Star Trek: One More Time

[Synthaholic]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.

You poor cuck. Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!

Safe space? You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass! Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!! It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.

You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors. Just hide, like your gut tells you.

Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!

You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread. Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.

 

[WillMunny]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.

You poor cuck. Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!

Safe space? You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass! Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!! It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.

You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors. Just hide, like your gut tells you.

Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!

You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread. Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.

You delusional fuck, it's not fear, it's disgust, you Skittle-brained abomination. Welcome to my ignore list, because you are such a repugnant, stalker-insect, you feel the need to harass me over STAR TREK, of all things????? You cancer-deserving rectal problem, I never want to hear from a sniveling, sissified UNBELIEVABLY STUPID bugs I've ever seen. Fuck you with a cactus unlubed, stay the fuck away from me, odious little menial in every aspect of life.

 

[WillMunny]

Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series? The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail. They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original. And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.

they have some pretty poor casting on that series on YT.....sulu with bags under his eyes?....lol....they did not do justice to uhura either.....

Are you sure that wasn't the other YT fan series, "Star Trek Phase 2"? They're two different original Trek fan series that were on YT at the same time by two different groups of people. But "Star Trek Continues" has the better acting between the two and had far, far more coherent, sensible story-telling and plots. If you watch both, Star Trek Continues really seems like the more professionally polished of the two.

In other words, "Star Trek Continues" Vic Mignogna is a 10000000x better, more exact Captain Kirk than "Star Trek Phase 2" James Cawley as Kirk.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

 

[Montrovant]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Actually, you want to see a good recent Star Trek series? The YouTube fan series "Star Trek Continues" starring Vic Mignogna as an exact clone of Shatner in every detail. They use the sets/uniforms/music/production values of the original Star Trek so it feels identical to the original. And the story lines are so ambitious it's the best homage to the original Star Trek I've ever seen. They have at least a dozen episodes on YT and you can tell they put a lot of time and energy into it.

they have some pretty poor casting on that series on YT.....sulu with bags under his eyes?....lol....they did not do justice to uhura either.....

Are you sure that wasn't the other YT fan series, "Star Trek Phase 2"? They're two different original Trek fan series that were on YT at the same time by two different groups of people. But "Star Trek Continues" has the better acting between the two and had far, far more coherent, sensible story-telling and plots. If you watch both, Star Trek Continues really seems like the more professionally polished of the two.

In other words, "Star Trek Continues" Vic Mignogna is a 10000000x better, more exact Captain Kirk than "Star Trek Phase 2" James Cawley as Kirk.

let me check it out.....maybe i am looking at 2

 

[Montrovant]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture. I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay. I thought it was a well-made stupid movie. I liked The Postman, and that won in 97. Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk. Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.

 

[WillMunny]

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture. I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay. I thought it was a well-made stupid movie. I liked The Postman, and that won in 97. Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk. Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.

I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars. The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated. Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish. I still respect Halle Berry excitedly accepting her Razzie for Catwoman; when she got up on stage she said the reason she was there is because, "if you can't be a good loser, you can't be a good winner."

 

[Montrovant]

Try Lou Ferrigno's Hercules.

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture. I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay. I thought it was a well-made stupid movie. I liked The Postman, and that won in 97. Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk. Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.

I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars. The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated. Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.

I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally. I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.

 

[WillMunny]

Hudson Hawk!

Worst Movie Ever!

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture. I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay. I thought it was a well-made stupid movie. I liked The Postman, and that won in 97. Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk. Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.

I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars. The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated. Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.

I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally. I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.

The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003. It was a larger-than-life epic so poignant that some scenes made me cry.... but don't worry, they were manly, macho tears, LOL!

 

[jon_berzerk]

looks like a waste of time

 

[deanrd]

Will you watch?

I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series. The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.

'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide

The Federation is a coalition organization filled with diversity.

