From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

In article ,
"Daniel47{at}teranews.com"
 wrote:

> Your Name wrote:
> > In article , "Bast"

> > wrote:
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >>> In article ,
> >>> nyc2001{at}nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 12:17:08 +1200,
YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article
,
> >>>>> nyc2001{at}nuttyyahoo.isr wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
> >>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:07:06 PM UTC-4,
> >>> wheresou...{at}israels.wars wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You misspelled, "retarded".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just saw the film a second time, and
actually can't complain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Looks like a set up for a bit of
Managerie and Search For Spock
> >>>>>>> (now Search For Pike?).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spock's mind meld with the dying Admiral pike.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Khan blood being so good for reviving
dead characters.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And maybe... Carol Marcus is already
pregnant by the end of the
> >>>>>>> film?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some trouble with Tribbles next up?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The debut of Christine Chappel?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whatever, dude.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I thought it sucked hickory smoked horse
buttholes from a cup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See my review (05-26-13).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow! You're being mighty generaous ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just that kind of guy.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Abrams' so-called "Star Trek" doesn't
reach even those 'heights' of
> >>>>> quality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope you didn't pay to see it.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. I'll never pay to see Abrams' so-called "Star
Trek" crap and I
> >>> won't even bother watching it when it eventually plays on
one of the
> >>> free TV channels. I'm dreading the mess the useless moron
will probably
> >>> make of the "Star Wars" franchise too.  :-(
> >>
> >> But saying you will never even watch it, only makes you look silly.
> >> There are plenty of sources on the web to download copies for
free, other
> >> than wasting a bit of bandwidth. And then delete it after you watch it.
> >
> > It would probably take years to download via my dial-up connection with a
> > limited amount of online time per day.
> >
> >> I did,...and neither one of the Jar Jar Binks/Abrams Star
trek films were
> >> keepers, so badly made, they got wiped after one viewing,...dispite the
> >> pennies it would have cost in hard drive space to have archived them.
> >>
> >> ....Not even worth the price when they are FREE.
> >
> > I've read and seen enough to know Abrams' so-called "Star
Trek" movies are
> > just ill-fitting "reboot" garbage. As above, I won't
even waste my time
> > watching them when they play on a free TV channel.
> 
> How small-minded are you??
> 
> The Abrams' films are not "so-called "Star Trek"
movies", they are "Star 
> Trek" movies. Maybe they don't fit into your blinkered view of what is 
> "Star Trek" and what isn't "Star Trek", but they
are "Star Trek", at 
> least as far as the people who own the rights to that term are concerned.
> 
> Makes you, and others with similar opinions, seem very childish!
> 
> IMHO, of course.

If I owned the Mona Lisa then I have the "rights" to draw a moustache and
glasses on it because I believe it looks better that way ... that doesn't
make it the correct, moral, nor intelligent thing to do.

What is and isn't "Star Trek" isn't defined by me. It was defined by the
person who created it, and the people who properly added to it ... not
some egotistcal moron like Abrams who thinks he knows better how it should
be done.

Slapping the words "Star Trek" into the title and stealing the vague core
idea doesn't make it actually fit within the established franchise. 

The supermarket thinks bananas are no longer selling "well enough", so
they decide to "reboot" them. They make a new item that is round like an
orange, and tastes like a lemon, and has a stone like a peach ... but it's
still a fruit and yellow, so they they still call it a "banana". That's
completely ludicrous! And yet it's exactly what Hollyweird does, and most
people blindly believe it's still a "banana".

In reality what the supermarket does is simply stop selling bananas and
make / find the new fruit with a new name, "Lemange", to sell instead.
That's what any intelligent company would do. Anything else defies all
common sense, logic, and intelligence. It also makes naming things rather
pointless. :-(

Abrams' movies (and whatever follows them) are not and will NEVER EVER
EVER be real "Star Trek" ... at best it's a sub-franchise people have to
call "Abrams' Star Trek", "Star Trek 2009", etc. to try
and make it clear
they don't mean the original and REAL "Star Trek". Beavis &
Butthead's own
idiotic attempt at a "reboot", the "Enterprise" series
is also not and
never will be real "Star Trek".

With the exception of a few continuing books and a couple of well-made fan
films,  real "Star Trek" died with the end of Voyager.  :-(
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux