This of course is built on the assumption that normally a Constitution wouldn't out gun a Miranda (as in said Constitution not being crippled in a surprise attack).
5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise
- Thread starter dub
- Start date
- Status
This of course is built on the assumption that normally a Constitution wouldn't out gun a Miranda (as in said Constitution not being crippled in a surprise attack).
Which part was an exaggeration - twenty years, rather than the (in-story) more exact fifteen? That's (at best) a minor quibble. Calling the Reliant a smaller ship? It's no exaggeration at all.
I'll tell you what: suppose you leave the moderation of this forum to those who have been assigned that responsibility. Besides, you're really in no position to be calling anyone on tearing down one thing in order to prop up another.
"You Kliiingon bastard. You killed my son!"
Yeah that was a pretty good line. Enhanced greatly with the Shatner effect.
Depicted? They give this nonsense explanation about how the Antosians taught him shapeshifting abilities and that somehow made him loose his mind. That's backstory, not "depiction." And that for a story where curing Garth's madness is the whole reason why they beamed down to this planet in the first place.
Really? I thought he explained it pretty clearly:
"War with the Klingons is inevitable. Since initial contact they've conquered and enslaved two planets that we know of, they've fired on our ships half a dozen times... they are coming our way."
And later:
"War is coming and who is gonna lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
I didn't think he was being subtle. He's a fanatic, obsessed with the Klingons, obsessed with "security," drunk with power and Hubris. You could write a NOVEL about how he got to be that way, but the short version is right there on the tin.
Because there's nothing wrong with TOS, and it doesn't phase me that the reboot films use TOS' simplistic approach to villains.
This entire conversation feels like debating "The Wizard of Oz" with you complaining "The dialog in this film is so unrealistic! All I'm asking for is some explanation for why they suddenly start discussing their problems through song! Did a wizard do it? Is it a spell? This is absurd!"
That's only because Schumacher's "batman" was marketed as a sequel to two respectable Tim Burton films, in addition to not being funny. People actually LIKED the previous installments and responded to what followed with "What the FUCK am I watching?"
Star Trek has the exact opposite problem: the previous three films bent over backwards, forwards and sideways to give the villains (even the Borg... Jesus, the FUCKING BORG!) plausible villainy motivations around which they could twirl their mustaches and hatch their insidious evil plot. I again note the complete lack of comparison to any of those films, and I ask this very frank question:
Was Marcus more believable than the Borg Queen?
Was Marcus more believable than Ruafo?
Was Marcus more believable than Shinzon? (omg I can't even ask this one with a straight face)
There's something to be said for erring on the side of simplicity, IMO.
Heck, was Marcus more believable than Sybok? Or Kruge? Or Khan (the 1982 original)? Or V'ger? Fans really need to think this through before they all blast Into Darkness as being just another action movie-ALL OF THEM WERE LIKE THAT.
'K, Shaka, that will be enough digging up old posts as a transparent excuse for telling "fans" what to do. You're supposed to know better than that.
Thread closed.
- Status
Similar threads