The Klingons are racist. They are like Republicans with science. Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

 

[Montrovant]

Hudson Hawk? It's been many years, but I don't remember it being that bad.

It won razzies because it was so bad!

Bruce Willis had some bombs early in his career and that was one...

I disagree with quite a few of the Razzies for worst picture. I didn't mind The Adventures of Ford Fairlane; it was a stupid movie, but that's what you get with Andrew Dice Clay. I thought it was a well-made stupid movie. I liked The Postman, and that won in 97. Star Trek V may have been the worst of the Trek movies, but it didn't deserve to be named worst movie of the year.

And there are plenty of other winners for worst picture that I definitely would put below Hudson Hawk. Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Showgirls, those are some craptacular movies.

I don't always agree with the Razzie choices either but I still think they're a lot more accurate than the Oscars. The majority of Razzie-winners are movies which deserve to be hated. Like John Trasholta's Battlefield Earth, another movie too loathsome to finish.

I don't pay attention to the Oscars generally. I wouldn't be surprised if they are less accurate, though.

The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003. It was a larger-than-life epic so poignant that some scenes made me cry.... but don't worry, they were manly, macho tears, LOL!

I thought the first movie was the best of that trilogy. The second and third both dragged a bit. Usually I think movies need more time, to flesh out characters or further develop the plot, but the second and third LOTR movies actually could have used some cutting.

 

[Synthaholic]

You poor cuck. Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!

Safe space? You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass! Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!! It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.

You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors. Just hide, like your gut tells you.

Cretin, I still don't know what Social Justice Warriors and my opinion of them have THE FUCK TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I PERSONALLY LIKE A CERTAIN STAR TREK!!!

You're the one who injected your fear of SJW into this thread. Now you're upset that I noticed and called you out for it.

You delusional fuck, it's not fear, it's disgust, you Skittle-brained abomination. Welcome to my ignore list, because you are such a repugnant, stalker-insect, you feel the need to harass me over STAR TREK, of all things????? You cancer-deserving rectal problem, I never want to hear from a sniveling, sissified UNBELIEVABLY STUPID bugs I've ever seen. Fuck you with a cactus unlubed, stay the fuck away from me, odious little menial in every aspect of life.

Whew! Glad I won't have to see his whiny bitch ass any more!

 

[Synthaholic]

The Klingons are racist. They are like Republicans with science. Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.

I'd vote for a Klingon over a Republican any day.

Klingons have honor.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I was very excited for the new series when they announced Fuller as show runner. After he left I became less so. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked horrible.

What makes it look horrible (to me) is that it is supposed to take place in the prime universe, but looks like the Abram's Trek. It is also supposed to take place before TOS, but looks like it takes place after.

I don't understand why they picked a time so close to one of the series especially the original.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Klingons are racist. They are like Republicans with science. Only we know, Republicans don't believe in science.

I'd vote for a Klingon over a Republican any day.

Klingons have honor.

They also don't suffer fools. Just a thought.

 

[Montrovant]

I was very excited for the new series when they announced Fuller as show runner. After he left I became less so. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked horrible.

What makes it look horrible (to me) is that it is supposed to take place in the prime universe, but looks like the Abram's Trek. It is also supposed to take place before TOS, but looks like it takes place after.

I don't understand why they picked a time so close to one of the series especially the original.

I was excited because of Fuller, too. When he moved on to American Gods, I became worried.

One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.

Which is why I didn't understand their choice in setting.

On another note:

It has been reported that CBS hired Nicholas Meyer to do something Star Trek. I am wondering if he is developing a new series just in case/when it fails.

I saw that they have "first reactions" but don't see well known Trekkies like Dan Murrell or Scott Collura, or a well known TV critic like Alan Sepinwall.

I am going to watch at least the first episode. I subscribe to All Access anyway since getting rid of cable for the few shows my wife and I watch.

I just get the feeling that CBS at this point are taking the money and running. I just wonder if Netflix will file a law suit.