View Single Post
Old December 9 2013, 04:57 PM   #837
BillJ's Avatar
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post

We've seen countless destroyed ships, we've seen horrific scenes like a man's head being crushed and a Captain hit by a phaser, watching him die. These movies have been incredibly violent, and I wouldn't introduce anyone to the universe seeing all this death and destruction.
We've seen Epsilon IX, three Klingon cruisers and Lt. Ilia "digitized" in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. We watched Captain Terrell disintegrate himself, the Ceti Eel makes a bloody exit from Chekov's head, we see the charred body of Peter Preston and the destruction of the Reliant in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. A freighter crew bites the dust in the opening minutes of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. The Grissom is destroyed, we watch David Marcus get stabbed, a Klingon boarding party gets killed during the destruction of the Enterprise and Kirk kicks Kruge in the face several times before he falls to an obviously gruesome death.

Selective memory?

I find Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan far more "graphically violent" than Star Trek Into Darkness.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post

The final frontier has never been a safe place, even in TNG. What did Q say again?

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

Probably my favorite line in all of TNG--and Q is absolutely right. Exploring the final frontier was never supposed to be warm and cozy--and that means death and disaster sometimes.

"Risk is our business" and all that.
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!

Last edited by BillJ; December 9 2013 at 05:13 PM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote