12-02-2009, 10:52 PM

watched the new star trek last night
|
12-02-2009, 10:52 PM
![]()
12-02-2009, 11:49 PM
Acer wrote: POMTL
12-02-2009, 11:50 PM
I'm probably in the minority here, but I really hated this movie.
The lens flares = no substitute for decent acting, scripting, and direction.
12-03-2009, 01:39 AM
It's entertaining. The script is a piece of crap in terms of plot and the "science" is on a par with a bad cartoon, but the acting is good and characterizations are very well done.
12-03-2009, 02:31 AM
.....the young hard bodies.....help.....
_____________________________________
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
12-03-2009, 03:31 AM
When I saw it in an AMC theater they dropped 15 minutes in the middle and didn't tell anyone.
I only found out because my son who was with me had seen it before. Never got an adequate answer from AMC, so now I avoid their theaters. - Winston
12-03-2009, 05:00 AM
wowzer wrote: Ditto. The 'prequel' idea was fun, but creating an alternate reality in which the entire Vulcan home world is destroyed was just stupid. Then it can never tie in with the original Star Trek, and the subsequent series as well. Cognitive dissonance! Then, I never liked the time-travel plots in ST, either. /Mr Lynn
12-03-2009, 06:13 PM
mrlynn wrote: why does that matter?
12-04-2009, 01:58 AM
bazookaman wrote: why does that matter? To maintain the integrity of the (fictional) universe, required for suspension of disbelief. Or some such foolishness. /Mr Lynn
12-04-2009, 02:37 AM
Where I come from some people got dis belief, some people got dat belief. Suspension depends on how many potholes you've hit.
:-) - W |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|