Re: Star Trek shows/movies/whatever
Joseph, on host 205.246.82.74
Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 10:31:37
Re: Star Trek shows posted by Faux Pas on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 06:12:41:
> > > > What do you say about the first one, then? "The one where nothing of any real consequence or interest happened?" > > > > "The one with the Voyager satellite and the weird purple fog." > > I'm partial to "The Motionless Picture". > > > And now for the "yicky" category, from least to most yicky: > > > > Generations (Gold Enterprise -shudder-) > > Oh geez, there were so many things wrong with this movie. Besides, everyone knows that Kirk's happiest time was with Edith Keeler in the 1930's. I mean, c'mon! > > -Faux "I can jump back in time to whenever I want to? Well, I could go back in time to about ten hours ago and wreck the weapon so none of this happens -- oh, what the heck, just send me back to five seconds before the weapon is launched." Pas
I liked "Generations", but, Faux Pas' point is rather good.
And some stuff that doesn't fit here:
Star Trek V STUNK. The whole point of the film was "Our producers have too much free time thinking up stupid plots"
Voyager has too many "sidetrip" eps. in other words, they just do something utterly pointless for an entire episode that doesn't even effect them later. Most of them involve the holodeck and the past... *sighs miserably*
-Jos"I really wish that I woudn't hit the post button instead of the back button so I woudn't double post"eph
|