Discussion:
Why Time Travel Stories Are A Buzzkill
(too old to reply)
Y***@usay.com
2012-03-14 13:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.

Now to the news:


Girls' Time Travel Attempt Leads To Suicide In China
Time

First Posted: 03/ 9/2012 5:21 pm Updated: 03/ 9/2012 5:34 pm


Two schoolgirls in China have committed suicide in an attempt to
travel back in time.

The girls decided to end their lives after one of them lost a remote
control to a door, China Daily reports, via People's Daily. Xiao Hua
told her best friend and fellow classmate, Xiao Mei, that she was
worried about coming clean to her parents. The names are reportedly
pseudonyms.

In an effort to avoid potential consequences, the girls allegedly took
inspiration from a popular television show and committed suicide to
travel back in time.

They left notes explaining their decision before jumping -- and
subsequently drowning -- in a pool.

In a note obtained by the Shanghaiist.com, one of the girls explained
her reasoning for her rash decision by writing: "In my life, I have
two secret wishes. One is to time-travel back to Qing Dynasty and
shoot a film with the emperor, and the other is to travel to outer
space," the Christian Post reports.

The chain of events has raised concerns about the influence of media
on young children, and the State Administration of Radio, Film and
Television has placed restrictions on airing certain shows between 7
p.m. and 9 p.m., according to People's Daily.

But some aren't too sure about the story.

Anna North, a writer for Jezebel, observes that the article seems to
highlight the apparent dangers of time travel-centered shows. She
wonders whether the government had an influence on the direction of
the article.

China Daily is a state-owned paper, described by the Committee to
Protect Journalists as "straitlaced." People's Daily Online is the
website of People's Daily, which until recently described itself as
"the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China" — it now
offers a more circumspect description: "one of the world's top ten
newspapers." It's possible that Huang and China Daily were under
pressure from the government to paint the girls' suicide as a direct
result of the evil influence of time travel.

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal points out that media experts in
China have also indicated officials might have not been crazy about
the "themes of the shows, which centered on escaping discontent in the
current era to journey back in time to a better life."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/teens-time-travel-attempt-fatal-deadly-die-suicide-china_n_1335487.html
Wiseguy
2012-03-15 23:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.

Whether you like it or not.

Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 02:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 02:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
YOW is a moron, not wise guy. Then again....
Wiseguy
2012-03-16 05:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek"
because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
YOW is a moron, not wise guy. Then again....
Responding to yourself? Misspelling the same word? Please see a
dictionary...and a psychiatrist.
Wiseguy
2012-03-16 05:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek" because
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.

Yow?

Learn how to type.
Y***@usay.com
2012-03-15 06:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek" because
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now. Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Wiseguy
2012-03-16 09:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek" because
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now. Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover? He apparently
whispers all his thoughts to you. I can't believe two people could be
so stupid.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 11:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek"
because
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now.  Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover?  He apparently
whispers all his thoughts to you.  I can't believe two people could be
so stupid.
You are the one obsessed with TOS. I come in here at times and just
laugh at you people. Silly morons! I laugh at your interest in an SF
TV show. I laugh at your willingness to tolerate TPM's BULLSHIT.
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 00:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the
hands a hundred times.  They should have called this reboot
"Trek"
because
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now.  Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover?  He apparently
whispers all his thoughts to you.  I can't believe two people could
be so stupid.
You are the one obsessed with TOS. I come in here at times and just
laugh at you people. Silly morons! I laugh at your interest in an SF
TV show. I laugh at your willingness to tolerate TPM's BULLSHIT.
I am not obsessed with TOS. I don't own any TOS DVDs and only have a few
episodes (4) on VHS purchased years ago. I haven't seen the 2009 movie
yet. I don't tolerate TPM, I plonked her sometime ago. Give me a good
reason why I shouldn't do the same to you.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 11:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the
hands a hundred times.  They should have called this reboot
"Trek"
because
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now.  Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover?  He apparently
whispers all his thoughts to you.  I can't believe two people could
be so stupid.
You are the one obsessed with TOS. I come in here at times and just
laugh at you people. Silly morons! I laugh at your interest in an SF
TV show. I laugh at your willingness to tolerate TPM's BULLSHIT.
I am not obsessed with TOS. I don't own any TOS DVDs and only have a few
episodes (4) on VHS purchased years ago.  I haven't seen the 2009 movie
yet.  I don't tolerate TPM, I plonked her sometime ago. Give me a good
reason why I shouldn't do the same to you.
Why should I? As if I give a shit. This is the internet and you can
wise or lose any number of arguments. it don't matter none. You moron!
Obviously, you take all of this VERY SERIOUSLY! GOSH !
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 11:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:e9b8d645-012c-45df-84
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the
hands a hundred times.  They should have called this reboot
"Trek"
because
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk
and cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now.  Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover?  He
apparently whispers all his thoughts to you.  I can't believe two
people could be so stupid.
You are the one obsessed with TOS. I come in here at times and just
laugh at you people. Silly morons! I laugh at your interest in an
SF TV show. I laugh at your willingness to tolerate TPM's BULLSHIT.
I am not obsessed with TOS. I don't own any TOS DVDs and only have a
few episodes (4) on VHS purchased years ago.  I haven't seen the 2009
movie yet.  I don't tolerate TPM, I plonked her sometime ago. Give me
a good reason why I shouldn't do the same to you.
Why should I? As if I give a shit. This is the internet and you can
wise or lose any number of arguments. it don't matter none. You moron!
Obviously, you take all of this VERY SERIOUSLY! GOSH !
LOL
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 12:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:e9b8d645-012c-45df-84
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Y***@usay.com
news:06372e80-cfb6-41a2-8e29-423406561495
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the
hands a hundred times.  They should have called this reboot
"Trek"
because
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk
and cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Now, now.  Paramount probably called it "Yow" ...
Are you related to MITO MINISTER? Or just his lover?  He
apparently whispers all his thoughts to you.  I can't believe two
people could be so stupid.
You are the one obsessed with TOS. I come in here at times and just
laugh at you people. Silly morons! I laugh at your interest in an
SF TV show. I laugh at your willingness to tolerate TPM's BULLSHIT.
I am not obsessed with TOS. I don't own any TOS DVDs and only have a
few episodes (4) on VHS purchased years ago.  I haven't seen the 2009
movie yet.  I don't tolerate TPM, I plonked her sometime ago. Give me
a good reason why I shouldn't do the same to you.
Why should I? As if I give a shit. This is the internet and you can
wise or lose any number of arguments. it don't matter none. You moron!
Obviously, you take all of this VERY SERIOUSLY! GOSH !
LOL
LOL is worthless GEEK-SPEAK. Please use FEDERATION STANDARD!
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 11:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write
a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times.  They should have called this reboot "Trek" because
it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
Whether you like it or not.
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
TESTIFY! That's right! Yow is a MORON who cries over his milk and
cookies!
Please at least try to show some intelligence in your posts.
Yow?
Learn how to type.
Yow... The guy who hates Trek and time-travel.
Y***@usay.com
2012-03-15 06:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.

It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.

But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit. Uh, the audience decides that. Just like this.

You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?

But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.

Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Wiseguy
2012-03-16 09:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit. Uh, the audience decides that. Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Logic? Obviously you flunked logic class. I didn't say anything about
hits. You can't reply logically so now you're making stuff up.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
I didn't give my opinion. I said "Whether YOU like it or not." i was
talking to the original poster. Again, your lack of logical thought
simply astounds.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Now, you're just rambling. Please move out of your parents' basement
and get a life.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 11:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write
a
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit.  Uh, the audience decides that.  Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Logic? Obviously you flunked logic class.  I didn't say anything about
hits. You can't reply logically so now you're making stuff up.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
I didn't give my opinion.  I said "Whether YOU like it or not."  i was
talking to the original poster.  Again, your lack of logical thought
simply astounds.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Now, you're just rambling.  Please move out of your parents' basement
and get a life.
Rim shot. Yow: 2nd generation Chinese-American suburban dweeb.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-16 11:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit.  Uh, the audience decides that.  Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Yow is a nutcase. Itr's Trek if Paramount calls it Trek. Characters
can be the same or different.

Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even when performed by DIFFERENT
actors. You are a dweeb and a twerp. American suburbs, right?
Y***@usay.com
2012-03-16 03:40:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:29:15 -0700 (PDT), MITO MINISTER
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit.  Uh, the audience decides that.  Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Yow is a nutcase. Itr's Trek if Paramount calls it Trek. Characters
can be the same or different.
Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even when performed by DIFFERENT
actors. You are a dweeb and a twerp. American suburbs, right?
Look you stupid imbecile.

There is a PROFOUND difference between a group of actors performing a
play by Shakespeare and a group of actors pretending to be the
original actors who performed a Shakespearean play on a certain day.

This movie is just a bunch of lookalikes for the most part pretending
to be William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan,
etc. as THEY acted the original characters.

OTHERWISE, they wouldn't need to copy the look.

Plenty of actors have played Superman in films.

Not ALL of them have played the FIRST actor to play Superman.

They bring totally different characterizations, uh, to the characters,
despite the attempt to look like and in some cases to act like the
original actors' characterizations.

Your stupid attempts to deep throat what is thrust past your lips by
the studio says more about your "taste" than, uh, theirs.

Stupidity like yours is what studios bank on.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 11:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:29:15 -0700 (PDT), MITO MINISTER
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit.  Uh, the audience decides that.  Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Yow is a nutcase. Itr's Trek if Paramount calls it Trek. Characters
can be the same or different.
Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even when performed by DIFFERENT
actors. You are a dweeb and a twerp. American suburbs, right?
Look you stupid imbecile.
There is a PROFOUND difference between a group of actors performing a
play by Shakespeare and a group of actors pretending to be the
original actors who performed a Shakespearean play on a certain day.
This movie is just a bunch of lookalikes for the most part pretending
to be William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan,
etc. as THEY acted the original characters.
OTHERWISE, they wouldn't need to copy the look.
Plenty of actors have played Superman in films.
Not ALL of them have played the FIRST actor to play Superman.
They bring totally different characterizations, uh, to the characters,
despite the attempt to look like and in some cases to act like the
original actors' characterizations.
Your stupid attempts to deep throat what is thrust past your lips by
the studio says more about your "taste" than, uh, theirs.
Stupidity like yours is what studios bank on.
Ok. This is the internet. You win the argument. Happy now? Go ahead
and high-five...yourself. Moron!
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 12:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:29:15 -0700 (PDT), MITO MINISTER
Post by MITO MINISTER
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
But by your logic, every movie that Paramount calls a "hit" must also
be a hit.  Uh, the audience decides that.  Just like this.
You are such a corporate whore I bet you give group rates.
Post by Wiseguy
Whether you like it or not.
You mean you are in doubt?
But I'm not the only one; I hope someday you'll join us; then the
world will live as one.
Post by Wiseguy
Until Paramount sells you the rights to the name "Star Trek."
Keep chanting, "I don't own my culture" and smile and show teeth while
you bang your cymbals and spin your fez tassles while The Man winds
you up.
Drinking the DNA of authority is a life long ambition for you?
Yow is a nutcase. Itr's Trek if Paramount calls it Trek. Characters
can be the same or different.
Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even when performed by DIFFERENT
actors. You are a dweeb and a twerp. American suburbs, right?
Look you stupid imbecile.
There is a PROFOUND difference between a group of actors performing a
play by Shakespeare and a group of actors pretending to be the
original actors who performed a Shakespearean play on a certain day.
This movie is just a bunch of lookalikes for the most part pretending
to be William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan,
etc. as THEY acted the original characters.
OTHERWISE, they wouldn't need to copy the look.
Plenty of actors have played Superman in films.
Not ALL of them have played the FIRST actor to play Superman.
They bring totally different characterizations, uh, to the characters,
despite the attempt to look like and in some cases to act like the
original actors' characterizations.
Your stupid attempts to deep throat what is thrust past your lips by
the studio says more about your "taste" than, uh, theirs.
Stupidity like yours is what studios bank on.
Prove it!
Steven L.
2012-03-16 15:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.

By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century passed
away.

Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.

Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.




-- Steven L.
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 00:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Steven L.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century passed
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.
-- Steven L.
And Saavik was played by two different actresses in the same movie
series
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 00:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century
passed
Post by Steven L.
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd
season.
Post by Steven L.
-- Steven L.
And Saavik was played by two different actresses in the same movie
series
So the second actress was fake, right?
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 00:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:Jr6dnVoQgMsJwv7SnZ2dnUV
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.
 They should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't
Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  
But
Post by Steven L.
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century
passed
Post by Steven L.
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd
season.
Post by Steven L.
-- Steven L.
And Saavik was played by two different actresses in the same movie
series
So the second actress was fake, right?
You're confused. I was supporting the previous statement with another
example.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 11:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:Jr6dnVoQgMsJwv7SnZ2dnUV
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.
 They should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't
Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.
But
Post by Steven L.
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century
passed
Post by Steven L.
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd
season.
Post by Steven L.
-- Steven L.
And Saavik was played by two different actresses in the same movie
series
So the second actress was fake, right?
You're confused.  I was supporting the previous statement with another
example.
Who gives a fuck? This is just a newsgroup about a TV show. Get a
fucking grip on life, you moron!
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 11:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:7dd129ba-be8f-4d60-9a
Post by MITO MINISTER
innews:Jr6dnVoQgMsJwv7SnZ2dnUV
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.
 They should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't
Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar
characters.
But
Post by Steven L.
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century
passed
Post by Steven L.
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd
season.
Post by Steven L.
-- Steven L.
And Saavik was played by two different actresses in the same movie
series
So the second actress was fake, right?
You're confused.  I was supporting the previous statement with
another example.
Who gives a fuck? This is just a newsgroup about a TV show. Get a
fucking grip on life, you moron!
Obviously, you, since you responded so emotionally.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 00:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century passed
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.
-- Steven L.
Yow is a punk. He has never heard of Shakespeare. And I said it first!
Nyah!
Y***@usay.com
2012-03-16 03:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:43:17 +0000, "Steven L."
Post by Steven L.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century passed
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.
-- Steven L.
Verisimilitude vs. Xerox copying of an actor's acting style.

