[Jason Vines]

I believe Star Trek is too compelling a universe to die even after strings of bad movies and shows. It might go to sleep every once in a while, but the concept will always be interesting enough to awaken it for new and old audiences. So come what may, I fear not for the fate of Star Trek.

That said, I am skeptical of the idea of recasting Captain Kirk and Mister Spock with different actors. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy have defined those roles for generations of viewers. Unless J.J. Abrams can find actors as talented as Ewan MacGregor, who masterfully channeled Sir Alec Guiness as Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars prequels, I don't think many people will like this movie.

BTW, I've added a poll about this subject on the front page of Hypersyllogistic.

[Cymro]

First off, let me just point out that Manny Coto did nothing to help Enterprise except a tiny increase in writing quality and plenty of masturbation material for continuophiles. Once the "Cool, it's Data's ancestor and some leftover supermen from the Eugenics Wars", "Wow, so THAT's why the Klingon forehead is different", and the entertainment factor of watching evil Archer wears off, season 4's not much of an improvement.

Second, comparisons between this and Enterprise simply because of it's status as a prequel are completely unfounded. Enterprise didn't fail because it was a prequel, it failed because it sucked ass, it was poorly written, it suffered from exactly the same problems that Voyager did, and Voyager started off with what most consider a good premise. It's like saying that Voyager sucked because it was a sequel, and thus DS9 and TNG sucked too, and most would agree that it simply isn't the case. And you yourself, Scorned have made a huge habit of blaming all Trek's problems on Berman. Well Berman's out, so now it isn't all his fault anymore? Of course not, the failure of the Trek franchise is mostly attributed to him.

People got up in arms because Spock would die in STII when 25 years later the film is widely considered Trek's finest and the Death and Eulogy scenes are for many, the best part of the entire film.

People got up in arms when they announced TNG, saying it would fail, it would suck. Many argue over the quality of TNG, but it certainly didn't fail, in fact it was such a success it paved the way for 3 more spin-offs and 4 more movies.

People said DS9 would never work because it was on a space station. It's popularity dropped over time, mainly thanks to additional competition in the market that was a direct result of TNG's success. The series earned plenty of acclaim from both fans and critics, many fans often citing it as their favourite.

People are saying XI will fail both the fans and the box office because of it's premise. Well, considering how wrong people's kneejerk reactions have been in the past with Trek, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic. I like the premise, I like the producer, and I love that Berman (and Braga) has been booted.

The truth is, whether you like what's been announced or not, it's far too soon for us to be able to tell how it'll turn out. Optimistic or Pessimistic, every arguement falls apart at this point.

[Jason Vines]

Scorned, on Apr 23 2006, 06:25 PM, said:

I disagree. As it stands doing a prequel movie after the prequel series failed is the wrong direction.

I don't think Enterprise failed because it was a prequel. Its opening numbers were great, proving viewers were interested in a Star Trek series set before the others. People only started shunning Enterprise after they found out it sucked.

[Cymro]

Quote

I would disagree. Manny Coto brought ENT back in line with some of the known Trek continuity. He brought in a style of Trek that hadn't been seen in years. His enthusiasm for Trek was very noticeable unlike the hatred for it by B&B. We didn't get any "dogs in sickbay" episodes. We saw Maywheather and Hoshi a bit more.

And in place of B&B's hate we got your standard fanboy wet dream fare, it still had nothing substantial to it. Methinks you were so used to getting fed shit that when that shit got a bit tastier you mistook it for a gourmet feast.

Quote

I would consider the 3 part Vulcan clean up story along with "Terra Prime' to be far more than just "tiny increase in writing".

I'd consider it a really crappy attempt at fixing what their mistakes with stuff that should have gotten the continuophiles screaming, and probably did, though I wasn't looking at the time.

Quote

ENT was poorly developed and written. Filled with some of the worst Trek episodes. However it was a prequel series which ultimately failed. It has left a bad taste in the mouths of Trek fans (ie 12 million down to 3 million). So going back doing more prequel garbage is not going to do anything. People will just say "more prequel nonsense". So ENT has ruined anything "prequel" in Trek. So the obvious decision is to move forward. Not rehashing the past.

Ah but Voyager, Insurrection and Nemesis moved forward, and they also left a very rotten taste in people's mouths, and Paramount would probably screw a continuation up anyway.

Quote

How is it a habit to blame much of Trek's problems on Berman? He is in charge. He gets the credit and he also gets the blame. I have not made all of Trek's problem solely his fault. I have also pointed out many times the problem with the management of Paramount with regards to Trek. Quote:' Well Berman's out, so now it isn't all his fault anymore? " What does this mean? They haven't done anything since ENT was cancelled.

So were Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis bad because Rick Berman was the showrunner, or was it because they were all prequels? Or was it the studio? Or was it their concepts? I'm confused.

Quote

Again you are misinformed. After TMP no one thought of more movies. Nimoy was tired of Spock and wanted the character killed. The death of Spock did not "get people up in arms". I don't know where you get this from. You have to remember the time and what was going on with Trek. Also what does this have to do with rehashing Kirk and Spock in the Wonder Years?

I got it from the special features on the STIII Special Edition DVD. The fans who all wrote in when they heard the rumour thanks to leaks to convention-goers by a very bitter Roddenberry.

Quote

Who said this? Who are "these people"? Again what does this have to do with rehashing Kirk and Spock in the Wonder Years? DS9 was "based" on Trek. It didn't rehash characters in a Dawsons Creek/90210 way.

Where is this Creek/90210 thing coming from?

Again, fan letters.

Quote

So in other words you will just wait to see if the speed car hits the kid? The fan reaction to this idea is justified because it is a silly idea.

I like the idea, feel free to put devil horns on my profile pic. And I've yet to hear an arguement for why it's a bad idea that isn't contingent on assumptions.

Quote

I have nothing against Abrams but having Lost doesn't mean he can do Trek. They should of booted B&B years ago. As for the premise it is a joke.

We have no way of knowing either way. So far he's got a pretty good track record, but only time will tell.

Quote

I disagree. As it stands doing a prequel movie after the prequel series failed is the wrong direction.

I disagree, as it stands doing a seqel movie or series after the last sequel movie failed is the wrong direction.

[Jason Vines]

Scorned, on Apr 24 2006, 03:06 AM, said:

Quote:" I don't think Enterprise failed because it was a prequel. Its opening numbers were great, proving viewers were interested in a Star Trek series set before the others. People only started shunning Enterprise after they found out it sucked. "

That is true however ENT was known as a prequel. I am going to be repeating myself but this prequel show ruined any other chance for prequel material. No matter who develops it or who writes it. It is "prequel" and most Trek fans that walked away from ENT are not going to be interested.

One could say the same thing about Star Trek in general. (That's why Paramount should have waited a few more years before doing another Star Trek production, IMO. Let time wash out the bitter taste of the last few poor efforts, and let nostalgia build up for Star Trek once more.)

[Cymro]

Quote

That is true however ENT was known as a prequel. I am going to be repeating myself but this prequel show ruined any other chance for prequel material. No matter who develops it or who writes it. It is "prequel" and most Trek fans that walked away from ENT are not going to be interested.

The same goes for the last two sequel movies and the last series.

Quote

ENT S4 was hardly a fanboy's wet dream.

So why do you like it then?

Quote

The 3 part Vulcan "clean up" episodes were very well done. The Mirror Mirror episode was ok. But it wasn?t really done. There was more story to it. (Remember they did this Mirror Mirror in DS9 as well.)

The Vulcan episodes were as boring as hell and still suffered the same problems of the rest of the series, it was one of the worst season 4 multiparters. And of course, Archer would have to be the vulcan messiah. . Stop deluding yourself.

The mirror episode was fun, nothing more. Mere escapism for a dying series.

Quote

Some stuff has to be there.

Did I deny this? Nope

But Noonien Soong's grandpa allied with Khan's superembryos?, an episode dedicated to explaining the Klingon forehead thingy? and Orion slave girls. Come on.

Quote

Well you can consider what you want. But on the whole fan reaction to was positive. I am basing this on the reviews I read from fan websites.

Yes, because ultimately the die hard fans who kept watching Enterprise during the dire first 3 seasons are the best judges of quality television.

Quote

was a fix at a very bad portrayal of the Vulcans which didn't make any sense and was completely lacking. However the fix were good episodes. You could clearly tell by the writing that they wre done by people who knew and understood the idea of "being Vulcan".

But they apparently misunderstood the idea of "good television" .

Quote

I am not denying that long time fans caught all the mistakes in continuity.

Yet none complained about Archer being the vulcan messiah?

Quote

It was the ego and laziness of B&B that allowed the previous sloppy episodes to be made.

And now they're gone, so you've concocted another excuse to predict that the next project will be bad.

Quote

VOY was a not a failure. It ran for 7 seasons. INS did not lose any money. Nemesis made very little money. It need international release to brake even. Mind you the release date of Nemesis and the lack of promotion is what really killed it.

Yet none were particularly popular with the fanbase, I'm getting this from my experiences with fan reviews, not to mention the falling ratings for Voyager, and the dismal box office return for Nemesis. Enterprise's cancellation didn't leave a bitter taste in anyone's mouth, that was a business decision by UPN. The lack of quality made it loose viewership, and that's why it was cancelled. Similarly, Nemesis got trashed by nearly anyone and I'm affraid the name "Star Trek" being attatched to something isn't enough to sell it anymore. Remember, the fans hated Nemesis and Voyager, so that means they won't watch sequel series or movies (/scorned reasoning).

Quote

(I am really liking how you are trying to nit pick everything I say with the hopes of starting a fight with me.)

Of course, because when I poke holes in your arguement, it's "nitpicking". In order to be disagreeing with you, I must want to challenge you to internet fisticuffs. Don't mess with me, or I'll call you nasty names in 1337!!!!!

Quote

Huh? Well we clearly saw that Manny Coto kept continuity. He even tried to repair it. So getting someone who likes Trek is essential. But going backwards and rehashing Kirk and Spock with the wonder years theme is going to be better than ENT? VOY? Nem? They need to go forward. Jump everything into the 25th century and start a new.

Don't be daft! Everyone knows paramount will just screw up whatever they do, no matter who they bring in or what time period and characters they use.

Quote

Again how does this justify the ?Wonder Years? idea?

How does this justify the 25th century idea? Are you seriously looking forward to exploring the galaxy in old people uniforms with transphasic torpedoes and funky ablative armour? Where trasporters are so small you could hide one in your belly button?

Quote

What are you talking about? VOY was not a failure. You didn't like VOY but it ran for 7 seasons and it made money. I liked DS9 but I didn?t think it was best Trek series. INS made money and Nemesis made very little. The decline in Trek was because the team running it was out of ideas and direction. The studio didn't change anybody or bring in new writers. THAT is why. Both B&B and the studio are too blame.

I didn't say Voyager was a failure, I said it was bad and it's popularity declined, just like the sequel movie franchise.

So now that the studio has got rid of B&B and replaced them with a competent writer/producer/director, who's fault will it be when this next one sucks?

Quote

So INS made $57 million, NEM made $26 million. Hell, STV made $30 million. Star Trek movies are not noted for making $150 million per movie. Be a little realistic.

One can still buy a ticket to a movie and not enjoy it, and not want to see the sequel.

Quote

So? This doesn't explain your over exaggeration of the "fans were upset" bit. How many fans were there? Who were these fans? The same ones that made STII a hit and thus paved the way for more Trek?

The fan response wasn't from just the people at the con. The rumour spread and the studio recieved thousands of letters complaining about it. And the part about those complaining fans making STII a hit only proves my point, even though back in them days a greater portion of the viewers were casual fans. Odds are most of the people complaining about this film will watch it anyway out of curiosity, the same way Broken Bow pulled TNG ratings even though the two preceding series ended with much less viewers than that.

Quote

The fact remains that yes there were probably some fans who were upset and made comments about STII having Spock die along with what TNG would be about. But these numbers were not a large as you make them out to be.

And the number of fans outraged by this and proclaiming they'll boycott it isn't as large as you make it out to be either.

Quote

TNG mind you was based on TOS. It didn't rehash out Kirk and Spock. Picard is not Kirk. The characters are completely different. You didn?t see TNG having ?young Kirk? in the academy. TNG moved forward and was successful.

And since the young Kirk idea has never been done before, predictions of it sucking are premature as there's no basis for comparison in the context of Trek. The Star Wars prequels were all successful even though I've only encountered one Star Wars fan who liked any of them.

Quote

A young Kirk meets a young Spock, what else.

Yes, because a movie involving young people will automatically be like 90210 and Dawson's Creek. Now THAT's a waterproof arguement!

Not.

Quote

Clearly, things went well for Stewart. And again, what does your point have to do with going backwards approach with "STXI: The Wonder Years"? You seem to be jumping all over the place desperately looking to find a point.

