|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #41975 is a reply to message #41162] |
Sat, 09 March 2013 21:58   |
anim8rFSK
Messages: 215
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <kh4ceg$n0c$1@dont-email.me>,
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kggbs2$bs7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-shot-arm-
>>>> it
>>>> -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>> ....But I didn't.
>>
>> It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>
>
>
>
> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is STILL
> condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your boobs"
>
> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
Yes, I thought it was great!
All these people complaining about the women in the audience's reactions
to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they were in on
the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience; she was
backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #41976 is a reply to message #41975] |
Sat, 09 March 2013 23:25 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <kh4ceg$n0c$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <kggbs2$bs7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> > Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-shot-arm-
>>>> > it
>>>> > -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>>> ....But I didn't.
>>>
>>> It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is
>> STILL condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
>> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your boobs"
>>
>> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
>
> Yes, I thought it was great!
>
> All these people complaining about the women in the audience's reactions
> to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they were in on
> the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience; she was
> backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
happens.
Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
were onstage later in the show as presenters.
And barely got any recognition at all.
So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #41988 is a reply to message #41976] |
Sun, 10 March 2013 01:20 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:khh1sl$g5t$1@dont-email.me:
>
>
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kh4ceg$n0c$1@dont-email.me>,
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <kggbs2$bs7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> >> Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-
s
>>>> >> hot-arm- it
>>>> >> -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>>> > ....But I didn't.
>>>>
>>>> It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is
>>> STILL condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
>>> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your
>>> boobs"
>>>
>>> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
>>
>> Yes, I thought it was great!
>>
>> All these people complaining about the women in the audience's
>> reactions to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they
>> were in on the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience;
>> she was backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
>
>
>
> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of
> cinema happens.
>
> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
> And barely got any recognition at all.
> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>
>
William Shatner is an actor. James T. Kirk is a character.
Any actor can play many characters. Any character can be played by many
actors.
Except for obsessed dweebs like you. Grow up.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #41989 is a reply to message #41976] |
Sun, 10 March 2013 01:42 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 10, 1:25 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kh4ceg$n0...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <kggbs2$bs...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> > ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> >> Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>
>>>> >> http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-shot...
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>
>>>> > Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>>> > ....But I didn't.
>
>>>> It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>
>>> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is
>>> STILL condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
>>> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your boobs"
>
>>> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
>
>> Yes, I thought it was great!
>
>> All these people complaining about the women in the audience's reactions
>> to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they were in on
>> the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience; she was
>> backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
>
> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
> happens.
>
> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
> were onstage later in the show as presenters.
> And barely got any recognition at all.
> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
So what, he has 79 episodes and seven movies. The new guy is just
getting started. And go fuck herself, you punk.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #41990 is a reply to message #41988] |
Sun, 10 March 2013 01:43 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 10, 3:20 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote innews:khh1sl$g5t$1@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <kh4ceg$n0...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> > In article <kggbs2$bs...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> > "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> >> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> >>> Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>
>>>> >>> http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-
> s
>>>> >>> hot-arm- it
>>>> >>> -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>
>>>> >> Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>>> >> ....But I didn't.
>
>>>> > It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>
>>>> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is
>>>> STILL condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
>>>> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your
>>>> boobs"
>
>>>> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
>
>>> Yes, I thought it was great!
>
>>> All these people complaining about the women in the audience's
>>> reactions to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they
>>> were in on the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience;
>>> she was backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
>
>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of
>> cinema happens.
>
>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
> William Shatner is an actor. James T. Kirk is a character.
> Any actor can play many characters. Any character can be played by many
> actors.
>
> Except for obsessed dweebs like you. Grow up.
"Dweebs" ! I love it!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42553 is a reply to message #41976] |
Wed, 13 March 2013 09:29 |
P-Dub
Messages: 6
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kh4ceg$n0c$1@dont-email.me>,
>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article <kggbs2$bs7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>> >> Was "Captain Picard" available? Probably. But who cares?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-25/watch-shatner-give-oscars-sc i-fi-shot-arm-
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> -needed?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Kind of makes me wish I had watched the Oscar show.
>>>> > ....But I didn't.
>>>>
>>>> It's online, and on OnDemand. And it's the first 15 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have since downloaded the whole show, since every women's group is
>>> STILL condemning Seth McFarlane(sp?) for his hosting.
>>> .....And I think the whole thing is hilarious,...."we saw your boobs"
>>>
>>> And Shatner played his role perfectly.
>>
>> Yes, I thought it was great!
>>
>> All these people complaining about the women in the audience's reactions
>> to "we saw your boobs" clearly didn't understand that they were in on
>> the joke! Charlize Theron wasn't even IN the audience; she was
>> backstage in a different outfit, waiting to dance!
>
>
>
> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
> happens.
>
> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
> were onstage later in the show as presenters.
> And barely got any recognition at all.
> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>
2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN! And Chris Pine makes a
great Jim Kirk.
The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
P-Dub: ST fan since 1967. And I am very much looking forward to 'Trek
into Darkness'..
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42652 is a reply to message #42553] |
Wed, 13 March 2013 16:06 |
YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
<pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
>> happens.
>>
>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
>> were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the people
making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek", "reboot Trek",
"Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek Kids", "SmallTrek",
"2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star Trek".
Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to last
long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big" movie
at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go to the
cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze themselves
stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else to do. It makes
no difference what the movie is - most of the time they don't like what
they see or don't even bother actually watching it properly. These morons
falsely boost box office numbers and mean the idiots in charge blindly
believe their movie is actually any good, so they stupidly make another
one.
It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and absolutely
nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the idiocy
of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis & Butthead
morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of space and
time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal in-name-only movies.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42764 is a reply to message #42652] |
Wed, 13 March 2013 22:02 |
P-Dub
Messages: 6
Registered: September 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On 3/13/2013 4:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
>>> happens.
>>>
>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
>>> were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>
>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the people
> making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek", "reboot Trek",
> "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek Kids", "SmallTrek",
> "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star Trek".
>
> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to last
> long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>
>
>
>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big" movie
> at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go to the
> cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze themselves
> stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else to do. It makes
> no difference what the movie is - most of the time they don't like what
> they see or don't even bother actually watching it properly. These morons
> falsely boost box office numbers and mean the idiots in charge blindly
> believe their movie is actually any good, so they stupidly make another
> one.
>
> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and absolutely
> nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>
>
>
>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>
>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the idiocy
> of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis & Butthead
> morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of space and
> time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal in-name-only movies.
>
So - what does this make you - a 'purist' ? LOL.
Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
Uhuru, etc.
It is no longer the one we fell in love with in the 60s. It's all new -
yet it's the same fictional characters, ship, and Federation.
It wasn't perfect. But people flocked into the movies to see it, and it
received many good reviews. It had an implausible story, but that's not
out of the ordinary for Star Trek. Lots of their stories have been
implausible.
And I predict that 'Trek into Darkness' will be, to coin a good phrase,
'fascinating'. It will be science fiction at its finest. It will be
visually stimulating. There will be action, drama, special effects, and
- yes - a STAR TREK story. Beam me up!
No - this is not 1966 Star Trek. But it's every bit REAL Star Trek as
that was. And I applaud the effort.
P-Dub: A REAL Star Trek fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42766 is a reply to message #42652] |
Wed, 13 March 2013 23:30 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Your Name wrote:
> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of
>>> cinema happens.
>>>
>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>
>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
> Trek".
>
> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>
>
>
>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time they
> don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching it
> properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean the
> idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good, so
> they stupidly make another one.
>
> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>
>
>
>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>
>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the idiocy
> of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis & Butthead
> morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of space and
> time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal in-name-only
> movies.
