > and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> > Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh with >>>> >> lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no storyline to >>>> >> follow, and almost completely changed the characters from those we >>>> >> knew in TOS,....for the worse. But probably great to watch if you >>>> >> have A.D.D., and things like continuity confuse you. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > I never said otherwise. >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen to >>>> >>> your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> > sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > I never said it was good because it made money or any other reason. >>>> > >>>> > My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> > reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would want >>>> > to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals to >>>> you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>> >>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to the >>> damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >> >> >> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it hit >> theaters ? > > > I was responding to your statement: > > "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals to > you, you go to the theater." > > Can't you keep track of what you post? Yes I can keep track. But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. " Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price at a theater would be worth it. Mind you even then I'll usually just stay home and wait for the DVD/BLUray to come out. While watching my "cam" > >> ...It didn't cost me anything. >> And a CAM was more than good enough quality to know the movie stunk. >> Actually I felt it was so bad, I didn't even feel it was worth a few >> pennies to waste the hard drive space to save the copy, and just >> deleted it. >> >> It it looked good I would have gone to the theater,...but I didn't. >> Is Parmount pissed off they didn't get a lot more money when people >> could save the ticket price with a quick online download,...probably. >> But I think the money is better in my pocket, than theirs. >> At least until they offer me something worth the ticket price. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> Much like many people buy records (CD's) after listening to a free >>>> download. >>>> >>>> But there is no harm in saying "I DON"T LIKE IT", and give reasons. >>>> >>> >>> Never stated otherwise. >>> >>>> Human nature makes a lot of people afraid to say they don't like >>>> something, when society (marketing hype) says they are supposed to >>>> love it. >>>> >>>> APPLE COMPUTER products are proof of that. >>>> Ask anyone who owns a piece of that overpriced crap why they bought >>>> it. ...You will laugh at some of the answers you will get. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35271 is a reply to message #35250] Fri, 01 February 2013 10:24   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: > > > Wiseguy wrote: >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >> >>> >>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>> : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>>> hours >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two hours >>>> >>>>> wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see it >>>> >>>>> (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything else on >>>> >>>>> a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more movies in this >>>> >>>>> new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek >>>> >>>>> is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they >>>> >>>> know before they saw it? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might give >>>> >>> them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh with >>>> >>> lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no storyline to >>>> >>> follow, and almost completely changed the characters from those >>>> >>> we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But probably great to watch if >>>> >>> you have A.D.D., and things like continuity confuse you. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> I never said otherwise. >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen to >>>> >>>> your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> >> sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >>> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >>> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >> reason. >>>> >> >>>> >> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >> want to see it for themselves. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > No reason at all that they can't. >>>> > Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> > to you, you go to the theater. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it >>> hit theaters ? >> >> >> I was responding to your statement: >> >> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals to >> you, you go to the theater." >> >> Can't you keep track of what you post? > > > > Yes I can keep track. > But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already > seen? Just go to the > damn theatre and make up your mind. " > > Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay once. > At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price at a > theater would be worth it. > Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for it, as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that contadicts what you've already stated? > Mind you even then I'll usually just stay home and wait for the > DVD/BLUray to come out. While watching my "cam" > > > > Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35323 is a reply to message #35271] Fri, 01 February 2013 17:13   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- > 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>>>> hours >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two hours >>>> >>>>>> wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see it >>>> >>>>>> (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything else on >>>> >>>>>> a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more movies in this >>>> >>>>>> new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek >>>> >>>>>> is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they >>>> >>>>> know before they saw it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might give >>>> >>>> them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh with >>>> >>>> lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no storyline to >>>> >>>> follow, and almost completely changed the characters from those >>>> >>>> we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But probably great to watch if >>>> >>>> you have A.D.D., and things like continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen to >>>> >>>>> your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> >>> sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >>>> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >>>> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>> reason. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >> to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> > the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it >>>> hit theaters ? >>> >>> >>> I was responding to your statement: >>> >>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals to >>> you, you go to the theater." >>> >>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >> >> >> >> Yes I can keep track. >> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already >> seen? Just go to the >> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >> >> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay once. >> At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price at a >> theater would be worth it. >> > > > Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for it, as > you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that contadicts > what you've already stated? > Stated ? I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be disappointed, and poorer of wallet. You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. .....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a snack ? I won't. Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35338 is a reply to message #35323] Fri, 01 February 2013 22:04   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: > > > Wiseguy wrote: >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >> >>> >>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>>>>> hours >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see >>>> >>>>>>> it (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything >>>> >>>>>>> else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more >>>> >>>>>>> movies in this new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series >>>> >>>>>>> and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they >>>> >>>>>> know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might >>>> >>>>> give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh >>>> >>>>> with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no >>>> >>>>> storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But >>>> >>>>> probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things like >>>> >>>>> continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen >>>> >>>>>> to your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> >>>> sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >>>>> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >>>>> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>> reason. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>> to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >> the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it >>>> > hit theaters ? >>>> >>>> >>>> I was responding to your statement: >>>> >>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >>>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I can keep track. >>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already >>> seen? Just go to the >>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>> >>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price >>> at a theater would be worth it. >>> >> >> >> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for it, >> as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >> contadicts what you've already stated? >> > > Stated ? > > I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be > disappointed, and poorer of wallet. > > You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. > ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a > snack ? > > I won't. > Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free to > have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. > > > > > > > > How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> to you, you go to the theater." And I replied: >>>> >> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >> the damn theatre and make up your mind. If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35348 is a reply to message #35338] Fri, 01 February 2013 23:38   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>>>>>> hours >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see >>>> >>>>>>>> it (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything >>>> >>>>>>>> else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more >>>> >>>>>>>> movies in this new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series >>>> >>>>>>>> and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they >>>> >>>>>>> know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might >>>> >>>>>> give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh >>>> >>>>>> with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no >>>> >>>>>> storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But >>>> >>>>>> probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things like >>>> >>>>>> continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen >>>> >>>>>>> to your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> >>>>> sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >>>>>> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >>>>>> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>>>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>>>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>>> to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >>> the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it >>>> >> hit theaters ? