I watched Star Trek as a kid when growing up.

It's not my fault I know it like the back of my hand.

Any more than I know the Bible due to my upbringing.

Star wars one to three would have been better if there was less boring meetings and sitting and more Jedi vs Sith action.
1 to three explained how it was set up but 4 to 6 were better.
The need to make more a old republic (Jedi vs Sith (Darth Revan for example))
I like the New Star trek, it was better then the old ones and was more realistic (I don't care how many trekkies I offend, grow up) but I will always prefer Star Wars over Star Trek.

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Star wars one to three would have been better if there was less boring meetings and sitting and more Jedi vs Sith action.
1 to three explained how it was set up but 4 to 6 were better.
The need to make more a old republic (Jedi vs Sith (Darth Revan for example))
I like the New Star trek, it was better then the old ones and was more realistic (I don't care how many trekkies I offend, grow up) but I will always prefer Star Wars over Star Trek.

Meh. I think the first three were going to suck balls no matter what. George Lucas is a greedy moron.

The new star trek? Really? You're into the whole concept of time travel completely destroying the premise of every single star trek film and episode that came before and replacing them with films where fetuses take charge of the enterprise?
Just seems like a lazy way to reboot the whole franchise and rake in some more cash to me.

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: I like the New Star trek, it was better then the old ones and was more realistic

The derp is strong with this one.

Apparently twenty-something angst and drama is "real" while a set of relatively mature actors who have only their interactions with each other to make the screen compelling isn't.

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: I like the New Star trek, it was better then the old ones and was more realistic

Kirk in 24th century fruit of the looms may tickle your realism fantasies, It does not mine.

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: (I don't care how many trekkies I offend, grow up) but I will always prefer Star Wars over Star Trek.

Takes brass to admit to liking Star Wars more and then tell others to grow up.

(September 21, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: You haven't shown why Romulans using Borg technology necessarily entails an unavoidable contradiction to canon. The event happened at least 10 years after Voyager. There's plenty of wiggle room for writers, or... you know that thing called IMAGINATION.

There is also something called making bullshit up and shoveling it into others mouths...

Explain the difference between writing new Star Trek stories and "bullshit"? Explain how they're different in your mind. You haven't demonstrated any sort of contradiction to the canon that cannot be plausibly reconciled in the Romulans adapting Borg technology.

Quote:As I said, Seven of Nine adapted Borg Technology to Voyager for their use.

The rest was done de novo by the Federation.

Remember Arturus's Quantum Slipstream drive (the plot device so powerful the writers invented a horrible destabilization with?)? Voyager reimplemented that stuff from scratch.

So what? There wasn't a slipstream drive on Nero's ship.

Quote:

(September 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Their backstory is part of canon. It was mentioned in several Star Trek episodes. And now you're unfairly quarantining the "canon" to only that of Star Trek written from 1966 (or 64 if you include the pilot) to 2005. New things cannot be made canon after 2005?! If there was a TNG episode that had a Vulcan getting angry, you'd be ok. But since there are new writers now in control, they can't have the same freedom?!

Quote:You're full of shit.

And you like to bang little tribbles.

Quote:I cited a Vulcan committing violence in Sarek (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sarek_%28episode%29), however indirect.

It validates the backstory without him going apeshit.

Violence isn't the same as an emotional outburst.

Let's look at the evidence I put forth:

1. Vulcans were once a very emotional people, more so than humans. If they don't control their emotions through years of training, they can be savage. This is supported by several episodes. Just because they're mentioned as back stories does not make it non-canonical.

2. Spock is half human.

3. Spock planet was destroyed.

4. Spock's mother was killed.

Quote:Next point: Spock attacking Kirk due to influence by Omicron Ceti III spores (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/This_Sid...episode%29).

It is pathetic that you must resort to painting me as some freedom restrictor, when I'm objecting to the new writers sticking their goddamn dick into the franchise and calling it warp speed!