Those people who LIKED the 2009 movie probably were already "inebriated"
before going to the theaters.
Of course as you pointed out, some people just will go out every weekend, no
matter WHAT the theater is showing.
Little wonder why the studios no longer care if the quality of movies they
offer is good or not.
Quantity is all that counts.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42767 is a reply to message #42764] |
Wed, 13 March 2013 23:39 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
P-Dub wrote:
> On 3/13/2013 4:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>>>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>> movie,
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek". Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely
>> to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
>> so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>> in-name-only movies.
>
> So - what does this make you - a 'purist' ? LOL.
>
> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
> Uhuru, etc.
>
> It is no longer the one we fell in love with in the 60s. It's all new -
> yet it's the same fictional characters, ship, and Federation.
>
> It wasn't perfect. But people flocked into the movies to see it, and it
> received many good reviews. It had an implausible story, but that's not
> out of the ordinary for Star Trek. Lots of their stories have been
> implausible.
>
> And I predict that 'Trek into Darkness' will be, to coin a good phrase,
> 'fascinating'. It will be science fiction at its finest. It will be
> visually stimulating. There will be action, drama, special effects, and
> - yes - a STAR TREK story. Beam me up!
>
> No - this is not 1966 Star Trek. But it's every bit REAL Star Trek as
> that was. And I applaud the effort.
>
> P-Dub: A REAL Star Trek fan.
I think any US consumer now knows that "a name" does not assure a quality
product.
At least decade old Americans names, on new China made products.
Who's money do you think now OWNS the major studios ?
But that's okay,...the K12 sheeple have been conditioned well, and will like
whatever they are told to.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42815 is a reply to message #42652] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 07:47 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-1403130906200001@203-118-187-188.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>>
>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>
>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>> movie,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
> Trek".
>
> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>
And that's YOUR opinion. Why is it worth more than anyone else's?
>
>
>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
> so they stupidly make another one.
>
How much time does it take you to make up all this nonsense?
Grow up.
> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>
>
Again. Just YOUR opinion.
>
>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>
>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
> in-name-only movies.
Idiocy: What King "Your Name" does not like. Because only his opinion
counts.
Enterprise was real Star Trek. Your opinion is irrelevant. No, I don't
expect you to understand it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42816 is a reply to message #42764] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 08:01 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
P-Dub <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ica0t.152834$KR.6514@newsfe27.iad:
> On 3/13/2013 4:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>>>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>> movie,
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek".
>>
>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>> again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any
>> good, so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>> in-name-only movies.
>>
>
> So - what does this make you - a 'purist' ? LOL.
>
> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
> Uhuru, etc.
>
Uhura. A name a real Star Trek fan would know.
> It is no longer the one we fell in love with in the 60s. It's all new
> - yet it's the same fictional characters, ship, and Federation.
>
Fell in love with? It's a TV Show not a woman.
> It wasn't perfect. But people flocked into the movies to see it, and
> it received many good reviews. It had an implausible story, but that's
> not out of the ordinary for Star Trek. Lots of their stories have been
> implausible.
>
> And I predict that 'Trek into Darkness' will be, to coin a good
> phrase, 'fascinating'. It will be science fiction at its finest. It
> will be visually stimulating. There will be action, drama, special
> effects, and - yes - a STAR TREK story. Beam me up!
>
Finest? Overblown special effects for the 13-yr old dweeb mind and the
same storyline over and over. Madman/phenomenon wants to destroy
universe/planet and only the Enterprise can save it often only by going
back into the past.
> No - this is not 1966 Star Trek. But it's every bit REAL Star Trek as
> that was. And I applaud the effort.
>
> P-Dub: A REAL Star Trek fan.
