Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Seven minutes to firing...Darth Wong wrote:Seven-minute time to power-up the Romulan main weapon. Yes, that's right: SEVEN MINUTES TIME OVER TARGET.
That's a long time just to power up a glorified microwave oven.
Does that include the time it takes to get the marshmellow's from the storage locker?Darth Wong wrote:Seven-minute time to power-up the Romulan main weapon. Yes, that's right: SEVEN MINUTES TIME OVER TARGET.
That's a long time just to power up a glorified microwave oven.
It will be just long enough for Data to explain the technobabble deus ex machina they plan to useKnife wrote:Really though, is that going to be one of those plot devices that it take 7 minutes to charge the main gun and durring the charging, the power drain will effect shields, propulsion, ect.....??????.......?????
The seven minutes is really to charge up the Bad Artificial Drama Device. Or as I call it, BADD.Darth Wong wrote:Seven-minute time to power-up the Romulan main weapon. Yes, that's right: SEVEN MINUTES TIME OVER TARGET.
That's a long time just to power up a glorified microwave oven.
There is no god. You can't have god and this. They're mutually exclusive.Even Kate Mulgrew, from the Voyager series, makes a cameo as a Starfleet Admiral.
It's probably Data. And they'll probably repair him.Speaking of the trailers, the promised death of one character does occur, but everyone knows you can never really kill a Star Trek character. This one is particularly open-ended, and should they decide to make another movie (though it's long been rumored this is the last), I have no doubt he'll be back to dutifully collect his paycheck.
Hahhaha! Star Wars gets the plug, and even this critic says its better!Why have the Star Trek movies become such junk? For starters, with 10 movies and 500 or so TV episodes in various Trek series, it's safe to say all the good ideas are long since tapped out. Just watch the cast and tell me they don't look bored to tears. One of the reasons I still enjoy the Star Wars movies (even though they're admittedly weaker these days) is that they've been exploring its mythology and fleshing it out. Star Trek has long since exhausted that and is just taking its crew on a series of adventures, each more absurd than the last.
OMG! Seven minutes!Those absurdities take place not just within Nemesis's dumb plot but with the endless contrivances required to keep it going. When Picard beams aboard the enemy ship, the transporters promptly break, ensuring no one can follow him. For the ship to deploy its super-weapon, it takes seven minutes… just enough time to -- well, you get the picture.
So...let's see. In Star Wars it's "Commence primary ignition": techs release the safeties, open the power conduits, energy pulses down the conduits, six beams meet at a common point, releasing a large compound beam which slices across several million kilometres of space within ten seconds, blasting a planet apart in a tenth of a second.Darth Wong wrote:Seven-minute time to power-up the Romulan main weapon. Yes, that's right: SEVEN MINUTES TIME OVER TARGET.
That's a long time just to power up a glorified microwave oven.
Two other script writers had already worked with Gladiator before Logan came aboard and made his own final revisions...Patrick Degan wrote:I have to wonder about the writing of this movie. After all, John Logan wrote a fairly decent version of The Time Machine, he wrote a rather good script for Gladiator.
And his finale:Roger Ebert wrote:I'm sitting there during "Star Trek: Nemesis," the 10th "Star Trek" movie, and I'm smiling like a good sport and trying to get with the dialogue about the isotronic Ruritronic signature from planet Kolarus III, or whatever the hell they were saying, maybe it was "positronic," and gradually it occurs to me that "Star Trek" is over for me. I've been looking at these stories for half a halftime, and, let's face it, they're out of gas.
I'm not seeing a lot of love out there for this movie. Even when critics panned "Insurrection", they weren't as nasty as they are this time around. Insurrection was merely a bad movie, but this one has caused people to question en masse whether Star Trek has a future.Roger Ebert wrote:I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy.
You purchased your ticket ahead of time?beyond hope wrote:Why am I getting the impression that I'll want to go back in time and get a refund on my ticket?
I don't think it does - not much of one anyway, at least not if it keeps deteriorating the way its been going (is Star Trek the only franchise actually to have a half life?). Whatever creativity and originality it once had are long since spent. That wretched travesty of a series they've got going now, which they claimed would take the show in a bold new direction, is just recycling old plots and pissing all over the series' continuity. Paramount's been keeping the franchise alive because it's been a money maker, but now they've got it on life support, and it's way past time to pull the plug?Darth Wong wrote:
I'm not seeing a lot of love out there for this movie. Even when critics panned "Insurrection", they weren't as nasty as they are this time around. Insurrection was merely a bad movie, but this one has caused people to question en masse whether Star Trek has a future.