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I was responding to your statement: >>>> > >>>> > "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> > to you, you go to the theater." >>>> > >>>> > Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already >>>> seen? Just go to the >>>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> >>>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price >>>> at a theater would be worth it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for it, >>> as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>> contadicts what you've already stated? >>> >> >> Stated ? >> >> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >> >> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >> snack ? >> >> I won't. >> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free to >> have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > How many times do I have to repeat what you said? > >>>> > "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> > to you, you go to the theater." > > And I replied: > >>>> >>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >>> the damn theatre and make up your mind. > > If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the theatre > and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. > > Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35349 is a reply to message #35338] Fri, 01 February 2013 23:44   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about 2 >>>> >>>>>>>>> hours >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see >>>> >>>>>>>> it (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything >>>> >>>>>>>> else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more >>>> >>>>>>>> movies in this new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series >>>> >>>>>>>> and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would they >>>> >>>>>>> know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might >>>> >>>>>> give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh >>>> >>>>>> with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no >>>> >>>>>> storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But >>>> >>>>>> probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things like >>>> >>>>>> continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen >>>> >>>>>>> to your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than it >>>> >>>>> sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot of >>>> >>>>>> money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" item in >>>> >>>>>> stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is junk too. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>>>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>>>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>>> to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >>> the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after it >>>> >> hit theaters ? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I was responding to your statement: >>>> > >>>> > "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> > to you, you go to the theater." >>>> > >>>> > Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've already >>>> seen? Just go to the >>>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> >>>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket price >>>> at a theater would be worth it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for it, >>> as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>> contadicts what you've already stated? >>> >> >> Stated ? >> >> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >> >> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >> snack ? >> >> I won't. >> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free to >> have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > How many times do I have to repeat what you said? > >>>> > "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> > to you, you go to the theater." > > And I replied: > >>>> >>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go to >>>> >>> the damn theatre and make up your mind. > > If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the theatre > and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. > > Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? No smartass. But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer monitor. I like going to the theater occasionally. But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad movie. It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35350 is a reply to message #35349] Sat, 02 February 2013 00:15   YourName Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member In article <kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > No smartass. > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater > experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer monitor. > > I like going to the theater occasionally. > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad movie. > > It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie I had > never watched,...don'tcha think ? In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the stars and / or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, trailers, still images, official and unofficially released information, etc., so you don't actually have to watch a movie you know is going to be crap. Just reading about all the idiotic changes Abrams made and seeing the trailer was enough for me to know his so-called "Star Trek" movie wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time and money on. :-) Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35351 is a reply to message #35350] Sat, 02 February 2013 01:30   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: > In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> No smartass. >> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer monitor. > >> I like going to the theater occasionally. >> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad movie. > >> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie I had >> never watched,...don'tcha think ? > > In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie was > the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the stars and / > or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. > > These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, trailers, > still images, official and unofficially released information, etc., so you > don't actually have to watch a movie you know is going to be crap. Just > reading about all the idiotic changes Abrams made and seeing the trailer > was enough for me to know his so-called "Star Trek" movie wasn't even > remotely worth wasting my time and money on.   :-) Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are an angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared to teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. Always will be. So why do you give a fuck? Morons. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35365 is a reply to message #35249] Sat, 02 February 2013 06:14   Daniel47@teranews.com Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Bast wrote: > Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >> Bast wrote: >>> Your Name wrote: >>>> In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> >> >>>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> >> >>>> >> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >> Kirk's toupée ? >>>> > >>>> > Well why not. >>>> > Bald people could identify with it. >>>> >>>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, Captain >>>> Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) >>> >>> >>> Not to start a new argument. >>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >> >> Not to start a new argument. >> I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or NG), >> ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! >> >> But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my >> breath!!) >> >> Daniel > > > > Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who never saw the > original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. > So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. > > I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. > But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS in > public Need I mention ST:V?? Seems a lot of people thought it was the pits, but now there is a new entrant in that race.....and we all wait to see if ST:2013 will out do both of these in the race to the bottom?!?! Daniel Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35366 is a reply to message #35349] Sat, 02 February 2013 06:15   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: > > > Wiseguy wrote: >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >> news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: >> >>> >>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about >>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2 hours >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see >>>> >>>>>>>>> it (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything >>>> >>>>>>>>> else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more >>>> >>>>>>>>> movies in this new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series >>>> >>>>>>>>> and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would >>>> >>>>>>>> they know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might >>>> >>>>>>> give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>>>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh >>>> >>>>>>> with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no >>>> >>>>>>> storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But >>>> >>>>>>> probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things like >>>> >>>>>>> continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen >>>> >>>>>>>> to your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than >>>> >>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot >>>> >>>>>>> of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" >>>> >>>>>>> item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is >>>> >>>>>>> junk too. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>>>>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>>>>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after >>>> >>> it hit theaters ? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> I was responding to your statement: >>>> >> >>>> >> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >> to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >> >>>> >> Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Yes I can keep track. >>>> > But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> > already seen? Just go to the >>>> > damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> > >>>> > Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> > once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket >>>> > price at a theater would be worth it. >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for >>>> it, as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>>> contadicts what you've already stated? >>>> >>> >>> Stated ? >>> >>> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >>> >>> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >>> snack ? >>> >>> I won't. >>> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free >>> to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >> >>>> >> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >> to you, you go to the theater." >> >> And I replied: >> >>>> >>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >> If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >> theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. >> >> Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? > > > No smartass. > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater > experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer > monitor. > > I like going to the theater occasionally. > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad > movie. > > It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie I > had never watched,...don'tcha think ? > > > Are you so dumb you can't read? > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater > experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer > monitor. I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with yourself, dumbass. > I like going to the theater occasionally. > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad > movie. > Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking about Star Trek or movie trailers. You said: >>>> >> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >> to you, you go to the theater." >> Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, dumb shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: >> >>>> >>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or apparently anything else. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35367 is a reply to message #35351] Sat, 02 February 2013 06:23   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:3302b2ba-7c7e-470f-9639-19e4e4e80a6c@q16g2000pbt.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: >> In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No smartass. >>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>> moni > tor. >> >>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>> movi > e. >> >>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a >>> movie I > had >>> never watched,...don'tcha think ? >> >> In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie >> was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the >> stars and / or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. >> >> These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, >> trailers, still images, official and unofficially released >> information, etc., so yo > u >> don't actually have to watch a movie you know is going to be crap. >> Just reading about all the idiotic changes Abrams made and seeing the >> trailer was enough for me to know his so-called "Star Trek" movie >> wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time and money on.   :-) > > Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn > thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are an > angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared to > teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. Always > will be. So why do you give a fuck? > > Morons. The Star Trek TV Series were geared to adults aged 18-49, the usual demographic coveted by advertisers. Always was. Learn some facts before writing. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35368 is a reply to message #35367] Sat, 02 February 2013 06:38   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 2, 8:23 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:3302b2ba-7c7e-470f-9639-19e4e4e80a6c@q16g2000pbt.googlegroups.com: > > > > > >> On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: >>> In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid > >>> wrote: > >>>> No smartass. >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> moni >> tor. > >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movi >> e. > >>>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a >>>> movie I >> had >>>> never watched,...don'tcha think ? > >>> In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie >>> was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the >>> stars and / or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. > >>> These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, >>> trailers, still images, official and unofficially released >>> information, etc., so yo >> u >>> don't actually have to watch a movie you know is going to be crap. >>> Just reading about all the idiotic changes Abrams made and seeing the >>> trailer was enough for me to know his so-called "Star Trek" movie >>> wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time and money on.   :-) > >> Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn >> thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are an >> angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared to >> teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. Always >> will be. So why do you give a fuck? > >> Morons. > > The Star Trek TV Series were geared to adults aged 18-49, the usual > demographic coveted by advertisers.  Always was. Learn some facts before > writing. That demographic was unknown back in 1967. Otherwise Trek would NOT have been cancelled. The Nielsens were not very accurate concerning spending power. Most people didn't watch Trek, so the suits said "Aha, it's not selling in Peoria. Cancel it!" Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35369 is a reply to message #35368] Sat, 02 February 2013 07:55   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:696c3065-2ccc-4b64-8ae0-c972ef2624ec@q16g2000pbt.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 2, 8:23 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote >> innews:3302b2ba-7c7e-470f-96 > 39-19e4e4e80a6c@q16g2000pbt.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: >>>> In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > No smartass. >>>> > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie >>>> > theater experience, and watching something less than perfect on >>>> > a computer moni >>> tor. >> >>>> > I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a >>>> > bad movi >>> e. >> >>>> > It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a >>>> > movie I >>> had >>>> > never watched,...don'tcha think ? >> >>>> In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a >>>> movie was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of >>>> the stars and / or director, and maybe a review in the local >>>> newspaper. >> >>>> These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, >>>> trailers, still images, official and unofficially released >>>> information, etc., so yo >>> u >>>> don't actually have to watch a movie you know is going to be crap. >>>> Just reading about all the idiotic changes Abrams made and seeing >>>> the trailer was enough for me to know his so-called "Star Trek" >>>> movie wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time and money on.   >>>> :-) >> >>> Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn >>> thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are >>> an angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared >>> to teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. >>> Always will be. So why do you give a fuck? >> >>> Morons. >> >> The Star Trek TV Series were geared to adults aged 18-49, the usual >> demographic coveted by advertisers.  Always was. Learn some facts >> befor > e >> writing. > > That demographic was unknown back in 1967. Otherwise Trek would NOT > have been cancelled. The Nielsens were not very accurate concerning > spending power. Most people didn't watch Trek, so the suits said "Aha, > it's not selling in Peoria. Cancel it!" > The series was not "geared" to teenage boys, regardless of demographics. You said "always was" which includes later series. Deal with reality. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35375 is a reply to message #35365] Sat, 02 February 2013 09:56   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: > Bast wrote: >> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >>> Bast wrote: >>>> Your Name wrote: >>>> > In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> > <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> > <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >>> Kirk's toupée ? >>>> >> >>>> >> Well why not. >>>> >> Bald people could identify with it. >>>> > >>>> > Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> > Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Not to start a new argument. >>>> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >>> >>> Not to start a new argument. >>> I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or >>> NG), ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! >>> >>> But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my >>> breath!!) >>> >>> Daniel >> >> >> >> Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who never >> saw the original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. >> So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. >> >> I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. >> But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS in >> public > > Need I mention ST:V?? Seems a lot of people thought it was the pits, but > now there is a new entrant in that race.....and we all wait to see if > ST:2013 will out do both of these in the race to the bottom?!?! > > Daniel I didn't mind ST 5, though it's definitely not on my top 10 movies of all time list. Sure it had a goofy plot, but it didn't completely try to rewrite TOS. Actually, with the exception of #4 "Voyage home" which I liked (but not loved). Each movie from #1 one on has gotten progressively worse. I still think the Star Wars fans will be rioting in front of theaters once Abrams gets his mitts on their baby. And I don't even care for Star Wars. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35376 is a reply to message #35351] Sat, 02 February 2013 09:59   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: >> In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No smartass. >>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>> monitor. >> >>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>> movie. >> >>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie >>> I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? >> >> In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie >> was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the stars >> and / or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. >> >> These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, >> trailers, still images, official and unofficially released >> information, etc., so you don't actually have to watch a movie you >> know is going to be crap. Just reading about all the idiotic changes >> Abrams made and seeing the trailer was enough for me to know his >> so-called "Star Trek" movie wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time >> and money on. :-) > > Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn > thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are an > angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared to > teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. Always > will be. So why do you give a fuck? > > Morons. I can't speak for others, but I "give a fuck", because it pisses you off. <ROTFLMAO> Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35377 is a reply to message #35366] Sat, 02 February 2013 10:12   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> > 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of about >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 hours >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and see >>>> >>>>>>>>>> it (most because they're simply too stupid to do anything >>>> >>>>>>>>>> else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're making more >>>> >>>>>>>>>> movies in this new butchered, so-called "Star Trek" series >>>> >>>>>>>>>> and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would >>>> >>>>>>>>> they know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, might >>>> >>>>>>>> give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has no >>>> >>>>>>>> storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish mosh >>>> >>>>>>>> with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is no >>>> >>>>>>>> storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. But >>>> >>>>>>>> probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things like >>>> >>>>>>>> continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, listen >>>> >>>>>>>>> to your childish comments and believe it sight unseen? >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than >>>> >>>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a lot >>>> >>>>>>>> of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON TV" >>>> >>>>>>>> item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most of that is >>>> >>>>>>>> junk too. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to usenet >>>> >>>>>>> reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans and would >>>> >>>>>>> want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after >>>> >>>> it hit theaters ? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I was responding to your statement: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>> to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Yes I can keep track. >>>> >> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> >> already seen? Just go to the >>>> >> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> >> >>>> >> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> >> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket >>>> >> price at a theater would be worth it. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for >>>> > it, as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>>> > contadicts what you've already stated? >>>> > >>>> >>>> Stated ? >>>> >>>> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>>> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >>>> >>>> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>>> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >>>> snack ? >>>> >>>> I won't. >>>> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free >>>> to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >>> >>>> >>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>> to you, you go to the theater." >>> >>> And I replied: >>> >>>> >>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>> >>> If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >>> theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. >>> >>> Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? >> >> >> No smartass. >> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >> monitor. >> >> I like going to the theater occasionally. >> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >> movie. >> >> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie I >> had never watched,...don'tcha think ? >> >> >> > > Are you so dumb you can't read? > >> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >> monitor. > > I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said > download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with yourself, > dumbass. > >> I like going to the theater occasionally. >> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >> movie. >> > > Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking about Star > Trek or movie trailers. > > You said: > >>>> >>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it appeals >>>> >>> to you, you go to the theater." >>> > > Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, dumb > shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: > >>> >>>> >>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just go >>>> >>>>> to the damn theatre and make up your mind. > > > But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or apparently > anything else. Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the theater to keep you happy. If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or send it to you personally If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35385 is a reply to message #35377] Sat, 02 February 2013 14:38   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me: > > > Wiseguy wrote: >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >> news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: >> >>> >>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> >> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> about 2 hours >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> see it (most because they're simply too stupid to do >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> anything else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> making more movies in this new butchered, so-called >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would >>>> >>>>>>>>>> they know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, >>>> >>>>>>>>> might give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has >>>> >>>>>>>>> no storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish >>>> >>>>>>>>> mosh with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is >>>> >>>>>>>>> no storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. >>>> >>>>>>>>> But probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things >>>> >>>>>>>>> like continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> listen to your childish comments and believe it sight >>>> >>>>>>>>>> unseen? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than >>>> >>>>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a >>>> >>>>>>>>> lot of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON >>>> >>>>>>>>> TV" item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most of >>>> >>>>>>>>> that is junk too. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to >>>> >>>>>>>> usenet reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans >>>> >>>>>>>> and would want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after >>>> >>>>> it hit theaters ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I was responding to your statement: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> >>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> >>> already seen? Just go to the >>>> >>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> >>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket >>>> >>> price at a theater would be worth it. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for >>>> >> it, as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>>> >> contadicts what you've already stated? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Stated ? >>>> > >>>> > I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>>> > disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >>>> > >>>> > You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>>> > ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >>>> > snack ? >>>> > >>>> > I won't. >>>> > Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free >>>> > to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >>>> >>>> >>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >>>> And I replied: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>>> If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >>>> theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. >>>> >>>> Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? >>> >>> >>> No smartass. >>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>> monitor. >>> >>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>> movie. >>> >>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie >>> I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? >>> >>> >>> >> >> Are you so dumb you can't read? >> >>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>> monitor. >> >> I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said >> download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with yourself, >> dumbass. >> >>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>> movie. >>> >> >> Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking about >> Star Trek or movie trailers. >> >> You said: >> >>>> >>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >> >> Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, dumb >> shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >> >> But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or >> apparently anything else. > > > > > Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an > idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? > > If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I > want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. > > > If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the > theater to keep you happy. > If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or > send it to you personally > If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > > > > > I'm tired of explaining your own words to you. If you're so stupid you can't understand your own garbage, too bad. I'm done. Please seek professional help. You have mental problems. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35427 is a reply to message #35377] Sat, 02 February 2013 16:08   YourName Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member In article <kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: > > Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an idea if > I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? > > If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I want to > buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. > > If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the theater > to keep you happy. > If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or send it > to you personally > If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the cinema without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. All the information from various sources is designed to entice people to go and see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's crap, then there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to see it. Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and watch utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it. :-( The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot it was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. Whether it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - it's pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released it with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it comes onto TV for free. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35436 is a reply to message #35427] Sat, 02 February 2013 18:33   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in news:YourName-0302131008580001@203-118-187-5.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz: > In article <kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >> >> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >> >> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >> theater to keep you happy. >> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or >> send it to you personally >> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > > These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the > cinema without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. > All the information from various sources is designed to entice people > to go and see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's > crap, then there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to > see it. > You really need to stop insulting people. Not everyone is going to agree with you. You need to deal with that now or see a psychiatrist later...or is it too late for that? Bast was saying people should download the movie, then if they like it go pay to see it which is stupid. He refuses to admit he said that but he keeps changuing his story every time he realizes he said something stupid. Sure, check out trailers and reviews and word-of-mouth. But if you're going to watch the whole movie you may as well go to the theatre in the first place and see it there. If you can't afford the ticket price then you probably shouldn't be on the internet either. > Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think > of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and > watch utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it. :-( > Really, you do not know why people go to movies. To suggest so just shows what an over-inflated view of your own importance you have. > The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot > it was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. > Whether it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - If it's a good movie, what difference does it make if it says Star Trek or any other franchise? You put too much importance and complain too much about a movie in your life. Maybe you should see that psychiatrist. > it's pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released > it with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then > maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend > "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it comes > onto TV for free. > Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35450 is a reply to message #35385] Sat, 02 February 2013 23:41   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Wiseguy wrote: > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in > news:kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me: > >> >> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> > news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>> news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>> news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>> news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>> news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> >>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$942$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about 2 hours >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hours wasted. :-) >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> see it (most because they're simply too stupid to do >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> making more movies in this new butchered, so-called >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek is dead. :-( >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> they know before they saw it? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> might give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has >>>> >>>>>>>>>> no storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish >>>> >>>>>>>>>> mosh with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is >>>> >>>>>>>>>> no storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> But probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things >>>> >>>>>>>>>> like continuity confuse you. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said otherwise. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listen to your childish comments and believe it sight >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> unseen? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it? Other than >>>> >>>>>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a >>>> >>>>>>>>>> lot of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON >>>> >>>>>>>>>> TV" item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most of >>>> >>>>>>>>>> that is junk too. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>>>>>> reason. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to >>>> >>>>>>>>> usenet reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans >>>> >>>>>>>>> and would want to see it for themselves. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after >>>> >>>>>> it hit theaters ? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I was responding to your statement: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> >>>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> >>>> already seen? Just go to the >>>> >>>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> >>>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket >>>> >>>> price at a theater would be worth it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for >>>> >>> it, as you have just said. Why are you INFERRING something that >>>> >>> contadicts what you've already stated? >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Stated ? >>>> >> >>>> >> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>>> >> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >>>> >> >>>> >> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>>> >> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >>>> >> snack ? >>>> >> >>>> >> I won't. >>>> >> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free >>>> >> to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >>>> > >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> > >>>> > And I replied: >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>>> > >>>> > If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >>>> > theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. >>>> > >>>> > Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? >>>> >>>> >>>> No smartass. >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> monitor. >>>> >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movie. >>>> >>>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie >>>> I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Are you so dumb you can't read? >>> >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> monitor. >>> >>> I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said >>> download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with yourself, >>> dumbass. >>> >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movie. >>>> >>> >>> Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking about >>> Star Trek or movie trailers. >>> >>> You said: >>> >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >>>> > >>> >>> Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, dumb >>> shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >>> >>> >>> But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or >>> apparently anything else. >> >> >> >> >> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >> >> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >> >> >> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >> theater to keep you happy. >> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or >> send it to you personally >> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. >> >> >> >> >> > > I'm tired of explaining your own words to you. If you're so stupid you > can't understand your own garbage, too bad. I'm done. > > Please seek professional help. You have mental problems. Didn't I tell you to shadddap ?,.....at least you finally got that part straight. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35451 is a reply to message #35427] Sat, 02 February 2013 23:45   Bast Messages: 151 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Your Name wrote: > In article <kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" > <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >> >> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >> >> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >> theater to keep you happy. >> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or >> send it to you personally >> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > > These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the cinema > without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. All the > information from various sources is designed to entice people to go and > see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's crap, then > there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to see it. > > Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think > of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and watch > utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it. :-( > > The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot it > was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. Whether > it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - it's > pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released it > with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then > maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend > "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it comes > onto TV for free. I downloaded it for free, and it was so bad I didn't even keep the copy after I watched it. So I agree that even if it's on TV for free,....change chanels and watch a "sham-wow" informercial, for higher entertainment value. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35452 is a reply to message #35451] Sun, 03 February 2013 00:12   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kekpvs$j47$1@dont-email.me: > > > Your Name wrote: >> In article <kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >>> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >>> >>> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >>> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >>> >>> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >>> theater to keep you happy. >>> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or >>> send it to you personally >>> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. >> >> These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the >> cinema without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. >> All the information from various sources is designed to entice people >> to go and see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's >> crap, then there's zero point wasting time and money actually going >> to see it. >> >> Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't >> think of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go >> and watch utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it. :-( >> >> The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot >> it was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. >> Whether it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - >> it's pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released >> it with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then >> maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a >> pretend "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it >> comes onto TV for free. > > > I downloaded it for free, and it was so bad I didn't even keep the > copy after I watched it. > So I agree that even if it's on TV for free,....change chanels and > watch a "sham-wow" informercial, for higher entertainment value. > > > > Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You've given yours. Now move on. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35453 is a reply to message #35376] Sun, 03 February 2013 00:46   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 2, 11:59 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote: > MITO MINISTER wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2:15 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: >>> In article <kei5jp$gr...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>> No smartass. >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> monitor. > >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movie. > >>>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie >>>> I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? > >>> In the old days all you had to rely on for information about a movie >>> was the movie's poster in the theatre lobby and the names of the stars >>> and / or director, and maybe a review in the local newspaper. > >>> These days we thankfully have the internet with movie reviews, >>> trailers, still images, official and unofficially released >>> information, etc., so you don't actually have to watch a movie you >>> know is going to be crap. Just reading about all the idiotic changes >>> Abrams made and seeing the trailer was enough for me to know his >>> so-called "Star Trek" movie wasn't even remotely worth wasting my time >>> and money on. :-) > >> Your opinion has no merit unless you actually go and see the damn >> thing. And even then, your opinon will still be worthless. You are an >> angry little punk, SCREAMING about popular entertainment geared to >> teen-aged boys. That is the STAR TREK demographic. Always was. Always >> will be. So why do you give a fuck? > >> Morons. > > I can't speak for others, but I "give a fuck", because it pisses you off. > <ROTFLMAO> What is this "victory" of yours? You take popular entertainment seriously. That makes you a complete moron. JJAbrams JJAbrams Feel the pain! Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35454 is a reply to message #35385] Sun, 03 February 2013 00:49   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 3, 4:38 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote innews:kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Wiseguy wrote: >>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>> news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> > "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> >> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> >>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> >>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> >>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> >>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$94...