>
No, 1966 Star Trek, and all the other ST TV series, were directed at
adults (while being suitable for children) concerning many different
storylines. No matter how bad individual storylines were, the emphasis
was on writing. Movies are directed at teenagers (and dweebs) who pay
to see it many times with writing geared to that age group and direction
designed to stimulate their limited attention spans.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42817 is a reply to message #42765] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 08:02 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in news:YourName-1403131602420001@
203-118-187-76.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> In article <ica0t.152834$KR.6514@newsfe27.iad>, P-Dub
> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
>> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
>> Uhuru, etc.
>
> Nope. It's fake Trek / crap Trek and pees all over the original. Even the
> people making it say it's not the same thing.
Fake and crap are two different things.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42818 is a reply to message #42766] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 08:09 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:khrg61$ub2$1@dont-email.me:
>
>
> Your Name wrote:
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>>>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>> movie,
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek".
>>
>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>> again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any
>> good, so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>> in-name-only movies.
>
>
>
>
> Those people who LIKED the 2009 movie probably were already
> "inebriated" before going to the theaters.
Stupid nonsense. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is drunk?
You think too highly of yourself.
> Of course as you pointed out, some people just will go out every
> weekend, no matter WHAT the theater is showing.
>
They can't go to a movie that's not showing, can they?
> Little wonder why the studios no longer care if the quality of movies
> they offer is good or not.
> Quantity is all that counts.
>
>
Just figured out that entertainment is a business not a public service,
huh?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42858 is a reply to message #42818] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 13:07 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in
> news:khrg61$ub2$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> > pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> > actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> > magic of cinema happens.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> > trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> > And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> > So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>>
>>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> movie,
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>>
>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>> Trek".
>>>
>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>>> again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>>
>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any
>>> good, so they stupidly make another one.
>>>
>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>>
>>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>>
>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>> in-name-only movies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Those people who LIKED the 2009 movie probably were already
>> "inebriated" before going to the theaters.
>
> Stupid nonsense. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is drunk?
> You think too highly of yourself.
Certainly not.
I'm willing to accept, a good percentage are stoned on drugs
>
>> Of course as you pointed out, some people just will go out every
>> weekend, no matter WHAT the theater is showing.
>>
>
> They can't go to a movie that's not showing, can they?
The point is most movie attendees really couldn't care less,....you could
probably show those people 2 hours of trailers and commercials and they
would STILL happily buy tickets.
Look at the mass group mentality that pays cable or satellite TV fees,....to
watch infomercials and home shopping most of the day.
Or how about explaining people going out for dinner, and then stuffing
themselves with even more overpriced snacks at a movie.
....The studios have trained you sheeple well.
>
>> Little wonder why the studios no longer care if the quality of movies
>> they offer is good or not.
>> Quantity is all that counts.
>>
>>
>
> Just figured out that entertainment is a business not a public service,
> huh?
And you still think the TWO are devisively non-inclusive.
Business' that do not provide any type of public service do not last very
long.....or survive on government bailouts.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42859 is a reply to message #42815] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 13:17 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:YourName-1403130906200001@203-118-187-188.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>>>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>> movie,
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek".
>>
>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>>
>>
>
> And that's YOUR opinion. Why is it worth more than anyone else's?
>
>>
>>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
>> so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>
> How much time does it take you to make up all this nonsense?
>
> Grow up.
>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Again. Just YOUR opinion.
>
>
>>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>> in-name-only movies.
>
> Idiocy: What King "Your Name" does not like. Because only his opinion
> counts.
>
> Enterprise was real Star Trek. Your opinion is irrelevant. No, I don't
> expect you to understand it.
So by your own admission, Enterprise killed the whole Trek franchise years
ago ?
And why no more trek TV shows exist
Okay,....I'll accept that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42936 is a reply to message #42817] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 15:19 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:YourName-1403131602420001@ 203-118-187-76.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>> In article <ica0t.152834$KR.6514@newsfe27.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
>>> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
>>> Uhuru, etc.
>>
>> Nope. It's fake Trek / crap Trek and pees all over the original. Even
>> the people making it say it's not the same thing.
>
> Fake and crap are two different things.
