Star Trek Returns to TV

Let's put it this way: there's a good reason why half the dialogue in the latest Transformers movie was in Mandarin Chinese and was set in Hong Kong.

You need to watch, "game of thrones."

After the disaster of the second and third Transformers movies, I could not stomach watching the fourth.

Because everyone else and their sister seems to think so. And given the available information, it fits.

Making a shitty reboot for PC reasons doesn't do anything more to me beyond making me amused.

All right, let me walk you through this.

Get this part through your head, all the way through, Ghostbusters 3 with the classic cast suiting up wasn't going to happen.
Dan Aykroyd tried to make it happen for 20 years.
Bill Murray didn't want to do it.
Harold Ramis died.
Kiss GB3 goodbye, it's over.
Forever.

Now, that leaves the realistic choices, a reboot, or no Ghostbusters anymore forever.

And you're probably thinking "good! Leave it alone!".

Wake up, and smell how Hollywood works.
They're not gonna let an IP like that lie dormant.
Not gonna happen.
Dream on.

So, given that a reboot was gonna happen, there's a couple ways it could go down.
Male recast with the Judd Apatow guys.
Male recast with Seth Rogan, James Franco, and their buddies.
Male recast with Adam Sandler and this unfunny twat friends.
Paul Feig female recast.

The Apatow & Franco ones mighta coulda maybe been good.
But those stars just didn't align.
And a Sandler take would have been an abortion, so we dodged a bullet there.
See "Pixels".

Now, lets theoretically say Apatow and/or Franco were on the table.
They're gonna get compared to the original guys no matter what.
SO, if you're gonna do it anyway, you're gonna rip that band-aid off no matter what, and fans will whine no matter what...why NOT go for broke, and do something REALLY unexpected with the cast?

So, to recap-
1. Classic cast reunion, not on the table
2. No movie at all, not on the table.
3. Paul Feig female recast was the one that lined up.

This narrative where 1 was possible, but evil boogeymen ripped it away just isn't real.

No, wait, there was a boogeyman.
Bill Murray.
Lay it at his feet.

If you honestly thing I care about a Ghostbusters reboot beyond being somewhat worn out on reboots in general, you're wasting you're time. The thing I do notice in that TL;DR post is that you seem to have the same lack of imagination that has gone into making this particular reboot.

In any case, pointing out a gimmick to be a gimmick is fair, whether you happen to like it or not. It also in no way indicates anything more than amusement on my part.

I'm not lobbying for such, I'm saying the days when that sort of stunt was nothing but a stunt are past. Now they're just people. Despite some potential viewers persistent effort to pretend they don't exist. The nature of their "difference" makes no difference to the program and is no longer a "thing"

Personally, I would prefer it if the sex lives of ANY of the crew members, gay, straight, or anything else they can think of was NOT an issue or subject of an episode. I know I'm in the minority here but I for one both now and decades ago could really do without the Original Series "Kirk as the ladies man" subplot in a number of episodes.

I would think if I were the commanding officer of the finest ship in Starfleet traveling the galaxy that I would find more interesting things to do than chase tail.

You're not missing much.

And there I'm with you.
The Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, and Michael Myers ones were abortions.
BUT, the Evil Dead one was really good.
So, you never know. A good one can sneak through.

I'll be honest and say I'm on the "this is a gimmick reboot" side of this, but if TIIC were seriously considering Adumb Sandler (aka the new Madonna of movie poison, minus the effort) or James Franco, then I'm glad for this current line up.

That said, i watched the original Ghostbusters once and I failed to see what the big deal was,so maybe I'll like the new one better.

I don't get the "gimmick" view tbh.

It's a Feige film, anyone with a passing knowledge of his films knows he likes to cast females, and likes to work with Melissa McCarthy as lead, usually to good effect.

With him on board, it was never going to be a sausage fest, and not because of PC reasons, but because that's his "thing." Michael Bay does bloated noisy extended music videos, Feige does female characters. May as well deride Frank Zappa for doing something out of the ordinary on a record.

I also don't think it's a bad idea, given the dearth of the kind of bankable male comedian who'd work well in a Ghostbusters film. The humour is more Frattish these days, which is fine if you're doing an Animal House remake.

I've also hung around enough comedians to know the men are mostly fucking awful human beings, so yeah, unless you get a pack of chums, you're in for a shit time as four idiots ,wearing their ego as armour, do their level best to stink up your film by desperately trying to undermine the others in a sad and tragic attempt to bolster their own confidence.

NASA once considered an all female space shuttle mission but reportedly killed the idea when some suggested it was "gimmicky".

Straight men. And of course lesbians.

If they're naked lesbians, in the throes of passion. Very naked. I'm in.

Hey, I was surprised how much I enjoyed Spy last year. If it works it works. It's like how Tim Burton always goes to Johnny Depp.

A lot of them don't.

Because they're not actually straight.

Where does this opinion come from that straight men find lesbians arousing? Can you cite an objective source for evidence?

Google "lesbian porn".

The actual answers are not very flattering to the straight men in question.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Psychology-2566/2008/9/men-feel-attracted-lesbians.htm

Those answers are coming from a female.

Seeing two attractive women together is something that many men find satisfying, it fulfills a sexual fantasy. But then again when men imagine two lesbians together they imagine.



Not.



And men would rather see two vag's than a vag and a dick.

Okay, interesting side discussion, but remember the room, folks. Try to keep discussion on topic, and Ed, please open a RedRoom thread to post more pictures of hot lesbians!

The key word being 'hot'... because without that any lesbians would qualify.

Also, one last point before returning to Star Trek (hopefully). Straight men aren't really that in to lesbians. I mean sure, they're good for watching. But a pair of bi women are more interactive -- that's what we really go for.

Pretty much, the first would be a spectator sport, the second is participating in the sport.

Meyer speaks!

http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/star-tre...-star-trek-series-is-innovative-and-different

That would be an interesting time period for a new show. We really don't know much about that era, so there probably isn't a whole lot of continuity concern. At the same time, I'd very much like to know more about that period. Quite a lot of good stories can be told about the symbiotic friction of the Fed-Klingon relationship post-Praxis.