Interesting- who decides what is Star Trek? IMO, The Next Generation has a claim to being Star Trek in a small way- but fuck what happened to the creative talent that wrote TOS? GR's 'definitive vision' of Trek is .... ugh.Perinquus wrote:
I don't think it does - not much of one anyway, at least not if it keeps deteriorating the way its been going (is Star Trek the only franchise actually to have a half life?). Whatever creativity and originality it once had are long since spent. That wretched travesty of a series they've got going now, which they claimed would take the show in a bold new direction, is just recycling old plots and pissing all over the series' continuity. Paramount's been keeping the franchise alive because it's been a money maker, but now they've got it on life support, and it's way past time to pull the plug?
You know, I remember back in 1987, when the premeire of TNG had been announced, a lot of the old cast members spoke out to say that this wasn't really Star Trek. TNG gradually won people over, but now I'm wondering f the original cast's initial reaction wasn't right on the money after all. Most of what's wrong with Trek today had its birth in TNG (including the hiring of Berman and Braga). The more I see of Trek these days the more I wish they'd just ended it with TOS and its movies. Star Trek long ago ignored the wisest advice in showbusiness: always leave them wanting more. Now we're overdosing on Trek, and it's tarnished the series. It would have been better if it went out in its prime so we could remember it with fondness instead of lingering so long and so painfully that we'll remember it as just a shell of its former self.
What happened was, TOS had actual science fiction writers writing its best episodes; Harlan Ellison Theodore Sturgeon, (sp?) etc. When you get guys like B&B in there, with no real talent in the genre, you get TNG, DS9, VGR, Enterprise....Vympel wrote:Perinquus wrote: Interesting- who decides what is Star Trek? IMO, The Next Generation has a claim to being Star Trek in a small way- but fuck what happened to the creative talent that wrote TOS? GR's 'definitive vision' of Trek is .... ugh.
Oh I agree. In fact I said pretty much exactly this in a recent thread.Lord Poe wrote: What happened was, TOS had actual science fiction writers writing its best episodes; Harlan Ellison Theodore Sturgeon, (sp?) etc. When you get guys like B&B in there, with no real talent in the genre, you get TNG, DS9, VGR, Enterprise....
Actually, I don't mind ST:TMP, even though it is slow and plodding. And for the life of me I can't say why. And ST:6 is good, don't overlook that one. The mere fact of their being TV movies wouldn't necessarily make them better. All they needed for that was good scripts and good directors, and TV movies are no more likely to have those than feature films.Lord Poe wrote: trek should have gone with the original idea post-ST:TMP: a few TV movies every few years, instead of full-blown movies. Out of ALL the Trek movies that have been produced, only Wrath of Khan is worthyu of being on the movie screen. One of the chief reasons being that Harve Bennet was brought aboard to take care of the whole production as it would have been a TV movie. As it turned out, WOK was crisp, well paced, and exciting.
WTF?It’s a competent piece of product repositioning...
TWOK was the first Star Trek I ever saw and I still got it. It was a great film whether you'd seen TOS or not. I was six years old or so and it completely sucked me in, I didn't budge from in front of the TV till it was done and considering the attention span of a kid that age that's a pretty good achievement.Patrick Degan wrote:"This movie SO wants to be TWOK but isn't" as somebody said. I'm certain that this was the objective but it was doomed from the outset. We have neither the emotional investment or history embodied in Picard's EvilClone™ Skippy that we had with KHAAANNN! Without those elements, you really cannot access the personal dimension to this conflict that the viewer could grasp readily with TWOK. Berman Braga might try to float the lame argument that there were viewers who went to TWOK the first time who never saw TOS, but they would have been in the minority, a very tiny minority of the audience which did turn out. TWOK traded on the Trek legacy quite consciously, and the media push for that movie definitely highlighted the links between that movie and the plot to "Space Seed".
Pretty exacting figures. Did you actually watch these series, like Voyager? I think I've watched all of them, and most were crap, but there were a few good ones, with a number of others having good moments.Currald wrote: I was in favor of the whole Enterprise thing if it meant that there would be at least ONE good episode. How many good eps in TOS have? A dozen? Two dozen? How many did TNG have? Maybe half that? I haven't seen much DS9, but I've heard its good. Voyager? Zero. Enterprise? Zero. I'm not bothering with Trek until there is new leadership working on it. Until then, I'll track down obscure trek-tech books from the late seventies and early eighties to tide me over.