From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: fakename{at}nomail.invalid
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness



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.
>
> Daniel





Sadly you are correct.
Like everything else nowadays, a well known product name, no longer denotes 
any expected quality, just  more cheaply sweatshop-made overpriced crap.

But that's why after 40 years, I no longer claim to be a "trekkie", as the 
farther I distance myself from those newer movies, the better.
...I even managed to hang on through the public humiliation of the voyager 
and enterprise years,....but there ARE limits. 


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux