Movie Theater Star Trek
Re: Star Trek
This is theft, pure and simple theft.
Alot of people put alot of money and sweat into creating this film. If you want to see it, pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, move on.
I think it's pitiful that you are viewing these, let alone encouraging others to do it.
What's the difference between this and what Bernie Maddoff did?
A few decimal places.
This is theft, pure and simple theft.
Alot of people put alot of money and sweat into creating this film. If you want to see it, pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, move on.
I think it's pitiful that you are viewing these, let alone encouraging others to do it.
What's the difference between this and what Bernie Maddoff did?
A few decimal places.
Re: Star Trek
I am really looking forward to seeing it but can't stand theaters. Will buy the DVD when it is released.
I am really looking forward to seeing it but can't stand theaters. Will buy the DVD when it is released.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18ssp2md</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CAMS, get em while there still working..
</div></div>
Watching CAM of a movie like this is akin to having sex with a supermodel....... on the phone.
Cams SUCK.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18ssp2md</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CAMS, get em while there still working..
</div></div>
Watching CAM of a movie like this is akin to having sex with a supermodel....... on the phone.
Cams SUCK.
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is theft, pure and simple theft.
Alot of people put alot of money and sweat into creating this film. If you want to see it, pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, move on.
I think it's pitiful that you are viewing these, let alone encouraging others to do it.
What's the difference between this and what Bernie Maddoff did?
A few decimal places. </div></div>
This is hardly theft nor illegal, unless I was profiting from this in some fashion. It’s no different than borrowing a person’s cds, dvds, or books.
It’s the same undefeatable argument, “the internet is killing journalism” more specific the newspapers. Programs like Napster and iTunes that have shifted to take into account the internet by making such things purchasable should be the standard. If you want to blame anyone, blame the production companies who have not caught up to the 21st century. Everyone should be able to buy a movie on“paperview” when it comes out in theaters only. Your home after all is more comfortable then a movie theater, at least I would hope so. What about select theaters only? Should I have to wait till it comes out on video if I’m not in the right location?
Not to mention alot of people might not have the opportunity to watch such a movie, IE medically impaired and what about our men and woman deployed? I remember watching these overseas CAM’s that is, circulated from guys doing watch at the Segovia rooms, internet centers, natives what have you, they are huge morale boosters. While you don’t agree with CAM’s that’s your opinion and that’s fine, but to outright show disgust and blindly judge the people who enjoys these things is a whole other issue.
I in no way condone people profiting from these things, and I’m sure they will be dealt with accordingly.
Btw fuck Bernie Maddoff...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is theft, pure and simple theft.
Alot of people put alot of money and sweat into creating this film. If you want to see it, pay for it. If you don't think it's worth it, move on.
I think it's pitiful that you are viewing these, let alone encouraging others to do it.
What's the difference between this and what Bernie Maddoff did?
A few decimal places. </div></div>
This is hardly theft nor illegal, unless I was profiting from this in some fashion. It’s no different than borrowing a person’s cds, dvds, or books.
It’s the same undefeatable argument, “the internet is killing journalism” more specific the newspapers. Programs like Napster and iTunes that have shifted to take into account the internet by making such things purchasable should be the standard. If you want to blame anyone, blame the production companies who have not caught up to the 21st century. Everyone should be able to buy a movie on“paperview” when it comes out in theaters only. Your home after all is more comfortable then a movie theater, at least I would hope so. What about select theaters only? Should I have to wait till it comes out on video if I’m not in the right location?
Not to mention alot of people might not have the opportunity to watch such a movie, IE medically impaired and what about our men and woman deployed? I remember watching these overseas CAM’s that is, circulated from guys doing watch at the Segovia rooms, internet centers, natives what have you, they are huge morale boosters. While you don’t agree with CAM’s that’s your opinion and that’s fine, but to outright show disgust and blindly judge the people who enjoys these things is a whole other issue.
I in no way condone people profiting from these things, and I’m sure they will be dealt with accordingly.
Btw fuck Bernie Maddoff...
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18ssp2md</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is hardly theft nor illegal, unless I was profiting from this in some fashion.
</div></div>
Actually, you're wrong.
It is very illegal to distribute copyrighted material without consent or compensation. That's kind of the whole point of the copyright.
Although you didn't personally take a camera to a theater and record the movie, someone did. That part was also illegal.
Now you can argue all day long about how you don't think it should be illegal, but the fact remains, that under current laws, it is illegal.
Under the right interpretation, posting the links here would be considered as "distribution" of copyrighted material, and you could be subject to criminal and civil actions.
Again, it doesn't matter what you think about how it should or should not be. It matters what the laws say and how they are interpreted by the prosecutors and judges.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18ssp2md</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is hardly theft nor illegal, unless I was profiting from this in some fashion.
</div></div>
Actually, you're wrong.
It is very illegal to distribute copyrighted material without consent or compensation. That's kind of the whole point of the copyright.