That's what happens when I mimmick your arguement strategy. Calling it Star Trek 90210 or Star Trek: The Wonder years is entirely conjectural. And your kid in front of a truck scenario is flawed. What you're doing is more like criticising a painting that hasn't been started yet because you disagree with the artist's choice of canvas, even though you admit the artist has proved he knows how to paint.

Quote

I don't plan too nor do I want too. You don?t have to get all mad and sarcastic about not being able to make a point. You may like the idea but it doesn't mean you have made a solid argument for it in your case.

I'm not the one getting mad here. I can't make a solid arguement for it, as I admitted in my original post, I'm simply pointing out you can't make a solid arguement against it, which you continue to contest even though you've yet to present an arguement that isn't full of holes, which you dismiss as "nitpicking". So far we have a producer and a two sentence premise, we simply don't have enough information at this point. You could be right, it could suck, but there's nothing to prove it except conjectural claims of continuity breaches(from Trekweb alumni) and comparisons to 90210. Certainly, as a media trend, bringing back pop culture icons is proving rather successful, perhaps not always in quality, but in marketability, which is what Trek needs right now. Bond, Doctor Who, Batman, Spiderman, Superman, X-Men, Star Wars, Starsky & Hutch.

Quote

Then I think you better go reread what I wrote because I clearly have. Unless you possess the powers to look into the future ALL the fan comments about this idea are conjecture and assumptions. However my opinion (and those of other) are based on good reason. I have used the fact of 12 million viewers down to 3 million, quoting Jolene. In your case I have heard nothing but "I like the idea". You have not justified in anyway an overall fan deserve to see "The Wonder Years'. Saying "I like it" doesn't mean anything. For all I know you could buy anything with the words "Star Trek" on it without questions. Regardless if it is good or not. You could be one of those people who goes and wastes $12 bucks on Friday The 13th Part 20 movies. I don?t know your movie habits. Fan criticism of this movie idea have been with good reason. I have yet to see anyone who is for this crazy movie idea explain to me that if fans of Trek are not liking this idea then what on Earth would possess non Trek fans into liking it? Fans mind you, that have made Star Trek a cultural icon for over 40 years supporting 10 movies and 5 series.

I like the idea of seeing Kirk, Spock (and Bones) again, because they are two of my favourite characters. Judging from the producer's history, I see no reason to assume this will be a bad movie, and I especially see no reason to assume that it will be Star Trek 90210. "The fans" are a diverse group with diverse opinions, and one group of them has to be wrong. We won't find out which until 2008.

Quote

May I also remind you that the argument of "getting new fans" is irrelevant. Either people Sci-Fi or don't, dramas, horror or don't. etc. I don't think you are in the habit of watching every movie in the genre of "The Bridget Jones Diaries". Are you? Studios make movies for certain groups of audiences. Case in point. Not everyone is going to go out and see horror movies but they are still made for the horror film fans. But either most of the time you either like horror movies or you don't. Has your grandmother gone to see Saw II yet? The same goes true for Sci-Fi like Star Trek. How many people have you heard in your life say "I don't like this Star Trek stuff". The key word is "stuff". It is a dislike to "space, future etc". Chances are they like some other kind of style of movie.

Yeah, but there are plenty of people who are open to such things, it's why Star Wars and Star Trek are both mainstream hits, as opposed to just genre ones.

Quote

To be honest, no you don't really know. However using some common sense helps. Common sense dictates that after the free prequel Trek series was cancelled due to low ratings (ie a loss of fan interest) that there is little hope that someone is willing to pay $12 bucks to sit through 2 hrs of a "prequel movie" about the "first time Kirk meets Spock" is actually going to be a hit. Lets face facts. We both can agree that STXI NEEDS to be a hit and this idea does nothing to even suggest that.

Common Sense also dictates that with the pop culture status of Kirk, Spock and Bones, as well as the fact that the movies featuring those characters were more successful with both the fans and at the Box Office, that they have more pulling power than any new characters ever would.

Quote

NOW we get this..
STXI: Young Kirk while dealing with pressures of college life, sits on a bench reading a book and says Hi to young Vulcan as he walks by.
STXI: Young Kirk while dealing with pressures of college life sits next to a young Vulcan in the cafeteria and shares a milk with a young Vulcan

STXI could be about the fallout of the collapse of the Romulan empire which has destabilized to the point of a potential war. BUT NO you want "teen drama".

