Originally posted by Kinneary
I don't like how you had to read the comics either, but lets be honest, they did have to jam a lot in there. And since most people loved the movie despite the (minimal) plot that was missing, I think it's an acceptable omission.
I haven't read the comic miniseries and yet, found the movie great. Might that if I did get my hands on the intro comics, I'd find some scenes even more enjoyable but as it stands, the movie does well enough as stand-alone .. and I'd be prepared to say that a LOT of not-fanatic-fans and most every oh-a-Star-Trek-movie-should-I-really-go-and-see-that-? watcher isn't even aware of the comics' existence and yet, there are a LOT of them who nevertheless loved the movie. So .. I don't feel that you need to read the comics to get the movie, not at all.
@Robtard's video - LOL!
Originally posted by Silke
I haven't read the comic miniseries and yet, found the movie great. Might that if I did get my hands on the intro comics, I'd find some scenes even more enjoyable but as it stands, the movie does well enough as stand-alone .. and I'd be prepared to say that a LOT of not-fanatic-fans and most every oh-a-Star-Trek-movie-should-I-really-go-and-see-that-? watcher isn't even aware of the comics' existence and yet, there are a LOT of them who nevertheless loved the movie. So .. I don't feel that you need to read the comics to get the movie, not at all.@Robtard's video - LOL!
agreed
I found the movie to be ok....entertaining...but oh the plot was so.....dull,i thought Carl Urban/Leanard Mcoy...was the best out of all of them...by far!...i was not sold on the alternate reality effect of the story...or better yet the way it was handled....but as a movie that entertains.....it does it job.....i would rather have had new stories set in the time after TNG/Voager etc...i dont feel the excitement that a sequel would produce for a movie i enjoyed allot...so where they go from here is interesting....i would still like to see Star Trek movies based on TNG/DS9/Yoyager...and even after the shows....but thats just me
Originally posted by dadudemon
Silly newb. His question was not addressed to you.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=508219&pagenumber=3
Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=508219&pagenumber=3
😆
Exactly what I'm talking about. ✅
Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=508219&pagenumber=3
You've quoted the wrong page, I think. What Dadoucheman is so upset about is that I had the gall to point out that I wasn't addressing him specifically even though he chose to respond as though I were. This offends his sense of e-superiority, which is likely the only place he finds any solice in the size of his shrunken and un-satisfactory member. The page I think you would be better served by quoting is the one where I explain to him that I asked a specific member a specific question and then had to further explain that his participation in answering that question wasn't the point; only that his assumption of providing an answer didn't mean it was the answer, much less the answer provided by the person being asked the question based on their personal involvment. See, much like many people on this forum, he thinks that by slapping his chubby, man-breasted fingers against the keys on his desktop, he is providing the indesputible and unquestionable answers to questions that weren't even asked of him. Tragically, his only response is to claim victory in a debate that was never a debate or to call the other person names or to bait them via third party quoting because his posts are so banal and counter-productive that he's been placed on ignore. However, in this case, he isn't wrong. I asked JP what she meant by wicked awesome, not because I am unfamiliar with the term or its meaning, but because I don't understand why she thinks it's wicked awesome; a compound term meant to imply that it is more than either wicked or awesome. So, I'm wondering what she, specifically, means by using the term 'wicked awesome' to describe this above-average and better-than-most Star Trek movie. I enjoyed this movie, but I think there are several examples of Star Trek movies that surpass it in terms of quality.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
You've quoted the wrong page, I think. What Dadoucheman is so upset about is that I had the gall to point out that I wasn't addressing him specifically even though he chose to respond as though I were. This offends his sense of e-superiority, which is likely the only place he finds any solice in the size of his shrunken and un-satisfactory member. The page I think you would be better served by quoting is the one where I explain to him that I asked a specific member a specific question and then had to further explain that his participation in answering that question wasn't the point; only that his assumption of providing an answer didn't mean it was the answer, much less the answer provided by the person being asked the question based on their personal involvment. See, much like many people on this forum, he thinks that by slapping his chubby, man-breasted fingers against the keys on his desktop, he is providing the indesputible and unquestionable answers to questions that weren't even asked of him. Tragically, his only response is to claim victory in a debate that was never a debate or to call the other person names or to bait them via third party quoting because his posts are so banal and counter-productive that he's been placed on ignore. However, in this case, he isn't wrong. I asked JP what she meant by wicked awesome, not because I am unfamiliar with the term or its meaning, but because I don't understand why she thinks it's wicked awesome; a compound term meant to imply that it is more than either wicked or awesome. So, I'm wondering what she, specifically, means by using the term 'wicked awesome' to describe this above-average and better-than-most Star Trek movie. I enjoyed this movie, but I think there are several examples of Star Trek movies that surpass it in terms of quality.