Trek 2009 proved that one movie can be both at the same time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42979 is a reply to message #42859] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 19:05 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in
news:kht0kp$31b$1@dont-email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-1403130906200001@203-118-187-188.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>
>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18475@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was
>>>> > clearly pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot
>>>> > of actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and
>>>> > the magic of cinema happens.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009
>>>> > abortion trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> > And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> > So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>>>
>>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> movie,
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>>
>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>> Trek".
>>>
>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely
>>> to last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>>> again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And that's YOUR opinion. Why is it worth more than anyone else's?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>>
>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who
>>> go to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and
>>> booze themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of
>>> anything else to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most
>>> of the time they don't like what they see or don't even bother
>>> actually watching it properly. These morons falsely boost box office
>>> numbers and mean the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is
>>> actually any good, so they stupidly make another one.
>>>
>>
>> How much time does it take you to make up all this nonsense?
>>
>> Grow up.
>>
>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again. Just YOUR opinion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>>>
>>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>>
>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste
>>> of space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>> in-name-only movies.
>>
>> Idiocy: What King "Your Name" does not like. Because only his
>> opinion counts.
>>
>> Enterprise was real Star Trek. Your opinion is irrelevant. No, I
>> don't expect you to understand it.
>
>
>
>
> So by your own admission, Enterprise killed the whole Trek franchise
> years ago ?
> And why no more trek TV shows exist
>
> Okay,....I'll accept that.
>
>
>
>
I said no such thing. Learn to read.
Interest in any franchise dies over time.
In any case, Enterprise was real Star Trek.
Even if self-imposed King "Your Name" thinks otherwise.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42980 is a reply to message #42936] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 19:07 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in news:kht7oq$ems$1@dont-
email.me:
>
>
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-1403131602420001@ 203-118-187-76.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>>
>>> In article <ica0t.152834$KR.6514@newsfe27.iad>, P-Dub
>>> <pwolfe00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
>>>> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy,
Scotty,
>>>> Uhuru, etc.
>>>
>>> Nope. It's fake Trek / crap Trek and pees all over the original.
Even
>>> the people making it say it's not the same thing.
>>
>> Fake and crap are two different things.
>
>
> Trek 2009 proved that one movie can be both at the same time.
>
>
>
In your opinion. Go kiss your William Shatner poster now.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42995 is a reply to message #42859] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:23 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 15, 2:17 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-1403130906200001@203-118-187-188.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>>>> > I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> > pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> > actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> > magic of cinema happens.
>
>>>> > Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> > trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> > And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> > So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> movie,
>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>> Trek".
>
>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>> And that's YOUR opinion. Why is it worth more than anyone else's?
>
>>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
>>> so they stupidly make another one.
>
>> How much time does it take you to make up all this nonsense?
>
>> Grow up.
>
>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>> Again. Just YOUR opinion.
>
>>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
>>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>> in-name-only movies.
>
>> Idiocy: What King "Your Name" does not like. Because only his opinion
>> counts.
>
>> Enterprise was real Star Trek. Your opinion is irrelevant. No, I don't
>> expect you to understand it.
>
> So by your own admission, Enterprise killed the whole Trek franchise years
> ago ?
> And why no more trek TV shows exist
>
> Okay,....I'll accept that.
Nope. The franchise is stronger than ever. See: REALITY.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42996 is a reply to message #42936] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:24 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 15, 4:19 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-1403131602420001@ 203-118-187-76.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
>
>>> In article <ica0t.152834$KR.6...@newsfe27.iad>, P-Dub
>>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
>>>> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
>>>> Uhuru, etc.
>
>>> Nope. It's fake Trek / crap Trek and pees all over the original. Even
>>> the people making it say it's not the same thing.
>
>> Fake and crap are two different things.
>
> Trek 2009 proved that one movie can be both at the same time.
It was lauded by reviewers and the public alike. You are dishonest and
a little piece of shit.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42997 is a reply to message #42652] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:26 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 14, 5:06 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>
> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of cinema
>>> happens.
