| Author |
Message |
Johnny_Turbo |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 06:51 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 5216
Location: Chillville, PA
Status: Offline
|
|
I just looked up J.J. Abrams on IMDB. Did you see what he looks like?? My God, what a total GEEK! And what has he been involved with in the past? JUNK! Mindless, lowest common denominator, superficial, hackneyed doggerel! Felicity? Oh, give me a freaking break! Lost?, with all the those loser, jailbird actors? Puh-lease! Alias? Another lame show catering to the mind-numb masses. Armageddon? What a waste of money that was!
He's just this stupid little imp. A twit. A geek. A little loser and a poser. Maybe that's a good term for him--Twirp Poser. Even if people happen to see this movie and it makes a profit, it's gonna suck! Maybe it's a good thing Shatner isn't involved. He has made good judgement calls in the past, so maybe he saw this piece of crap for what it is.
J.J. looks like Ernie from My Three Sons! Chip or Robbie would've been a better choice for director. |
_________________
C'mon, The Tanner, check his I.D.
Last edited by Johnny_Turbo on Jun 13, 2008 - 07:07 PM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
morgram |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 07:05 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 2905
Status: Offline
|
|
| Well said, very well said. |
_________________
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Turbo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 07:10 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 5216
Location: Chillville, PA
Status: Offline
|
|
| morgram wrote: | | Well said, very well said. |
Morgram, do you think this J.J. Abrams looks like Ernie from My Three Sons?
That just did it for me. I'm not going to see this one. Someone could hand me a pirated DVD of the movie and I still wouldn't watch it! |
_________________
C'mon, The Tanner, check his I.D.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
morgram |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 08:01 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 2905
Status: Offline
|
|
 You think Abrams looks like a geek. Take a gander at this twirp. This is an image of "TVLtheLink", TV Land.com`s resident PR bullcrapper. I will not be going to see trek 11 either. I`ll get it off the net while it`s in the process of tanking at the box office. I`m sure the spectacular multi-million dollar cgi will afford me some breathtaking wallpapers. Paramount has earned the everlasting enmity of old line trek fandom.....and that`s exactly what they`re gonna get! |
_________________
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Turbo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 09:14 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 5216
Location: Chillville, PA
Status: Offline
|
|
| morgram wrote: | | You think Abrams looks like a geek. Take a gander at this twirp. This is an image of "TVLtheLink", TV Land.com`s resident PR bullcrapper. I will not be going to see trek 11 either. I`ll get it off the net while it`s in the process of tanking at the box office. I`m sure the spectacular multi-million dollar cgi will afford me some breathtaking wallpapers. Paramount has earned the everlasting enmity of old line trek fandom.....and that`s exactly what they`re gonna get! |
That guy looks geeky and a little pompous, too! I'm just glad I can watch old movies like The Drop Kick from 1927 that has John Wayne when we was playing football for USC.
I'd even rather watch this movie than the New Star trek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpCWJnnWVI |
_________________
C'mon, The Tanner, check his I.D.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 09:26 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 9284
Location: Living in the NOW
|
|
| Johnny_Turbo wrote: | You know, not having Shatner in the new movie is just an UGLY thing to do. There's no other word for it...well, maybe UGGLE, but that's it. They're ugly people living in an uggle world, having uggle kids and destroying the planet.
You wanna blame someone for ruining the franchise, along with the planet? Blame those who think William Shatner doesn't deserve a big role and a big chunk of the profits..TAX FREE, by the way. These people don't have a clue and I refuse to watch an UGLY movie. This is more ugly than that one chick on Sex in the City. |
After the nasty treatment of Clayton Moore years ago and the subsequent bomb of the new Lone Ranger movie, one would think they would have learned a valuable lesson. DONT MESS WITH OUR HEROS!!!!! |
_________________
"The best sermons are never preached.
They are shown to others through example."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
morgram |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2008 - 09:41 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 2905
Status: Offline
|
|
| Sci-fi geeks never learn. That breed has been misreading star trek since the 1970s. THEY think we want Aldous Huxley instead of "wagon train to the stars". |
_________________
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2008 - 06:17 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 9284
Location: Living in the NOW
|
|
This is what happened when someone messed with Clayton Moore:
In 1979, the owner of the Ranger character, Jack Wrather, obtained a court order prohibiting Moore from making future appearances as The Lone Ranger. Wrather anticipated making a new film version of the story, and did not want the value of the character being undercut by Moore's appearances, nor anyone to think that the 65-year-old Moore would be playing the role in the new picture. This move proved to be a public relations disaster of the first order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Moore
As I said, Don't mess with our heros! We may see a repeat of history.  |
_________________
"The best sermons are never preached.