All of these citations of Vulcans going crazy due to diseases are irrelevant. It does not rule out a single Vulcan (out of billions) getting emotional (certainly not a half-human vulcan).

(September 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I've offered plenty of reasons why that could happen. You're just being willfully ignorant.

Quote:I've got a consistent set of storylines, character development and plot that backs up a preponderance of evidence for the Vulcan character reacting in a particular manner.

All you can do is come up with HUMAN answers, not answers constrained to what we have WRITTEN about VULCANS.

Keep your Terrans and Vulcans straight.

Or can you?

I cited what was written about vulcans. You seen saw fit to make up some new criteria of canonicity because you were proven wrong.

We certainly know how 99 percent of Vulcans would behave 99 percent of the time. But that doesn't entail that they will always behave that way. And certainly when you factor in partial human biology, persistent discrimination, and a recent tragedy, the chances of a Vulcan behaving differently from the norm would be much greater.

Quote:

(September 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Sisko is fully human. And as I explained Vulcans can be more easily controlled by their emotions if they don't undergo their traditional training. This is not a fair comparison.

But you feel justified in coming up with a human reaction to a Vulcan tragedy.

It's not an exclusively human reaction. Many species could react that way. Vulcans normally don't only because of training.

Quote:How about another data point, when Spock heard the deaths of his fellows during the Immunity Syndrome (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Immu...episode%29).

What did he do?

He partially collapsed, exhausted, showing a shocked expression. He sounded worn, tired.

That is how Spock reacted to death on a large scale that he could hear telepathically -- a little bit like Obiwan Kenobi needing to sit down after Alderaan is destroyed.[quote]

Again, you're citing an older Spock. The tragedy isn't even as near as big as losing an entire planet anyway.

Quote:

(September 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Compared to other Vulcans, Spock always had a bit of a human personality in TOS and especially in the first six movies. And you're comparing two different Spocks, one Spock who never lost his home planet, and one who had and also got to meet a much older and wiser version of himself.

Obviously, things are going to be a little different. I don't expect it to very different however.

Quote:That's a lie on the older and wiser part.

Spock has made jokes several times. In the movies, his strict commitment to cold logic was much less severe.

Quote:I have cited the Spock FIVE YEARS from the supposed Star Trek (2009) movie taking place in the time line.

I have cited his fellow Vulcans and their reactions.


In essence, I keep on citing entire episodes.

You have not cited anything that contradicts my points.

Quote:The burden of proof is on YOU, tegh, to explain the redevelopment of Spock and his actions.

I have explained it. There's hardly been any sort of "redevelopment" in the first place. There was never a young version of Spock featured in any past movies or episodes (unless you want to count the infant Spock in Star Trek V).

Quote:And so far, my citations outweigh yours and my tracing of analogous events has been far larger than yours.

Again, none of it contradicts my points.

Quote:You're just a Star Trek (2009) Apologist...

Accept J.J. Abrams into your heart so that you may enter the glory of his lens flair!

---

(September 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I watched Star Trek as a kid when growing up.

It's not my fault I know it like the back of my hand.

Any more than I know the Bible due to my upbringing.

So have I.

(September 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: J.J. Abrams into your heart so that you may enter the glory of his lens flair!,

Twenty fourth century lenses don't suffer from flares, thus JJ Abrams is a imposter . Q.E.D.

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Star wars one to three would have been better if there was less boring meetings and sitting and more Jedi vs Sith action.

The only thing wrong with the three festering piles of crap Lucas called "prequels" is they needed to be totally scrapped and re-written. And then executed with a better casting choice for Anakin. Other than that...

(September 21, 2012 at 10:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Star wars one to three would have been better if there was less boring meetings and sitting and more Jedi vs Sith action.

The only thing wrong with the three festering piles of crap Lucas called "prequels" is they needed to be totally scrapped and re-written. And then executed with a better casting choice for Anakin. Other than that...

The only thing that should have been done was to have him take no part in their production.

I don't understand the hate for the prequels. They were just as stupid as the originals.