Conjecture and assumptions again with nothing to back it up. This is all the evidence we have so far:

The proposed story will focus on the early days of James T. Kirk and Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission in space.

Quote

Having a good track record does not mean you are going to get good Trek. Should we get David Chase from the Sopranos to do another Trek movie? He has a good track record. I again say that I have nothing against Abrams but just because he has done "Lost" doesn't mean you are going to get good Trek. Right now he is the flavor of the month. Shall I mention the success of (ACADEMY award nominee) John Logan and the mess known as Nemesis?

Again, this is only one side of the arguement. People with good track records don't always make good Trek, but that's no reason to assume this one won't.

Quote

The idea of "time will tell" is nothing more than sitting by the road, doing nothing as the truck comes racing down the road towards the child.

Hysterical nonsense. You don't agree with the brand of canvas, so you're condemning the painting..

Quote

There were many reasons why Nemesis failed, not just one.

I thought Nemesis didn't fail?

There are many reasons why Enterprise failed, not just one.

There is no reason why another prequel would not work.

Quote

as we have seen going forward after a bad movie was not a reason to rehash the past or recast.

Yeah, but what about two bad movies?

Quote

Hence doing STVI after the lack luster of STV.

Hence doing Nemesis after the lackluster of Insurrection.

As I've said, we don't have enough information at this point, and all your arguements are way too easy to counter.

[Jason Vines]

Please leave personal matters to e-mail or private messaging. Thank you.

By the way, Scorned, using quote tags, like so:

[quote]stuff[/quote]

would help make your posts more readable.

[Cymro]

If you cannot see the fallacy of your logic even when you're pointing it out to me, god help me I don't have the patience to keep trying.

[Cymro]

Anyone who sticks to their guns and says "Star Trek 90210" isn't an assumption doesn't deserve my time. And you're right, I've repeated myself several times now when I say I don't have an arguement for it, but you don't have one against it. Try employing the same critical thought of your own arguements as you do to mine (i.e. realising that my arguements ARE your arguements, except turned on their other side).

Oh, and this bickering over what I mean by "bad" is pathetic, when it's clear that with Trek's declining viewership and financial success with it's last few projects; Voyager, Insurrection, Nemesis, that the fans were dissolussioned with the sequel products too, it's not just me, it's a fact that there's been a steady decline in viewership since before Enterprise even went on the air. The simple fact that the network decided to kill the show doesn't leave anymore a bitter taste in anyone's mouth than Nemesis or Voyager, the people still didn't like what they were seeing with either project.

And repeatedly telling me that I'm a fan that accepts anything with the name "Star Trek" on it doesn't make it true, it just makes you more wrong.

Have a good one.

Administrator's note: Please do not take personal rivalries from other forums onto this one. Thank you.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 25 April 2006 - 09:41 AM

[tomba1701]

Quote

Administrator's note: Please do not take personal rivalries from other forums onto this one. Thank you.

Amen. Please keep up the enforcement on this, I would hate to see the animosity and bile of Trekweb spill over to this place, which has so far been a shining beacon of rationality and good discussion.

[Cymro]

I didn't return to Trekweb until well after Scorned was banned, there's no spillover from Trekweb. Rationality ends when someone condems a movie being made by someone who specialises in conspiracy theories and espionage as "Star Trek 90210" because it features people in their early twenties, and compares an entertainment franchise to a child about to be hit by a lorry.

[Jason Vines]

Cymro, on Apr 25 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

I didn't return to Trekweb until well after Scorned was banned, there's no spillover from Trekweb. Rationality ends when someone condems a movie being made by someone who specialises in conspiracy theories and espionage as "Star Trek 90210" because it features people in their early twenties, and compares an entertainment franchise to a child about to be hit by a lorry.

Be that as it may, I wish to highlight this from the forum rules:

Forum Rule Number One said:

Do not flame (insult) your fellow posters. These forums are a haven of civilized discussion.

I try to be lenient in moderation policies, as I don't want these forums to become an overprotected nanny state. But that is one rule on which I will not budge. I don't want these forums to degenerate into a haven of flaming, no matter how silly some of us might find each other's arguments. I established these forums to be a refuge from that.

[Cymro]

As far as I know, I have been respecting that rule (difficult as that may be at times).

[Cymro]

Quote

What about people who say STXI: The Wonder Years instead? If not then STXI: Saved By The Bell?

Or how about you just call it Star Trek XI, since you don't know what it's going to be about.

Quote

I made a good point based on reasonable facts/ideas/assumptions. You just told me

You did not make a good point because it was based on assumptions with no base in fact, a blind guess, stab in the dark.

Quote

"I like the idea" and I am somehow suppose to believe that will make it all right.

I also said there's not enough information to make a proper judgement about the movie at this point. I like what I've heard so far, maybe you don't but my original point stands. Is English really so hard for you to understand?

Quote

"I like the idea, I like Kirk and Spock characters" doesn't.

Don't fuck around, that wasn't my arguement, and it certainly wasn't all I told you. My arguement was that the declining audience and revenue from the most recent sequel products would, by your logic mean that another sequel would be a bad idea. Enterprise was a failure from a financial point of view, but regardless of it's premise, it was just continuing the trend Voyager started. In fact, your own arguement that most fans enjoyed Enterprise's last season, and that the season in particular was the only one that did what a prequel was supposed to do would seem to suggest that the fanbase is not closed off to prequels.

Tip of the Day: Taking quotes out of context doesn't make you smart. Just an observation.

Quote

The prequel series was cancelled and didn't do well. Going on with more prequel nonsense after 9 million viewers tuned out is not a smart way to go!

Nonsense? I thought you liked Season 4, the *real* prequel season! Now we get back to square one, prequel or no, this is totally different to Enterprise. Enterprise was to TOS what "The Silmarillion" was to "The Lord of The Rings", while this movie will be more like if Tolkein had released "The Hobbit" after LOTR. Besides that you aren't really giving much credit to the intelligence of the viewers, most people who were turned off by Enterprise were turned off by the weakness of it's writing, not it's premise. The negative fan reaction I've seen has all been about continuity and concern (which I share) about casting Kirk and Spock. and of course the rediculous "Trek 90210" kneejerk, of which there is no evidence, considering the information we have about this project, and the person running it. Please remind me when Abrams wrote for 90210, saved by the bell or Dawson's River.

And would you suggest we go for more sequel nonsense after the millions of viewers Voyager and DS9 lost? The drop in profits from First Contact to Nemesis?

Quote

And I believe you do see the logic in that one. If people didn't like VOY it would't of been on the air for 7 years.

3 million people were still watching Enterprise by the end. And as I've said, Voyager lost millions of viewers too, there are millions of other Trekkies who feel the same way as I do. Enterprise continued the trend, had Enterprise begun in 1995 and Voyager in 2001, I'd bet Enterprise would have lasted 7 seasons and Voyager 4. It's a a steady curve of viewers losing patience with the franchise.

Oh, and the very fact that Enterpise started with higher ratings than Voyager kinda proves people are open to trying new things.

Quote

already told you that the decline of Trek was clearly due heavy on the management of Star Trek. The show runners were tired and were out of ideas.

And now we have a new showrunner.

Quote

Fan criticism of ENT fell through the floor during ENT S4 because Coto took over.

So the fans liked the last season because it had a new manager because it had a new manager and a lot more tie-ins to TOS? Hmmm...that sound's familiar.

Quote

Just an observation on my part.

What's baffling is that you could make such an observation when I've already told you I like the premise, and I'm cauciously optimistic about the film (and you've quoted me saying it several times in the wrong context).

Quote

You are over reacting on this one. However I gave a good reason for STXI to be a dud.

No, YOU are overreacting. You're the one getting bent out of shape and making all sorts of unprovable assumptions about a film which we have a whole two sentences of information about, and hasn't even been officially announced yet. And you've yet to show me any evidence as to how "The proposed story will focus on the early days of James T. Kirk and Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their first mission in space." reads anything like "Focuses on the pleasures and problems of a group of rich children who go to West Beverly High School.", and which episode Dylan and Brandon went on their first mission anywhere, let alone in space.

Quote

I didnt' compare Star Trek to the child in the road. I gave the scenerio which compares the actions and attitude of todays Trek fans who have this very annonying "Lets sit back do nothing, say nothing and wait and see, if it is done right" attitude. What is a lorry? I believe I said an on coming truck.

Now who's nitpicking words?

The problem is, I don't see a lorry(English for truck), so the comparison doesn't really work. I don't think this is going to hurt Star Trek. I see it more like hiring a new babysitter. She could go psycho and kill my child, but I'm confident that won't happen.

And how hard is it to use quote tags? There's even a button for them.

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 25 April 2006 - 04:10 PM