>
>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion trek,
>>> were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the people
> making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek", "reboot Trek",
> "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek Kids", "SmallTrek",
> "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star Trek".
>
> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to last
> long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big" movie
> at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go to the
> cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze themselves
> stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else to do. It makes
> no difference what the movie is - most of the time they don't like what
> they see or don't even bother actually watching it properly. These morons
> falsely boost box office numbers and mean the idiots in charge blindly
> believe their movie is actually any good, so they stupidly make another
> one.
>
> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and absolutely
> nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the idiocy
> of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis & Butthead
> morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of space and
> time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal in-name-only movies.
Nope. The 2009 film was a great success by universal acclaim. Your
widdle-boy basement opinions don't count for shit.
Millions of fans enjoyed the flick and are awaiting the NEXT ONE.
Entertainment - that's all it is.
By the way, GO I love youRSELF!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42998 is a reply to message #42765] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:27 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 14, 12:02 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <ica0t.152834$KR.6...@newsfe27.iad>, P-Dub
>
> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Star Trek 2009 was REAL Star Trek. It was copyrighted as such. It
>> featured the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty,
>> Uhuru, etc.
>
> Nope. It's fake Trek / crap Trek and pees all over the original. Even the
> people making it say it's not the same thing.
Who gives a shit? It's just entertainment. And it is Star Trek. If you
don't like it, go back to playing video games for 19 hours a day. That
is your life - isn't it?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #42999 is a reply to message #42766] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:29 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 14, 12:30 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of actresses
>>>> disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the magic of
>>>> cinema happens.
>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining movie,
>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek".
>
>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time they
>> don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching it
>> properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean the
>> idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good, so
>> they stupidly make another one.
>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the idiocy
>> of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis & Butthead
>> morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of space and
>> time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal in-name-only
>> movies.
>
> Those people who LIKED the 2009 movie probably were already "inebriated"
> before going to the theaters.
> Of course as you pointed out, some people just will go out every weekend, no
> matter WHAT the theater is showing.
>
> Little wonder why the studios no longer care if the quality of movies they
> offer is good or not.
> Quantity is all that counts.
And you go out every weekend to monitor the drinking and viewing
habits of your own age cohort? I doubt it. You have pimples, a thin,
nerdy voice and stay in the basement with video games. A non-entity.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #43000 is a reply to message #42858] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:32 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 15, 2:07 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Wiseguy wrote:
>> "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote in
>> news:khrg61$ub2$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>> Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>>>> >> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> >> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> >> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> >> magic of cinema happens.
>
>>>> >> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> >> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> >> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> >> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>>>> > 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> > movie,
>
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>>>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
>>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>>> Trek".
>
>>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>>>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>>>> again.
>
>>>> > and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
>>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>>>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>>>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>>>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>>>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>>>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>>>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any
>>>> good, so they stupidly make another one.
>
>>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>>>> > And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
>>>> > The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
>>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>>>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>>> in-name-only movies.
>
>>> Those people who LIKED the 2009 movie probably were already
>>> "inebriated" before going to the theaters.
>
>> Stupid nonsense. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is drunk?
>> You think too highly of yourself.
>
> Certainly not.
> I'm willing to accept, a good percentage are stoned on drugs
>
>
>
>>> Of course as you pointed out, some people just will go out every
>>> weekend, no matter WHAT the theater is showing.
>
>> They can't go to a movie that's not showing, can they?
>
> The point is most movie attendees really couldn't care less,....you could
> probably show those people 2 hours of trailers and commercials and they
> would STILL happily buy tickets.
> Look at the mass group mentality that pays cable or satellite TV fees,.....to
> watch infomercials and home shopping most of the day.
>
> Or how about explaining people going out for dinner, and then stuffing
> themselves with even more overpriced snacks at a movie.
> ...The studios have trained you sheeple well.
>
>
>
>>> Little wonder why the studios no longer care if the quality of movies
>>> they offer is good or not.
>>> Quantity is all that counts.
>
>> Just figured out that entertainment is a business not a public service,
>> huh?
>
> And you still think the TWO are devisively non-inclusive.
> Business' that do not provide any type of public service do not last very
> long.....or survive on government bailouts.
So just because you don't go out you have it in for regular people who
DO have a life? What do you do - dine on caviar and champagne in an
oak-panelled basement while the rest of the world eats Cheetos in the
parking lot?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #43001 is a reply to message #42997] |
Thu, 14 March 2013 21:50 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Mar 14, 5:06 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>
>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> magic of cinema happens.
>>
>>>> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>
>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>> movie,
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>> Trek".
>>
>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>>
>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
>> so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>
>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>> in-name-only movies.
>
> Nope. The 2009 film was a great success by universal acclaim. Your
> widdle-boy basement opinions don't count for shit.
>
> Millions of fans enjoyed the flick and are awaiting the NEXT ONE.
> Entertainment - that's all it is.
>
> By the way, GO I love youRSELF!
Ya ya ya,......I hear the same self-righteous bullshit from politicians who
keep telling us the economy is booming too.
The economy is tanking, and so is the trek franchise, after these lastest
movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #43321 is a reply to message #43001] |
Sat, 16 March 2013 21:28 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 15, 10:50 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 5:06 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>
>>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>>>> > I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> > pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> > actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> > magic of cinema happens.
>
>>>> > Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> > trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> > And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> > So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>
>>>> 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> movie,
>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is a
>>> pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>
>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>> Trek".
>
>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it again.
>
>>>> and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>
>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any good,
>>> so they stupidly make another one.
>
>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>
>>>> And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>
>>>> The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>
>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>> in-name-only movies.
>
>> Nope. The 2009 film was a great success by universal acclaim. Your
>> widdle-boy basement opinions don't count for shit.
>
>> Millions of fans enjoyed the flick and are awaiting the NEXT ONE.
>> Entertainment - that's all it is.
>
>> By the way, GO I love youRSELF!
>
> Ya ya ya,......I hear the same self-righteous bullshit from politicians who
> keep telling us the economy is booming too.
> The economy is tanking, and so is the trek franchise, after these lastest
> movies.
No. The franchise is THRIVING. The recent film was a critical and
financial success.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #43338 is a reply to message #43321] |
Sat, 16 March 2013 22:10 |
Bast
Messages: 151
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:50 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Mar 14, 5:06 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>> In article <la%%s.220937$Q91.18...@newsfe26.iad>, P-Dub
>>
>>>> <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 3/9/2013 11:25 PM, Bast wrote:
>>
>>>> >> I'm not sure they were all in on the joke, but that bit was clearly
>>>> >> pre-taped, all they would have needed was a reaction shot of
>>>> >> actresses disgust to something else, edit it in quickly,...and the
>>>> >> magic of cinema happens.
>>
>>>> >> Of note was the kids who played kirk and uhura in the 2009 abortion
>>>> >> trek, were onstage later in the show as presenters.
>>>> >> And barely got any recognition at all.
>>>> >> So Shatner,...IS STILL, the one and only, James T. Kirk.
>>
>>>> > 2009 Trek was hardly an 'abortion'. It was a highly entertaining
>>>> > movie,
>>
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. That's purely an opininon, and arguing opinions is
>>>> a pointless stupidity since everyone's opinion is different.
>>
>>>> The fact is that it wasn't actually real "Star Trek", and even the
>>>> people making it said so - it was "new Trek", "garbagised Trek",
>>>> "reboot Trek", "Abrams' Trek", "pretend Trek", "Trek 90210", "Trek
>>>> Kids", "SmallTrek", "2009 Trek" ... but NOT even remotely real "Star
>>>> Trek".