😆 😆 😆
HOLY SHIT! You typed all of that out!?!?!?!?? (Only thing I saw as "dadouchemon" so you're probably pissed about something.)
I ain't readin' all of that, yo. I merely pointed out that he rudely responded to a question not posed to him. I was hoping you would back me up. Is that what you did above? You of all people should be backing me up. ✅
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
You've quoted the wrong page, I think. What Dadoucheman is so upset about is that I had the gall to point out that I wasn't addressing him specifically even though he chose to respond as though I were. This offends his sense of e-superiority, which is likely the only place he finds any solice in the size of his shrunken and un-satisfactory member. The page I think you would be better served by quoting is the one where I explain to him that I asked a specific member a specific question and then had to further explain that his participation in answering that question wasn't the point; only that his assumption of providing an answer didn't mean it was the answer, much less the answer provided by the person being asked the question based on their personal involvment. See, much like many people on this forum, he thinks that by slapping his chubby, man-breasted fingers against the keys on his desktop, he is providing the indesputible and unquestionable answers to questions that weren't even asked of him. Tragically, his only response is to claim victory in a debate that was never a debate or to call the other person names or to bait them via third party quoting because his posts are so banal and counter-productive that he's been placed on ignore. However, in this case, he isn't wrong. I asked JP what she meant by wicked awesome, not because I am unfamiliar with the term or its meaning, but because I don't understand why she thinks it's wicked awesome; a compound term meant to imply that it is more than either wicked or awesome. So, I'm wondering what she, specifically, means by using the term 'wicked awesome' to describe this above-average and better-than-most Star Trek movie. I enjoyed this movie, but I think there are several examples of Star Trek movies that surpass it in terms of quality.
I was trying to quote the thread where you asked someone else a question and DDM jumped in and responded, thought it was that one.
Originally posted by dadudemonI ain't readin' all of that, yo. I merely pointed out that he rudely responded to a question not posed to him. I was hoping you would back me up. Is that what you did above? You of all people should be backing me up. ✅
And I was pointing out that you did the very thing you accused me of, ergo, the mantle of hypocrite is lain across your slopping shoulders. "Pwned"?
Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, you can't suck my dick, don't care how much you beg via PM. Sorry, just don't swing that way, it is flattering though.Also stop sending me nude pictures.
Just get a zoom tool so you can see it. Better yet, copy the image and paste it into MS Paint and you might be able to see it if you zoom in. Trust me, it's there.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
I asked JP what she meant by wicked awesome, not because I am unfamiliar with the term or its meaning, but because I don't understand why she thinks it's wicked awesome; a compound term meant to imply that it is more than either wicked or awesome. So, I'm wondering what she, specifically, means by using the term 'wicked awesome' to describe this above-average and better-than-most Star Trek movie. I enjoyed this movie, but I think there are several examples of Star Trek movies that surpass it in terms of quality.
Simply put, I meant that it was the best movie I had seen in a long, long time. Lots of action. lots of fun and a few nice call backs to the original series that I watched back in the 60's. You dont have to agree with my assessment but in my opinion it was indeed "wicked awesome." As far as Im concerned the ONLY other Trek film that competes with it is Wrath of Kahn which up to now has been my favorite but I think this reboot is going to surpass that.