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about 2 hours > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making the >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than just two >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hours wasted.  :-) > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go and >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> see it (most because they're simply too stupid to do >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else on a Friday / Saturday night), they're >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> making more movies in this new butchered, so-called >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek is dead.  :-( > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a movie? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No matter if they thought it was good or bad, how would >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> they know before they saw it? > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> might give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie has >>>> >>>>>>>>>> no storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI mish >>>> >>>>>>>>>> mosh with lots of loud noises to help you forget there is >>>> >>>>>>>>>> no storyline to follow, and almost completely changed the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> characters from those we knew in TOS,....for the worse. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> But probably great to watch if you have A.D.D., and things >>>> >>>>>>>>>> like continuity confuse you. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said otherwise. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listen to your childish comments and believe it sight >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> unseen? > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it?  Other than >>>> >>>>>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a >>>> >>>>>>>>>> lot of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN ON >>>> >>>>>>>>>> TV" item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most of >>>> >>>>>>>>>> that is junk too. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any other >>>> >>>>>>>>> reason. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to >>>> >>>>>>>>> usenet reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek fans >>>> >>>>>>>>> and would want to see it for themselves. > >>>> >>>>>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. > >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen?  Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. > >>>> >>>>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days after >>>> >>>>>> it hit theaters ? > >>>> >>>>> I was responding to your statement: > >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." > >>>> >>>>> Can't you keep track of what you post? > >>>> >>>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> >>>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> >>>> already seen? Just go to the >>>> >>>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " > >>>> >>>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't pay >>>> >>>> once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the ticket >>>> >>>> price at a theater would be worth it. > >>>> >>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid for >>>> >>> it, as you have just said.  Why are you INFERRING something that >>>> >>> contadicts what you've already stated? > >>>> >> Stated ? > >>>> >> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>>> >> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. > >>>> >> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>>> >> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, and a >>>> >> snack ? > >>>> >> I won't. >>>> >> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for free >>>> >> to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. > >>>> > How many times do I have to repeat what you said? > >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." > >>>> > And I replied: > >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen?  Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. > >>>> > If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >>>> > theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see it. > >>>> > Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? > >>>> No smartass. >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> monitor. > >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movie. > >>>> It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a movie >>>> I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? > >>> Are you so dumb you can't read? > >>>> But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> experience, and watching something less than perfect on a computer >>>> monitor. > >>> I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said >>> download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with yourself, >>> dumbass. > >>>> I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a bad >>>> movie. > >>> Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking about >>> Star Trek or movie trailers. > >>> You said: > >>>> >>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." > >>> Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, dumb >>> shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: > >>>> >>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen?  Just >>>> >>>>>>> go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. > >>> But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or >>> apparently anything else. > >> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? > >> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. > >> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >> theater to keep you happy. >> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here,  or >> send it to you personally >> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > > I'm tired of explaining your own words to you. If you're so stupid you > can't understand your own garbage, too bad. I'm done. > > Please seek professional help.  You have mental problems. Gasp! There is a dispute Amongst Trekker Douchebag fans - Widdle Boys who just don't get it that popular entertainment is complete Bullshit! Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35455 is a reply to message #35451] Sun, 03 February 2013 01:02   YourName Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member In article <kekpvs$j47$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: > Your Name wrote: >> In article <kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >>> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >>> >>> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >>> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >>> >>> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >>> theater to keep you happy. >>> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here, or >>> send it to you personally >>> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. >> >> These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the cinema >> without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. All the >> information from various sources is designed to entice people to go and >> see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's crap, then >> there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to see it. >> >> Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think >> of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and watch >> utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it. :-( >> >> The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot it >> was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. Whether >> it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - it's >> pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released it >> with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then >> maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend >> "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it comes >> onto TV for free. > > > I downloaded it for free, and it was so bad I didn't even keep the copy > after I watched it. > So I agree that even if it's on TV for free,....change chanels and watch a > "sham-wow" informercial, for higher entertainment value. I'd even watch "reality" TV garbage rather than Abram's so-called "Star Trek" drivel of a movie. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35470 is a reply to message #35454] Sun, 03 February 2013 01:26   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:c8aac17b-da7e-43dd-98a4-45727aa5d8de@y3g2000pbq.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 3, 4:38 am, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote >> innews:kejac0$bld$1@dont-email.me: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> news:kei5jp$gru$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> > Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>news:kehem7$j46$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> >>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>news:kegg7v$15c$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> >>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>news:kedv8n$lbf$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> >>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>news:ke9h8t$u3f$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>>news:ke72dv$gpg$1@dont-email.me: >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wiseguy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:YourName-2801131235030001@203-118-187- >>>> >>>> 26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ke49bd$94...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trek 2009 is not entertainment,....just a waste of >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about 2 hours >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you include all the time and money spent making >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ill-fitting rubbish, then it's A LOT more than >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> just two hours wasted.  :-) >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, because so many blind morons did go >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and see it (most because they're simply too stupid to >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> do anything else on a Friday / Saturday night), >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they're making more movies in this new butchered, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called "Star Trek" series and real Star Trek is >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dead.  :-( >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How is anyone a moron because they went to see a >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> movie? No matter if they thought it was good or bad, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> how would they know before they saw it? >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps posts on usenet from others who HAVE SEEN IT, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> might give them an indication of what to expect. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And if they should pass. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ....Like No name and myself have posted. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> And of course, your opinion would match their opinion >>>> >>>>>>>>>> automatically and there's no use for them to see it. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or they could go and make up their own mind. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In case you missed my reviews of Trek 2009, the movie >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> has no storyline, and is an unconnected overly done CGI >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> mish mosh with lots of loud noises to help you forget >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> there is no storyline to follow, and almost completely >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> changed the characters from those we knew in >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> TOS,....for the worse. But probably great to watch if >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> you have A.D.D., and things like continuity confuse >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> you. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said otherwise. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or do you really expect everyone to drop everything, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> listen to your childish comments and believe it sight >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> unseen? >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You really are an idiot. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But have YOU posted your opinions of it ? >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other than you haven't seen it yet. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> How can I have an opinion if I haven't seen it?  Other >>>> >>>>>>>>>> tha > n >>>> >>>>>>>>>> it sounds stupid, which I have stated. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Basing an opinon that it must be good because it made a >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> lot of money from suckers,....must mean every "AS SEEN >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ON TV" item in stores is great value. But Nope,....most >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of that is junk too. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said it was good because it made money or any >>>> >>>>>>>>>> other reason. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> My point was that why should anyone blindly listen to >>>> >>>>>>>>>> usenet reviews when they are presumed to be Star Trek >>>> >>>>>>>>>> fans and would want to see it for themselves. >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> No reason at all that they can't. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater. >> >>>> >>>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? >>>> >>>>>>>>  Just go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >>>> >>>>>>> Did you not notice I said I downloaded a copy a few days >>>> >>>>>>> after it hit theaters ? >> >>>> >>>>>> I was responding to your statement: >> >>>> >>>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >> >>>> >>>>>> Can't you keep track of what you post? >> >>>> >>>>> Yes I can keep track. >>>> >>>>> But your response " Why waste money to see something you've >>>> >>>>> already seen? Just go to the >>>> >>>>> damn theatre and make up your mind. " >> >>>> >>>>> Seems to imply I'm paying TWICE,....when in truth, I didn't >>>> >>>>> pay once. At least not before I have a pretty good idea the >>>> >>>>> ticket price at a theater would be worth it. >> >>>> >>>> Uh, no. Just because you've seen it doesn't mean you've paid >>>> >>>> for it, as you have just said.  Why are you INFERRING >>>> >>>> something that contadicts what you've already stated? >> >>>> >>> Stated ? >> >>>> >>> I said I refused to pay to see it at a theater, just to be >>>> >>> disappointed, and poorer of wallet. >> >>>> >>> You stated I should just go to the theater in the first place. >>>> >>> ....Are you going to pay for the ticket, and transportation, >>>> >>> and a snack ? >> >>>> >>> I won't. >>>> >>> Not when I do not have to, and can still watch it at home for >>>> >>> free to have a valid opinion, that I did not like it at all. >> >>>> >> How many times do I have to repeat what you said? >> >>>> >>>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >> >>>> >> And I replied: >> >>>> >>>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? >>>> >>>>>>>>  Just go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >>>> >> If you're going to download it you might as well just go to the >>>> >> theatre and see it rather than download and then PAY to go see >>>> >> it. >> >>>> >> Understand now, or do I have to use smaller words? >> >>>> > No smartass. >>>> > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> > experience, and watching something less than perfect on a >>>> > computer monitor. >> >>>> > I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a >>>> > bad movie. >> >>>> > It would be pretty pointless to get into ANY discussion over a >>>> > movie I had never watched,...don'tcha think ? >> >>>> Are you so dumb you can't read? >> >>>> > But you miss the whole point of the difference of a movie theater >>>> > experience, and watching something less than perfect on a >>>> > computer monitor. >> >>>> I'm the one who said go to the theatre and you're the one who said >>>> download the movie.. You're contradicting and arguing with >>>> yourself, dumbass. >> >>>> > I like going to the theater occasionally. >>>> > But I do not like going to the theater to see a bad movie. >>>> > And after watching the trek 2009 download, I realized it was a >>>> > bad movie. >> >>>> Nobody cares what movies you like and go to. I wasn't talking >>>> about Star Trek or movie trailers. >> >>>> You said: >> >>>> >>>>>> "Plenty of sources to download a copy for free, and if it >>>> >>>>>> appeals to you, you go to the theater." >> >>>> Are you capable of understanding what you wrote? Apparently not, >>>> dumb shit. And I pointed out how stupid you are by replying: >> >>>> >>>>>>>> Why waste money to see something you've already seen? >>>> >>>>>>>>  Just go to the damn theatre and make up your mind. >> >>>> But you're so goddamned stupid you can't understand that or >>>> apparently anything else. >> >>> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >>> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? >> >>> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >>> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. >> >>> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to >>> the theater to keep you happy. >>> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here,  or >>> send it to you personally >>> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. >> >> I'm tired of explaining your own words to you. If you're so stupid >> you can't understand your own garbage, too bad. I'm done. >> >> Please seek professional help.  You have mental problems. > > Gasp! There is a dispute Amongst Trekker Douchebag fans - Widdle Boys > who just don't get it that popular entertainment is complete Bullshit! > I'm not a trekker douchebag. If you actually read anything before posting your shit you would know that. But you're such an asshole you refuse to learn the facts. Go away. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35471 is a reply to message #35375] Sun, 03 February 2013 04:21   Daniel47@teranews.com Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member Bast wrote: > Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >> Bast wrote: >>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >>>> Bast wrote: >>>> > Your Name wrote: >>>> >> In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >>>> Kirk's toupée ? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Well why not. >>>> >>> Bald people could identify with it. >>>> >> >>>> >> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> >> Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. :-) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Not to start a new argument. >>>> > But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> > If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >>>> >>>> Not to start a new argument. >>>> I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or >>>> NG), ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! >>>> >>>> But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my >>>> breath!!) >>>> >>>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who never >>> saw the original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. >>> So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. >>> >>> I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. >>> But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS in >>> public >> >> Need I mention ST:V?? Seems a lot of people thought it was the pits, but >> now there is a new entrant in that race.....and we all wait to see if >> ST:2013 will out do both of these in the race to the bottom?!?! >> >> Daniel > > > > > I didn't mind ST 5, though it's definitely not on my top 10 movies of all > time list. > Sure it had a goofy plot, but it didn't completely try to rewrite TOS. > > Actually, with the exception of #4 "Voyage home" which I liked (but not > loved). > Each movie from #1 one on has gotten progressively worse. > > I still think the Star Wars fans will be rioting in front of theaters once > Abrams gets his mitts on their baby. > And I don't even care for Star Wars. My biggest problem with Star Wars was that the first trilogy wasn't a bad sequence, but then, fifteen-twenty years later, they went back to the start! Why?? Everybody knew where things had to end up!! For me, it would have made more sense to totally forget parts 1, 2 and 3, and move on from the original trilogy to parts 7, 8 and 9!! Daniel Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35484 is a reply to message #35427] Sun, 03 February 2013 06:36   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 3, 6:08 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: > In article <kejac0$bl...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an idea if >> I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? > >> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I want to >> buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. > >> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the theater >> to keep you happy. >> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here,  or send it >> to you personally >> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > > These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the cinema > without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. All the > information from various sources is designed to entice people to go and > see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's crap, then > there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to see it. > > Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think of > anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and watch utter > drivel movies simply for the sake of it.  :-( > > The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot it > was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. Whether > it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - it's pretending > to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released it with a different > name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then maybe it would have been > worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend "Star Trek" movie, it's not > even worth bothering with when it comes onto TV for free. Nope. The announcement was not an apriori declaration of "utter crap". That was your INCORRECT assymption. Millions of people enjoyed the movied. Now run along little boy and let the grownups discuss this. Man you are fucked-up. Widdle Boy! Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35485 is a reply to message #35455] Sun, 03 February 2013 06:37   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 3, 3:02 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote: > In article <kekpvs$j4...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > >> Your Name wrote: >>> In article <kejac0$bl...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Why do you insist I go to a theater and pay money. and can't get an >>>> idea if I like it or not from a free download FIRST ? > >>>> If I get a sample tube of toothpaste in the mail, I can decide if I >>>> want to buy the retail package or not, based on THAT. > >>>> If you want to pay for my tickets, time and expenses, I'll go to the >>>> theater to keep you happy. >>>> If you pay enough, I'll even post a fully detailed review here,  or >>>> send it to you personally >>>> If you don't want to put up the money,....shadddap. > >>> These days only a complete moronic imbecile actually goes to the cinema >>> without knowing anything about the movie they're going to see. All the >>> information from various sources is designed to entice people to go and >>> see the movie, and if that infomation makes you think it's crap, then >>> there's zero point wasting time and money actually going to see it. > >>> Unfortunately most of the human race are morons who simply can't think >>> of anything else to do on a Friday / Saturday night, so do go and watch >>> utter drivel movies simply for the sake of it.  :-( > >>> The minute it was announced that Abrams' movie was an idiotic reboot it >>> was automatically going to be utter crap AS A "STAR TREK" MOVIE. Whether >>> it's any good in it's own right is completely irrelevant - it's >>> pretending to be "Star Trek" when it's not. If they had released it >>> with a different name, "Universe Hiking" or "Galaxy Walking", then >>> maybe it would have been worth giving a chance to ... but as a pretend >>> "Star Trek" movie, it's not even worth bothering with when it comes >>> onto TV for free. > >> I downloaded it for free, and it was so bad I didn't even keep the copy >> after I watched it. >> So I agree that even if it's on TV for free,....change chanels and watch a >> "sham-wow" informercial, for higher entertainment value. > > I'd even watch "reality" TV garbage rather than Abram's so-called "Star > Trek" drivel of a movie. Go ahead. Nobody gives a shit. Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35486 is a reply to message #35471] Sun, 03 February 2013 06:38   MITO MINISTER Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member On Feb 3, 6:21 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote: > Bast wrote: >> Danie...@teranews.com wrote: >>> Bast wrote: >>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote: >>>> > Bast wrote: >>>> >> Your Name wrote: >>>> >>> In article <ke9gph$q9...@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>> <fake_n...@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote: > >>>> >>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> > >>>> >>>>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation of >>>> >>>>> Kirk's toupée ? > >>>> >>>> Well why not. >>>> >>>> Bald people could identify with it. > >>>> >>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> >>> Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few.  :-) > >>>> >> Not to start a new argument. >>>> >> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> >> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. > >>>> > Not to start a new argument. >>>> > I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG (or >>>> > NG), ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any ST:TOS!! > >>>> > But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under my >>>> > breath!!) > >>>> > Daniel > >>>> Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who never >>>> saw the original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. >>>> So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. > >>>> I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. >>>> But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS in >>>> public > >>> Need I mention ST:V?? Seems a lot of people thought it was the pits, but >>> now there is a new entrant in that race.....and we all wait to see if >>> ST:2013 will out do both of these in the race to the bottom?!?! > >>> Daniel > >> I didn't mind ST 5, though it's definitely not on my top 10 movies of all >> time list. >> Sure it had a goofy plot, but it didn't completely try to rewrite TOS. > >> Actually, with the exception of  #4 "Voyage home" which I liked (but not >> loved). >> Each movie from #1 one on has gotten progressively worse. > >> I still think the Star Wars fans will be rioting in front of theaters once >> Abrams gets his mitts on their baby. >> And I don't even care for Star Wars. > > My biggest problem with Star Wars was that the first trilogy wasn't a > bad sequence, but then, fifteen-twenty years later, they went back to > the start! Why?? Everybody knew where things had to end up!! > > For me, it would have made more sense to totally forget parts 1, 2 and > 3, and move on from the original trilogy to parts 7, 8 and 9!! > > Daniel Call Paramount right away. There's an office waiting for you! Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35487 is a reply to message #35471] Sun, 03 February 2013 07:14   Wiseguy Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member "Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote in news:f_pPs.17492$H22.14693@newsfe13.iad: > Bast wrote: >> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >>> Bast wrote: >>>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote: >>>> > Bast wrote: >>>> >> Your Name wrote: >>>> >>> In article <ke9gph$q9t$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" >>>> >>> <fake_name@nomail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> MITO MINISTER wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> <snip the usual Mito Microbrain load of absolute bollocks> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> An exact replica, down to the bridge details and a recreation >>>> >>>>> of Kirk's toupée ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well why not. >>>> >>>> Bald people could identify with it. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Real Star Trek has already been there, done that - Harry Mudd, >>>> >>> Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Neelix, ... to name just a few. >>>> >>> :-) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Not to start a new argument. >>>> >> But I never considered anything post TOS, to really be Star Trek. >>>> >> If that makes me a "purist", so be it. >>>> > >>>> > Not to start a new argument. >>>> > I've never considered anything TOS. There was Star Trek, ST:TNG >>>> > (or NG), ST:TMP, etc, but I have Never, *EVER* watched any >>>> > ST:TOS!! >>>> > >>>> > But, just to fit in, I can call ST ST:TOS (whilst mumbling under >>>> > my breath!!) >>>> > >>>> > Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Trouble is if you say Star Trek now,....the kiddies (mito) who >>>> never saw the original think you are referring to the 2009 fiasco. >>>> So I make it a point to say The Original Show/Series. >>>> >>>> I wish we could still be proud to say we liked Star Trek. >>>> But after the 2009 mess I'm now ashamed to even admit to liking TOS >>>> in public >>> >>> Need I mention ST:V?? Seems a lot of people thought it was the pits, >>> but now there is a new entrant in that race.....and we all wait to >>> see if ST:2013 will out do both of these in the race to the >>> bottom?!?! >>> >>> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> I didn't mind ST 5, though it's definitely not on my top 10 movies of >> all time list. >> Sure it had a goofy plot, but it didn't completely try to rewrite >> TOS. >> >> Actually, with the exception of #4 "Voyage home" which I liked (but >> not loved). >> Each movie from #1 one on has gotten progressively worse. >> >> I still think the Star Wars fans will be rioting in front of theaters >> once Abrams gets his mitts on their baby. >> And I don't even care for Star Wars. > > My biggest problem with Star Wars was that the first trilogy wasn't a > bad sequence, but then, fifteen-twenty years later, they went back to > the start! Why?? Everybody knew where things had to end up!! > > For me, it would have made more sense to totally forget parts 1, 2 and > 3, and move on from the original trilogy to parts 7, 8 and 9!! > > Daniel > That was always the plan. Why complain now? Report message to a moderator

Re: Abrams to destroy Star Wars franchise next [message #35525 is a reply to message #35471] Sun, 03 February 2013 15:06   YourName Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012 Karma: 0 Senior Member In article <f_pPs.17492$H22.14693@newsfe13.iad>, "Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote: > > My biggest problem with Star Wars was that the first trilogy wasn't a > bad sequence, but then, fifteen-twenty years later, they went back to > the start! Why?? Everybody knew where things had to end up!! > > For me, it would have made more sense to totally forget parts 1, 2 and > 3, You may have known how it finished, but you didn't know how it started. You didn't know what caused Anakin to turn to the Dark Side, why the remaining Jedi were in hiding, etc. :-) By the way, Disney have "postponed" (indefinitely) the release of the 3D-erised Episode II and Episode III movies that were planned for later this year. That's no great loss since the 3D-erised Episode I was pretty pitifully done and simply looked horrible. > and move on from the original trilogy to parts 7, 8 and 9!! My issue (ignoring the talentless lazy Abrams) is that the story *is* finished. Anakin is redeemed and dead, the Emperor is dead, Luke is a Jedi, the good guys are all safe, the galaxy lives happliy ever after ... there's simply nowhere sensible to take the Saga movies. Even Jabba and Boba Fett are dead (although Boba Fett survived in the comic books and novels). The storylines for the new Trilogy have been written by George Lucas, but I can't see how. They would be to do what the comic books and novels did: come up with some new bad guy who has never even been mentioned before, rather stupidly ressurect the Emperor in some half-brained fashion (also like they did with Darth Maul in the animated TV series), or have some new invading alien race. George Lucas' storyline will also ignore all the material that has already been in the comic books, novels, and computer games, potentially destroying a large part of the existing franchise. It would be MUCH better to not try and shoehorn on a third Trilogy for the Saga - the movies work best as the story of Anakin Skywalker, from birth, through Jedi training, his turn to the Dark Side, his redemption, and his death - the end. There are plenty of other stories in the Star Wars universe that could be told in more spin-off movies ... as long as they are done fittingly with what has already been established without lots of idiotic changes. Report message to a moderator   Next Page

Pages (4): [ «  ‹  1  2  3  4  ›  »]

Previous Topic:	Redshirts
Next Topic:	Rare interview with Trek's 1st Captain reveals hopes for a series

Goto Forum:

- Digital Archaeology  Digital Archaeology  Emulation-    Computer Arcana     Android     Computer Folklore-       Apple        Apple II        Apple II Emulation        Vintage Macs Group        PowerPC Macs-       Atari        Atari 8-bit        Atari ST-       Commodore        Commodore 8-bit        Commodore 64        C= Homestead        Amiga        Commodore Emulation-       IBM PC & Compatibles        IBM PC and Compatibles        Averatec 3200        Compaq Portable        Dell Inspiron 9400        Dell Inspiron 1525        Dell Latitude D600        Dell Latitude D610        Gateway GT5464        HP Pavilion DV2700 (dv2810us)        IBM 300GL-    Electronic Gaming Arcana     Classic Video Games-       Atari        Atari 2600 / VCS        Atari 7800        Atari Lynx        Atari Jaguar-       Nintendo        Nintendo (NES)        Super Nintendo        Nintendo 64        Gamecube-       Sega        Sega Master System / Game Gear        Sega Genesis        Sega Saturn        Sega Dreamcast-       Sony        PlayStation        PlayStation 2 (PS2)-       Other Game Systems        Arcade        TurboGrafx-16- Sci-Fi/Fantasy  Anime Misc.  Manga  Comics  Babylon 5  Babylon 5 (moderated)  Battlestar Galactica  MST3K  Star Trek  Star Wars  Steampunk  The X-Files  Fantasy- General Discussion  Miscellaneous  Music  News and Politics  Space- Archive  The Turbo List  Atari MiNT Mailing List  comp.os.cpm  comp.sys.amiga  comp.sys.apple  comp.sys.atari.8bit  comp.sys.atari.st  comp.sys.cbm  comp.sys.ibm.pc  comp.sys.mac  comp.sys.misc  comp.sys.tandy  comp.sys.ti  fa.info-mac  fa.sf-lovers  net.comics  net.games.video  net.micro  net.micro.amiga  net.micro.apple  net.micro.atari  net.micro.atari8  net.micro.atari16  net.micro.cbm  net.micro.cpm  net.micro.mac  net.micro.pc  net.micro.ti  net.micro.trs-80  net.micro.zx  net.movies.sw  net.roots  net.sf-lovers  net.space  net.startrek