I can't get into a movie that makes it so obvious that I'm watching a
cheap copy of the original actors who played the characters.

My point is that in Star Trek (2009), you have a group of actors
chosen MOSTLY for their ability to succeed pretending to be the
original actors' appearance playing those characters.

Are they playing icons or characters?

You don't have to look like the first actor who played Superman to
play Superman. Sure, an actor may resemble some image of Superman in
mind. But if you got a George Reeves lookalike, I'd call foul, too.

To ape the very actor's mannerisms to the extent you are doing an
impression of him? WTF was up with McCoy?

You're telling me that in a NEW production of Star Trek, they had to
do an impression of DeForest Kelley MORE than acting the character?

Hell, they were able to reboot Hawaii Five O without having Steve
McGarrett be the spitting image of Jack Lord.

Know what I mean? The character is still Steve McGarrett.

It ain't like they are playing the character of Adolf Hitler and are
trying for REALISM.

AS far as I know, there never was nor will there ever BE a REAL James
T. Kirk, and pretending to be the very first actor who played him
doesn't give him more verisimilitude than imitating William Shatner in
a Priceline commercial while you wear a Star Trek uniform.

That's ALL I'm saying.

Sheesh.
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-17 11:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:43:17 +0000, "Steven L."
Post by Steven L.
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times.  They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't.  Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.  But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century passed
away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.
-- Steven L.
Verisimilitude vs. Xerox copying of an actor's acting style.
I can't get into a movie that makes it so obvious that I'm watching a
cheap copy of the original actors who played the characters.
My point is that in Star Trek (2009), you have a group of actors
chosen MOSTLY for their ability to succeed pretending to be the
original actors' appearance playing those characters.
Are they playing icons or characters?
You don't have to look like the first actor who played Superman to
play Superman.  Sure, an actor may resemble some image of Superman in
mind.  But if you got a George Reeves lookalike, I'd call foul, too.
To ape the very actor's mannerisms to the extent you are doing an
impression of him?  WTF was up with McCoy?
You're telling me that in a NEW production of Star Trek, they had to
do an impression of DeForest Kelley MORE than acting the character?
Hell, they were able to reboot Hawaii Five O without having Steve
McGarrett be the spitting image of Jack Lord.
Know what I mean?  The character is still Steve McGarrett.
It ain't like they are playing the character of Adolf Hitler and are
trying for REALISM.
AS far as I know, there never was nor will there ever BE a REAL James
T. Kirk, and pretending to be the very first actor who played him
doesn't give him more verisimilitude than imitating William Shatner in
a Priceline commercial while you wear a Star Trek uniform.
That's ALL I'm saying.
Sheesh.
The doctor character acted like McCoy. He did a good job. Deal with
it, you little punk. Now go and have some milk and cookies and stop
crying.
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 11:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:43:17 +0000, "Steven L."
Post by Steven L.
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to
write a good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive repeating an action like washing the hands a
hundred times. They should have called this reboot "Trek"
because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters.
But it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
Actors are irrelevant to the authenticity of the production.
By your reasoning, there have been no genuine productions of
Shakespeare's plays since his original cast from the 17th century
passed away.
Besides, there were cast changes even in TOS.
Chekov (played by Walter Koenig) was a new character for the 2nd season.
-- Steven L.
Verisimilitude vs. Xerox copying of an actor's acting style.
I can't get into a movie that makes it so obvious that I'm watching a
cheap copy of the original actors who played the characters.
My point is that in Star Trek (2009), you have a group of actors
chosen MOSTLY for their ability to succeed pretending to be the
original actors' appearance playing those characters.
Are they playing icons or characters?
You don't have to look like the first actor who played Superman to
play Superman. Sure, an actor may resemble some image of Superman in
mind. But if you got a George Reeves lookalike, I'd call foul, too.
To ape the very actor's mannerisms to the extent you are doing an
impression of him? WTF was up with McCoy?
You're telling me that in a NEW production of Star Trek, they had to
do an impression of DeForest Kelley MORE than acting the character?
Hell, they were able to reboot Hawaii Five O without having Steve
McGarrett be the spitting image of Jack Lord.
Know what I mean? The character is still Steve McGarrett.
It ain't like they are playing the character of Adolf Hitler and are
trying for REALISM.
AS far as I know, there never was nor will there ever BE a REAL James
T. Kirk, and pretending to be the very first actor who played him
doesn't give him more verisimilitude than imitating William Shatner in
a Priceline commercial while you wear a Star Trek uniform.
That's ALL I'm saying.
Sheesh.
The difference is the new Steve McGarrett is not the same Steve
McGarrett that Jack Lord portrayed. Or Danno or Chin Ho.
Do you honestly think Kono had a sex change operation?

