home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   rec.arts.startrek.current      New Star Trek shows, movies and books      77,408 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 76,673 of 77,408   
   Dimensional Traveler to Jim G.   
   Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to   
   30 Jun 17 12:49:15   
   
   XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, rec.arts.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 6/30/2017 12:36 PM, Jim G. wrote:   
   > Jim G. sent the following on 06/30/2017 at 02:33 PM:   
   >> Jerry Brown sent the following on 06/30/2017 at 12:18 PM:   
   >>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:56:04 -0500, "Jim G."   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/28/2017 at 11:57 AM:   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>     Jerry Brown  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Similarly STWoK removed references to Ensign Preston being Scotty's   
   >>>>>> nephew, possibly for the same reason. IIRC these scenes are available   
   >>>>>> as extras on recent releases.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And that was just stupid.  They saved about 10 seconds of screen time,   
   >>>>> and made you wonder why the Hell Scotty was wandering around carrying   
   >>>>> his body.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> EXACTLY! If you're gonna cut the family ties reference, then don't make   
   >>>> Scotty look like an idiot. Well, frankly, he would have looked like an   
   >>>> idiot either way, but it would have been somewhat understandable if   
   >>>> we'd   
   >>>> known about the family ties all along.   
   >>>   
   >>> The novelisation claimed that Scotty was trying to get Preston to   
   >>> sickbay but the elevator screwed up due to damage during Khan's   
   >>> attack.   
   >>   
   >> That would have been a nice thing to see, too. It just seems unfortunate   
   >> that, like the transporter business, a minute or two of time spent on   
   >> the pretty light shows couldn't have been used for this sort of   
   >> explanation instead.   
   >   
   > And yes, I'm sorta blurring my complaints about the first two movies,   
   > but that's because there's a common theme to it: visuals are nice, but   
   > not at the expense of head-scratching stuff that goes unexplained.   
   >   
   I think the studios view it as "if you can pay enough attention to the   
   story to find head-scratching stuff to complain about, the visuals   
   weren't doing their job."   
      
   --   
   Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation   
   instinct are running screaming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca