Re: Paramount Agrees To Two More Trek Movies

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <s2ncq31ufnkm1i2k83nhmufnreeb0jfbk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Jack Bohn <jackbohn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Which two or three?
>> There's the aphorism that "even-numbered Star Trek movies don't
>> suck," to which I suggest we could add ST III as perhaps one
>> "fans" are more fond of than the general public.  Among the
>> unnumbered Star Trek movies, can there be only one?  "First
>> Contact" was - I would guess - the biggest money-maker; do "fans"
>> reject it for what it's done to the Borg?
>
> And Zephram Cochrane, and World War 3, and the future history of
> Earth, etc. etc. etc.

Well, it was a pretty good movie. I liked it at the time.

Watching it recently though I found it had that same curly-round the edges
feel of every Trek movie since TMP. They just don't feel like "major
motion
pictures". There's something just not blockbustery about them. There's
this
sort of lack of epicness, they've always felt like the throttle's only at
90%. Except that awful travesty about the sodding whales that never even
gets out of first gear.

If nothing else I hope this new one can break that mould.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in