They are shown to others through example."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Iowagirl |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2008 - 09:40 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Germany, UFP
Status: Offline
|
|
Bill belongs in this film - he was, is, and always will be Kirk.
Abrams' cat-and-mouse game and the lame "excuse" he finally tried to sell were more than pathetic. If he actually doesn't incorporate Bill into the film, I for one will strike it off my shopping list.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
morgram |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2008 - 11:43 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 2905
Status: Offline
|
|
| Iowagirl wrote: | Bill belongs in this film - he was, is, and always will be Kirk.
Abrams' cat-and-mouse game and the lame "excuse" he finally tried to sell were more than pathetic. If he actually doesn't incorporate Bill into the film, I for one will strike it off my shopping list. |
Yeah, nothing pisses me off more than some Hollywood geek who thinks they no more about the human condition than us (the peasants). His excuse for not being able to put Bill in his misbegotten cgi-dependent crapfest stinks. Abrams says something like "Well, we looked at it from all angles and there was just no way to incorporate Kirk into the story". Who the hell do these Hollywood prongs think the hell they are! Geniuses and we`re all stupid out here!? Paramount has been catering to TNG at the expense of all things TOS for far TOO LONG! They write off the generation of people who kept star trek alive after it`s cancellation. We bought the paperbacks. We bought the tech manuals and leather-cased blueprints, fan mags, etc. Then, what happens? They pay us off by urinating on us!, by killing off James T. Kirk! Well, paramount better continue to value their precious generation-x Tng audience......because they`re the only ones who are going to go to the theatres to see their damn movie! |
_________________
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2008 - 02:23 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Posts: 10237
Location: No Man's Land ;)
|
|
| morgram wrote: | | Iowagirl wrote: | Bill belongs in this film - he was, is, and always will be Kirk.
Abrams' cat-and-mouse game and the lame "excuse" he finally tried to sell were more than pathetic. If he actually doesn't incorporate Bill into the film, I for one will strike it off my shopping list. |
Yeah, nothing pisses me off more than some Hollywood geek who thinks they no more about the human condition than us (the peasants). His excuse for not being able to put Bill in his misbegotten cgi-dependent crapfest stinks. Abrams says something like "Well, we looked at it from all angles and there was just no way to incorporate Kirk into the story". Who the hell do these Hollywood prongs think the hell they are! Geniuses and we`re all stupid out here!? Paramount has been catering to TNG at the expense of all things TOS for far TOO LONG! They write off the generation of people who kept star trek alive after it`s cancellation. We bought the paperbacks. We bought the tech manuals and leather-cased blueprints, fan mags, etc. Then, what happens? They pay us off by urinating on us!, by killing off James T. Kirk! Well, paramount better continue to value their precious generation-x Tng audience......because they`re the only ones who are going to go to the theatres to see their damn movie! |
Prongs? As in stick a fork in it and it's done, prongs? Good word. Right now in our home we've been calling every geeky little spazz we see a "nub". We like that...nub. I think that ol' J.J. is a nub....nub.. |
_________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Joe |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Put Shatner In New Trek Film NOW!
Posted: Jun 15, 2008 - 11:06 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 26, 2002
Posts: 1111
Status: Offline
|
|
| jpc1701 wrote: | ...
Abrams argued, "You and I could come up with dozens of ways [to resurrect Kirk], but every way that we came up with felt like it was transparently fanboys trying to get Shatner in the movie."
... |
Is JJ totally ignorant of the franchise? it's a fiction with so many temporal anomalies it even had a whole season of Enterprise regaling the tales of the temporal police. That they (the temporal police) didn't go back in time and save Kirk (the most renown star ship captain ever) from a totally stupid death and bring him back safely to their future time (where he'd have no effect on the timeline) seems "fanboy", as apparently such things become every day occurrences.
To me it seems odd that they didn't go save him. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 15, 2008 - 11:41 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 3413
|
|
| I've been thinking about that whole deal in "Generations" and have come to the conclusion that Kirk is alive in the nexus. So is Picard. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Piglet |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2008 - 12:20 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Colchester, England
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm just sad  I wish he was in it too...Science Fiction is all about using your imagination. They just haven't got any.... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
morgram |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2008 - 12:22 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Posts: 2905
Status: Offline
|
|
| MG wrote: | | I've been thinking about that whole deal in "Generations" and have come to the conclusion that Kirk is alive in the nexus. So is Picard. |
THE PROBLEM is that Kirk is not alive in the minds of paramount execs. |
_________________
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
