Comments on: Sirtis and Frakes On Generations, Nemesis and New Movie

By: Charles H. Root, III

Charles H. Root, III — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:55:48 +0000

@ 111 & 112: WTF?!?!?!!

Geez, and you thought I was bad, Anthony! ; )

By: Chrysophyta

Chrysophyta — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:31:15 +0000

I don’t get all the Nemesis hatred. I took it for what it was and enjoyed it. Maybe I’m just less critical. Then again, maybe I’m just such a big Imzadi fan that I didn’t care about the rest of the movie because Riker and Troi finally got married.

I guess I’m pretty easy to please.

By: Phil T. Berns

Phil T. Berns — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:54:15 +0000

I’m glad we’re going back to the original timeline. But more importantly, back to the original characters. THAT’s what Star Trek is all about. The 70 year leap they made back in 1987 was NOT the right thing to do. I was very happy with the prequel Enterprise though. But this die hard Star Trek fan feels that making a Star Trek movie or series without Kirk, Spock and McCoy is like making a James Bond movie without James Bond. Fortunately the people at 007 didn’t give us such a movie ever. Paramount however did give us way too much Star Trek movies and series without the original characters. I think only Harve Bennett understood what Star Trek ir really all about. He also saved a dying Trek with TWOK. HE should have been the one creating the second Star Trek TV series back in 1987. And although he sin’t involved with this new movie, I really hope it will be a big success. Because the idea is right. Now all I can hope for is that it reboots the franchise the way Casino Royale rebooted 007. And that JJ has the guts to erase all 24th century Trek from the new canon.

By: Harry Ballz

Harry Ballz — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:41:37 +0000

Okay boys, go to your respective corners and chill……..

By: COMPASSIONATE GOD

COMPASSIONATE GOD — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:32:29 +0000

#106 – Xai: if you truly wanted “out” you would STOP responding, hence my “grow up” line; you feel some need to either have the “last word” or play oneupmanship (which i’m not participating in), when this would not occur if you were adult enough to let it go, no matter what or when I post—which would have been the case early on when you could not sit on your hands and prevent your original challenge to my statement.

Once again, you open doors but wish to pretend you were not responsible or want the door closed.

Move on………

By: Xai

Xai — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:23:58 +0000

#105 compassionate god

I keep trying and you keep coming back to scold and insult me again and telling me to grow up.
Do you need clarification of what I said in #99, Alex Trebek? I conseded this because there is no point. That work?

By: COMPASSIONATE GOD

COMPASSIONATE GOD — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:56:55 +0000

#104 Xai: There is no “winning” here. This is not “Jeopardy.” …and for a person indicating he was through with the discussion, apparently, YOU cannot let it go. Get over it, and grow up a little, and next time, refrain from challenging anyone when you do not want a response.

By: Xai

Xai — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:30:59 +0000

#103 CG
still swinging?…you won… what do you want?

By: COMPASSIONATE GOD

COMPASSIONATE GOD — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:36:45 +0000

#101: Xai, grow up a little. Then–and only then will you learn to avoid starting problems where NONE existed. You challenged, and a response was offered. If you have issues with that, then avoid critiizing others’ views WITHOUT any sort of evidence to back your claim, when you (should) know where that usually goes in any debate.

Good day.

By: TJ Trek

TJ Trek — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:42:18 +0000

I always thought that Baird was the main problem behind the latest trek movie. He aproached it like an action movie, and not like a trek movie. Trek works… alright, as a straight up action flick, but as Star Trek II showed, The Trek template can do, and needs a lot more to become a trully great film. Yes ST II had some of the best actions scenes, but it also had the layers of subtext and characterizations that can make trek great. Yes, Nemesis did have this, Logan put it all in there, but I think the subsaquent direction and editing down played it all a bit too much. As I have said numerous time on this site the Shortened Riker/Troi wedding is a big example. A real Trek movie would have given the affair it’s proper moment, would have reintroduced Wesely Crusher, would have had the bit about dr. Crusher going off to Starfleet Medical, etc.

Plus, though I hate to rag on Logan, there was just a bit (and really only a bit) too much of the characters doing things and resolving matters in ways they wouldn’t have in the past eps, and movies.

It’s too bad that Baird pissed off so many of the cast. Sirnis doesn’t t strike me as someone who would make up stories (although I could be wrong. Anyone who doesn’t botheer to even try and understand what trek is all about, let alone do a little research before they get involved in a trek project, should no way no how be allowed withen ten miles of the production.

And to all who think that Trek should only go forward….give this movie a chance. JJ and his team haven’t gone wrong yet (even if you do think is MI: III was bad, it’s still a helluva lot better then the crap that was in #2). The writers did pretty damn good with Transformers (although slightly hokey in spots). If they understand what makes good trek go, and give it the same writting attention they did transformer, then they should do fine. I heartly agree with all who say that enough is enough with time travel, other then that, I am willing to give them a chance on anything.