XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid
anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/28/2017 at 12:53 PM:
> In article <5953eb74$0$819$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>
>> Op 28-6-2017 om 04:07 schreef Obveeus:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/27/2017 4:09 PM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>> Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:
>>>
>>>>> For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.
>>>>
>>>> Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the
>>>> admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time
>>>> issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty
>>>> CGI overkill
>>>
>>> Are you talking about the universe's largest lice infestation? (the
>>> bazillion glowing white 'dots')
>>>
>>>> All I know is that I was very disappointed with that first effort.
>>>> Very disappointed. Lots of things and people to point fingers at,
>>>> including a rusty cast that was years removed from working together as
>>>> actors. And it showed. In the end, it's why I've always been such a
>>>> fan of Nicholas Meyer for his work as director and uncredited
>>>> screenwriter on II. For my money, and despite II's own flaws, he saved
>>>> Trek.
>>>
>>> I agree that WRATH OF KHAN was a much better film...and, for that
>>> matter, the best TREK film made.
>>>
>>
>> I'm partial to Star Trek III myself. :-)
>
> Only because they kill David, but not nearly slowly or horribly enough.
:)
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita
Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