Although you didn't personally take a camera to a theater and record the movie, someone did. That part was also illegal.
Now you can argue all day long about how you don't think it should be illegal, but the fact remains, that under current laws, it is illegal.
Under the right interpretation, posting the links here would be considered as "distribution" of copyrighted material, and you could be subject to criminal and civil actions.
Again, it doesn't matter what you think about how it should or should not be. It matters what the laws say and how they are interpreted by the prosecutors and judges.
Re: Star Trek
+1
Thanks for the post, tucker301.
+1
Thanks for the post, tucker301.
Re: Star Trek
Star Trek 2009, See the movie??
At first I was against the movie. It seemed too revisionist. After all, we know from Star trek canon Christopher Pike is the first captain of the Enterprise. However, the animated Star Trek series & printed Star Trek fiction identify a Captain Robert April as Pike's predecessor. Also it has been established that the Enterprise was built in an orbital dock. She never had the engine power necessary to land or take off in an planetary atmosphere.
But, lately I’ve done some research, and the most startling fact is that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon.
Star Trek Canon
I’ve been reminded that they pretty much made up so much as they went along.
After all, Star Trek was never “real” sci-fi like Babylon 5, Stargate SG-01 or the (re-imaged) Battlestar Galactica.
Re: Galactica is startling proof that you CAN do it over, and do it better . . . MUCH BETTER!!
I read the Wiki on the new movie: Star Trek 2009 And I think, given the glaring errors and inconsistencies that Roddenberry and Paramount have allowed into the series, I almost feel like saying WFT, I’ll watch the movie. I definitely would not stand in line for the first showing like I did with the 1st motion picture or the Wrath of Kahn, but maybe a week later. . .
Star Trek 2009, See the movie??
At first I was against the movie. It seemed too revisionist. After all, we know from Star trek canon Christopher Pike is the first captain of the Enterprise. However, the animated Star Trek series & printed Star Trek fiction identify a Captain Robert April as Pike's predecessor. Also it has been established that the Enterprise was built in an orbital dock. She never had the engine power necessary to land or take off in an planetary atmosphere.
But, lately I’ve done some research, and the most startling fact is that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon.
Star Trek Canon
I’ve been reminded that they pretty much made up so much as they went along.
After all, Star Trek was never “real” sci-fi like Babylon 5, Stargate SG-01 or the (re-imaged) Battlestar Galactica.
Re: Galactica is startling proof that you CAN do it over, and do it better . . . MUCH BETTER!!
I read the Wiki on the new movie: Star Trek 2009 And I think, given the glaring errors and inconsistencies that Roddenberry and Paramount have allowed into the series, I almost feel like saying WFT, I’ll watch the movie. I definitely would not stand in line for the first showing like I did with the 1st motion picture or the Wrath of Kahn, but maybe a week later. . .
Re: Star Trek
non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing.
non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing.
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing. </div></div>
I saw it on Friday the 16th. I was expecting a Star Trek action flick with a bit of modern re-imagining. What I got was;
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 17pt">OH MY FRAKIN’ GAWD, WHAT A HORRIBLE SCREENPLAY!</span></span>
J.J. Abrams did not just <span style="font-style: italic">ignore</span> some Star Trek canon, <span style="text-decoration: underline">he threw the entire Star Trek history into a shredder to make a mass market movie.</span>
Plot holes so large, they’d swallow a dozen starships.
This movie looks like it was meant to erase what we know about Star Trek and the effort of all the productions, writers, casts and all the people related to previous Trek series and “reboot” it for a new “Star Wars” style Star Trek aimed at some kind of new comic-adventure series.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Suffice it to say I was aghast at the whole damn thing. I’ll never give the Paramount Star Trek franchise another dime.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That’s all I can say for now, as I’m still in shock</span></span>.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing. </div></div>
I saw it on Friday the 16th. I was expecting a Star Trek action flick with a bit of modern re-imagining. What I got was;
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 17pt">OH MY FRAKIN’ GAWD, WHAT A HORRIBLE SCREENPLAY!</span></span>
J.J. Abrams did not just <span style="font-style: italic">ignore</span> some Star Trek canon, <span style="text-decoration: underline">he threw the entire Star Trek history into a shredder to make a mass market movie.</span>
Plot holes so large, they’d swallow a dozen starships.
This movie looks like it was meant to erase what we know about Star Trek and the effort of all the productions, writers, casts and all the people related to previous Trek series and “reboot” it for a new “Star Wars” style Star Trek aimed at some kind of new comic-adventure series.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Suffice it to say I was aghast at the whole damn thing. I’ll never give the Paramount Star Trek franchise another dime.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That’s all I can say for now, as I’m still in shock</span></span>.
Re: Star Trek
At least they kept up the condiment fetish.
McCoy's surgical instruments in the original TV series were art nouveau salt and pepper shakers. They used elaborate salt and pepper shakers as props in each TV version. And in the latest incarnation, you see this:
At least they kept up the condiment fetish.
McCoy's surgical instruments in the original TV series were art nouveau salt and pepper shakers. They used elaborate salt and pepper shakers as props in each TV version. And in the latest incarnation, you see this:
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fnbrowning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing. </div></div>
I saw it on Friday the 16th. I was expecting a Star Trek action flick with a bit of modern re-imagining. What I got was;
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 17pt">OH MY FRAKIN’ GAWD, WHAT A HORRIBLE SCREENPLAY!</span></span>
J.J. Abrams did not just <span style="font-style: italic">ignore</span> some Star Trek canon, <span style="text-decoration: underline">he threw the entire Star Trek history into a shredder to make a mass market movie.</span>
Plot holes so large, they’d swallow a dozen starships.
This movie looks like it was meant to erase what we know about Star Trek and the effort of all the productions, writers, casts and all the people related to previous Trek series and “reboot” it for a new “Star Wars” style Star Trek aimed at some kind of new comic-adventure series.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Suffice it to say I was aghast at the whole damn thing. I’ll never give the Paramount Star Trek franchise another dime.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That’s all I can say for now, as I’m still in shock</span></span>.
</div></div>
As I understand it this movie was to have taken place in a different time line.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fnbrowning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">non Trekky opinion of the movie here...
Pretty good flick.
Worth seeing. </div></div>
I saw it on Friday the 16th. I was expecting a Star Trek action flick with a bit of modern re-imagining. What I got was;
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 17pt">OH MY FRAKIN’ GAWD, WHAT A HORRIBLE SCREENPLAY!</span></span>
J.J. Abrams did not just <span style="font-style: italic">ignore</span> some Star Trek canon, <span style="text-decoration: underline">he threw the entire Star Trek history into a shredder to make a mass market movie.</span>
Plot holes so large, they’d swallow a dozen starships.
This movie looks like it was meant to erase what we know about Star Trek and the effort of all the productions, writers, casts and all the people related to previous Trek series and “reboot” it for a new “Star Wars” style Star Trek aimed at some kind of new comic-adventure series.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Suffice it to say I was aghast at the whole damn thing. I’ll never give the Paramount Star Trek franchise another dime.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That’s all I can say for now, as I’m still in shock</span></span>.
</div></div>
As I understand it this movie was to have taken place in a different time line.
Re: Star Trek
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fnbrowning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Star Trek 2009, See the movie??
At first I was against the movie. It seemed too revisionist. After all, we know from Star trek canon Christopher Pike is the first captain of the Enterprise. However, the animated Star Trek series & printed Star Trek fiction identify a Captain Robert April as Pike's predecessor. Also it has been established that the Enterprise was built in an orbital dock. She never had the engine power necessary to land or take off in an planetary atmosphere.
But, lately I’ve done some research, and the most startling fact is that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon.
Star Trek Canon
I’ve been reminded that they pretty much made up so much as they went along.
After all, Star Trek was never “real” sci-fi like Babylon 5, Stargate SG-01 or the (re-imaged) Battlestar Galactica.
Re: Galactica is startling proof that you CAN do it over, and do it better . . . MUCH BETTER!!
I read the Wiki on the new movie: Star Trek 2009 And I think, given the glaring errors and inconsistencies that Roddenberry and Paramount have allowed into the series, I almost feel like saying WFT, I’ll watch the movie. I definitely would not stand in line for the first showing like I did with the 1st motion picture or the Wrath of Kahn, but maybe a week later. . .
</div></div>
I always thought the transporter was created because they did not want to pay for the special affects to get the Enterprise on the ground and up again. Thought I saw that on the history channel episode where William Shatner was patting himself on the back.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fnbrowning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Star Trek 2009, See the movie??
At first I was against the movie. It seemed too revisionist. After all, we know from Star trek canon Christopher Pike is the first captain of the Enterprise. However, the animated Star Trek series & printed Star Trek fiction identify a Captain Robert April as Pike's predecessor. Also it has been established that the Enterprise was built in an orbital dock. She never had the engine power necessary to land or take off in an planetary atmosphere.
But, lately I’ve done some research, and the most startling fact is that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon.
Star Trek Canon
I’ve been reminded that they pretty much made up so much as they went along.
After all, Star Trek was never “real” sci-fi like Babylon 5, Stargate SG-01 or the (re-imaged) Battlestar Galactica.
Re: Galactica is startling proof that you CAN do it over, and do it better . . . MUCH BETTER!!
I read the Wiki on the new movie: Star Trek 2009 And I think, given the glaring errors and inconsistencies that Roddenberry and Paramount have allowed into the series, I almost feel like saying WFT, I’ll watch the movie. I definitely would not stand in line for the first showing like I did with the 1st motion picture or the Wrath of Kahn, but maybe a week later. . .
</div></div>
I always thought the transporter was created because they did not want to pay for the special affects to get the Enterprise on the ground and up again. Thought I saw that on the history channel episode where William Shatner was patting himself on the back.
Similar threads
