there needs to be a word for that thing where you take a view you actually have, and then you blow it up to comically stupid levels to be silly on the internet

there needs to be a word for that thing where you take a view you actually have, and then you blow it up to comically stupid levels to be silly on the internet

 Nefudism?

there needs to be a word for that thing where you take a view you actually have, and then you blow it up to comically stupid levels to be silly on the internet

 I just want to be a big heapin' heppin' of your rage pie

there needs to be a word for that thing where you take a view you actually have, and then you blow it up to comically stupid levels to be silly on the internet

Pulling a rumpenheimer.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm...pie...

there needs to be a word for that thing where you take a view you actually have, and then you blow it up to comically stupid levels to be silly on the internet

Pulling a rumpenheimer.

 i like it

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

You will find them in your local piss-drenched library.

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

You will find them in your local piss-drenched library.

 Do they like have them on like audio cd and stuff because like I can't read?

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

 I can sell you the Books Of Ascension for five thousand dollars...

*inside Buffy joke to annoy Nefud*

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

You will find them in your local piss-drenched library.

 Do they like have them on like audio cd and stuff because like I can't read?B-but you read my post?

I want blueprints, charts, bibliographies, constellation cartography, footnotes within footnotes, lost texts, and outlines to use as a quick reference to guide my Ascension.

You will find them in your local piss-drenched library.

 Do they like have them on like audio cd and stuff because like I can't read?B-but you read my post?
No, I solicited a homeless man to read this for me and in return I can bathe him.
 

I solicited a homeless man

I solicited a homeless man

 I know I'm having a good Gazette day when Booth gives me the canine emoticon.  *blushes shyly*

I solicited a homeless man

 I know I'm having a good Gazette day when Booth gives me the canine emoticon.  *blushes shyly*
 That dog looks like he knows something.

I solicited a homeless man

 I know I'm having a good Gazette day when Booth gives me the canine emoticon.  *blushes shyly*
 That dog looks like he knows something.
 That's Booth's ****-eating grin.  Another Boothian classic is the guffawing canine emoticon.  Guffaw.

I think the new film operates so far outside of the realm of the other ten films that it would do a disservice to both the new film and the old ones.

 After I saw the "new" Trek, (which, as others have said, I had a fun time watching), I immediately wanted to watch whatever Shatner/Nimoy Trek was at my local library.  Which turned out to be Star Trek IV.  It made clear for me what was missing.  There's a feature with Nimoy where he expresses it perfectly...  "Star Trek plots should, at their best, depend very heavily on ideas, characters, people, circumstances, social questions, political questions, interplanetary questions, much more so than the hardware.  The hardware should, in a good Star Trek film, be used to help tell the story about those other elements."  Too much flash, not enough substance.  

 
 "Star Trek plots should, at their best, depend very heavily on ideas, characters, people, circumstances, social questions, political questions, interplanetary questions, much more so than the hardware.  The hardware should, in a good Star Trek film, be used to help tell the story about those other elements."  Too much flash, not enough substance.  

Bingo.

   The hardware should, in a good Star Trek film, be used to help tell the story about those other elements."  Too much flash, not enough substance.  

on most levels i agree with you but oh my god do i ever love starship porn. when the director just goes "fuck it, we paid for the models and we're going to use them." of course, this is even better when it's both starship porn AND good characters, like the dominion war arc in DS9.

I was reading another site that had an article about all the "easter eggs" that JJ Abrams put into the movie. One of the main ones is the song playing during the scene where Lil' Kirky steals the car-"Sabotage" by The Beastie Boys. Supposedly this is a nod to Shatner's famous inability to say the word "sabotage" correctly. Abrams, however, insists that this was not at all intended and is merely a coincidence. If that's the case it merely confirms my belief that JJ Abrams is not nearly as cool as people think he is.

Shoot, I'll confirm your belief that he's not as cool as people think he is. Abrams is lucky people happily lap up summer blockbuster hype. Otherwise Trek would have been a massive flop because it lacked many key elements that make up a decent film. However, because it was basically, as Fud so eloquently put it, Starship porn...which is to say...special-effects-porn...which is the only requirement for a summer blockbuster to succeed, the film has gone through the roof. As pure unadulterated eye candy and mindless dude fare, the film did well. As an actual film though, this movie sucked right up there with Transformers, another cinematic travesty that only stayed afloat because it was a summer blockbuster. *eyeroll*

No, really. When I have enough time to actually say everything in my head, I will come back to this thread with both fists swinging.

I fully expect a wall of text from you in this thread sometime, Amanda.  Take your time

*ducks to avoid swinging fists*

Shoot, I'll confirm your belief that he's not as cool as people think he is. Abrams is lucky people happily lap up summer blockbuster hype. Otherwise Trek would have been a massive flop because it lacked many key elements that make up a decent film. However, because it was basically, as Fud so eloquently put it, Starship porn...which is to say...special-effects-porn...which is the only requirement for a summer blockbuster to succeed, the film has gone through the roof. As pure unadulterated eye candy and mindless dude fare, the film did well. As an actual film though, this movie sucked right up there with Transformers, another cinematic travesty that only stayed afloat because it was a summer blockbuster. *eyeroll*

No, really. When I have enough time to actually say everything in my head, I will come back to this thread with both fists swinging.

baby you crazy. it had plenty of flaws, but it succeeded on most levels. any movie that features a mccoy line like "space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence" is fine with me. the plot kind of sucked balls, but it's like a doctor who regeneration episode-- you gotta get the whole "setting up the new guy" bullshit out of the way. now, if the next one is the standard "omg some guy is going to blow up the earth" then i'll be swinging right beside you.

here's the real proof they care: they didn't check ALL the boxes. no "beam me up scotty"s or "he's dead jim"s or a lot of other bullshit. sure, they checked a few of them-- it's star trek! there were a couple "i'm a doctor, not a..." and kirk was getting it on with a green chick, but if it was really transformers-level bad, they would've done every cliche and john tuturro would've been attempting humor for 2 hours of padding.

i will admit, however, that i'm not an objective judge. they brought my favorite character (pike!) back, de-crippled him, and gave him some fantastic lines. i could forgive a lot more in exchange for that. :)

OK, let me take a few steps back for a minute.

I've seen the film twice now. The first time I saw it, it rocked and I had an awesome time, even though there were definitely elements that irritated me, and the tissue-thin plot, equally-thin characters, and piss-poor nemesis were all obvious to me then. But because it was such a fun movie, I overlooked all of that.

Watching it a second time, where you're not experiencing it as a shiny new toy...the flaws come screaming out at you, and you start to notice a lot of crap that makes the movie not very re-watchable and frankly a bit crap. Like making Kirk a complete douchebag. No, really...he's a fucking cocksucker in this film. I have a problem with that. Kirk was definitely a rebel most of the time, but he was a geniune person with a shetload of smarts in his head. Chris Pine's Kirk is an asshole. And I can't tell if there's more blame to be heaped on the script, the actor, or the director.

There's a boatload more, but as usual I'm running out the door to go run errands and then spend some quality time at the library finishing up a research paper. Huzzah. I will open up the can of worms real soon. I promise.