The characters in the Star Trek movie were the same characters as in TOS
but at a younger age. It doesn't make the movie any less stupid but it
invalidates that argument.
Wiseguy
2012-03-17 00:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a
obsessive/compulsive
Post by Y***@usay.com
Post by Wiseguy
Post by Y***@usay.com
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
If Paramount calls it "Star Trek" then it's Star Trek.
No it isn't. Oh, it has a similar title and similar characters. But
it ain't Star Trek AT ALL.
It's a bunch of actors pretending to be the original actors.
That's idiocy. Actors don't pretend to be other actors. They pretend
to be other characters (possibly portrayed by previous actors). That's
their job. Look "actor" up in a dictionary. And look up "stupid" for a
picture of you.
Duggy
2012-03-17 10:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Hero of our nation.

===
= DUG.
===
Clarence
2012-03-17 18:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
Repeatedly using time travel because you are just too lazy to write a
good original story is like an idiot savant or a obsessive/compulsive
repeating an action like washing the hands a hundred times. They
should have called this reboot "Trek" because it ain't Star Trek.
Girls' Time Travel Attempt Leads To Suicide In China
Time
First Posted: 03/ 9/2012 5:21 pm Updated: 03/ 9/2012 5:34 pm
Two schoolgirls in China have committed suicide in an attempt to
travel back in time.
The girls decided to end their lives after one of them lost a remote
control to a door, China Daily reports, via People's Daily. Xiao Hua
told her best friend and fellow classmate, Xiao Mei, that she was
worried about coming clean to her parents. The names are reportedly
pseudonyms.
In an effort to avoid potential consequences, the girls allegedly took
inspiration from a popular television show and committed suicide to
travel back in time.
They left notes explaining their decision before jumping -- and
subsequently drowning -- in a pool.
In a note obtained by the Shanghaiist.com, one of the girls explained
her reasoning for her rash decision by writing: "In my life, I have
two secret wishes. One is to time-travel back to Qing Dynasty and
shoot a film with the emperor, and the other is to travel to outer
space," the Christian Post reports.
The chain of events has raised concerns about the influence of media
on young children, and the State Administration of Radio, Film and
Television has placed restrictions on airing certain shows between 7
p.m. and 9 p.m., according to People's Daily.
But some aren't too sure about the story.
Anna North, a writer for Jezebel, observes that the article seems to
highlight the apparent dangers of time travel-centered shows. She
wonders whether the government had an influence on the direction of
the article.
China Daily is a state-owned paper, described by the Committee to
Protect Journalists as "straitlaced." People's Daily Online is the
website of People's Daily, which until recently described itself as
"the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China" — it now
offers a more circumspect description: "one of the world's top ten
newspapers." It's possible that Huang and China Daily were under
pressure from the government to paint the girls' suicide as a direct
result of the evil influence of time travel.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journal points out that media experts in
China have also indicated officials might have not been crazy about
the "themes of the shows, which centered on escaping discontent in the
current era to journey back in time to a better life."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/teens-time-travel-attempt-fatal-deadly-die-suicide-china_n_1335487.html
Time travel is a mixed bag.
GeneK
2012-03-18 15:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@usay.com
The chain of events has raised concerns about the influence of media
on young children,
I would have thought that kids sufficiently worried about the consequences
of losing a remote that time travel becomes a viable option in their minds
would concerns about parenting.
GeneK
MITO MINISTER
2012-03-19 00:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by GeneK
Post by Y***@usay.com
The chain of events has raised concerns about the influence of media
on young children,
I would have thought that kids sufficiently worried about the consequences
of losing a remote that time travel becomes a viable option in their minds
would concerns about parenting.
GeneK
Try rewriting your sentence so that it makes sense. Also, go outside
and breathe some fresh air.

Loading...