>>
>>>> Like most other rebooted garbage, this "new Trek" is very unlikely to
>>>> last long before some other idiotic fool decides to "reboot" it
>>>> again.
>>
>>>> > and was quite popular. Why? Cause it was FUN!
>>
>>>> Nope. It was "quite popular" simply because it was the latest "big"
>>>> movie at the cinema. There's a massive number of stupid morons who go
>>>> to the cinema every Friday / Saturday night (and then go and booze
>>>> themselves stupider) simply because they can't think of anything else
>>>> to do. It makes no difference what the movie is - most of the time
>>>> they don't like what they see or don't even bother actually watching
>>>> it properly. These morons falsely boost box office numbers and mean
>>>> the idiots in charge blindly believe their movie is actually any
>>>> good, so they stupidly make another one.
>>
>>>> It has very little to do with being a good (or bad) movie, and
>>>> absolutely nothing to do with being a real "Star Trek" movie.
>>
>>>> > And Chris Pine makes a great Jim Kirk.
>>
>>>> > The Kirk character has evolved. Deal with it.
>>
>>>> Nope. The real Jim Kirk died along with real "Star Trek" when the
>>>> idiocy of the TV series "Enterprise" was dreamt up by the Beavis &
>>>> Butthead morons. Chris Pine's pretend Jim Kirk is a hopeless waste of
>>>> space and time, and is unlikely to last more than a few dismal
>>>> in-name-only movies.
>>
>>> Nope. The 2009 film was a great success by universal acclaim. Your
>>> widdle-boy basement opinions don't count for shit.
>>
>>> Millions of fans enjoyed the flick and are awaiting the NEXT ONE.
>>> Entertainment - that's all it is.
>>
>>> By the way, GO I love youRSELF!
>>
>> Ya ya ya,......I hear the same self-righteous bullshit from
>> politicians who keep telling us the economy is booming too.
>> The economy is tanking, and so is the trek franchise, after these
>> lastest movies.
>
> No. The franchise is THRIVING. The recent film was a critical and
> financial success.
If you tell yourself that about 6 more times,...I'll bet you might even
start to believe it.
|
|
|
|
| Trek Spotting!! [message #43339 is a reply to message #43338] |
Sun, 17 March 2013 00:31 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sunday afternoon! Sitting here watching "Die Hard 4.0" whilst I wait for
the F1 GP to start, when who should I see ..... while what should I
hear, really, (as I'm sitting here working on my computer) but the
dulcet tones of Tuvok (Tim Russ), playing one of the Good Guy FBI
agents. Seems he's only in it for one scene!! or did I miss him other
times??
Daniel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Trek Spotting!! [message #43340 is a reply to message #43339] |
Sun, 17 March 2013 00:32 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
> Sunday afternoon! Sitting here watching "Die Hard 4.0" whilst I wait for
> the F1 GP to start, when who should I see ..... while what should I
> hear, really, (as I'm sitting here working on my computer) but the
> dulcet tones of Tuvok (Tim Russ), playing one of the Good Guy FBI
> agents. Seems he's only in it for one scene!! or did I miss him other
> times??
>
> Daniel
>
Oops!! Thought I was starting a new thread, but hey ....
Daniel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars proves Kirk still matters [message #43341 is a reply to message #43338] |
Sun, 17 March 2013 00:50 |
YourName
Messages: 366
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ki38j1$7t2$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast" <fake_name@nomail.invalid>
wrote:
> Some brainless fool called MITO MINISTER spewed onto the screen:
>>
>> No. The franchise is THRIVING. The recent film was a critical and
>> financial success.
>
> If you tell yourself that about 6 more times,...I'll bet you might even
> start to believe it.
If it's said fast enough, it might even be possible to get all the way
through without bursting into laughter, or tears. ;-)
Anyone with more than a single braincell know the Star Trek franchise is a
confused mess. The real "Star Trek" franchise is dead. The pretend "Star
Trek" now in it's place is just a sub-franchise, at best.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
