Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....
Santa Kang wrote:
Uhura was the third lead.
I keep forgetting that hollywoods idea of 'lead' for women is them acting all bitchy and menstrual while being swooning with affection for some guy. So in that sense you are right.
But seriously, what am I missing here? I don't see any depth at all in these characters. You people have to be making this stuff up, there is nothing involved in these characters, nothing developmentally viable (kirk is the same at the end of the film as in the beginning). Nothing to make me care whether they live or die.
Another thing is, if these are alternate dimension versions of all the main characters who exist in their own time line, separate from the real prime universe characters, why care about them at all? What's at stake? What's the point? It's really stupid.
Whether I agree with how they used time travel or not, the way they presented it is the most accurate based on current scientific theories. A lack of scientific accuracy is one of the things you say you hate about the new film.
Your stances are very much in contradiction to the information we have about the film in particular and Star Trek in general.
"Just give me two seconds, alright, you mad bastard!" - Montgomery Scott, Star Trek Into Darkness