Campaign Creations

^ I don't understand.  How is Kirk getting some in the new movie different from all the action he got in the series?

Lav that is not how math works at all.

Lavarinth wrote: Not in America. Until we have our second anti-sex movement when everyone girls go back to wearing clothes that cover you up and sex is held as a totally private thing except for porn which still still run rampant through the internets, but no longer on "R" rated movies, which will instead only hold at max nudity but no innuendo of sex.

Then we will miss this.

I would strongly oppose any anti-sex movement because censoring is even worse. I'm not bothered by sex-sells at all. It's just like anything that people like/like to watch. Like cars.

What does bother me is the fact that everything nowadays needs to have something remotely resembling a sex-scene in it for it to be attractive to people. Or at least, the "creators" seem to think so. I mean, Star Trek. That's about the most sexless, innocent, frigid franchise you can imagine. Of course, men like to watch (beautiful) women wearing underwear or less and I guess I am no different, but seriously, NOT in space. NOT in Star Trek. NOT involving James T Kirk, in spite of his being a ladiesman. The fact that those Jessica Alba-type sex-scene girls usually only get these parts makes it even worse.

Of course, I know, it's all just business, but at least 'back when' it wasn't so blatantly obvious. There was actually people working on it that had some emotional attachment to the end product.

I ultimately believe that the big fat flop factor for many movies is the fucking romance scenes, lame pun intended.

AA7Dragoon wrote: ^ I don't understand.  How is Kirk getting some in the new movie different from all the action he got in the series?

New milennium, new director, new writers, everything new...  always trouble for hardcore fans.

Falchion wrote:

AA7Dragoon wrote: ^ I don't understand.  How is Kirk getting some in the new movie different from all the action he got in the series?

New milennium, new director, new writers, everything new...  always trouble for hardcore fans.

Obviously. Not if they made their own stupid franchise, but NO, they had to do Star Trek. Begs the question, do we need more Star Trek? Did we need more of any other milked out franchise?

There. I've said too much on this topic and made myself look like a nerd with no life. Which ofcourse I'm not.

I was reading on babylon 5 after I watched a good chunk of it and apparently when they were still making the Rangers or whatever the new one is, the station airing them (I *think* it was Fox but don't quote me on that...) made a demand that they had to have more sex and violence in the show to keep airing it.

Now, this made me facepalm. Okay, the series already has huge fleet battles, dudes get shot at least once every episode... um, how much more violence do you want? And more sex? How does that have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOW, and how the FUCK will it contribute?

I want America to nuke itself to embers. And Canada, too. Fucking tree-hugging hippies.

I'm hopeful.  I'm going to check it out.  I'm really curious to see how the recasting works out.

Man, I'm bothered more by the fact that there are huge fucking fleet battles and shit happening then the whole sex scene.