Maybe the Wroboski Brothers are the same ones who directed the porno movies, which I think you'll agree would be a bad sign.
Top 10 Signs You Know The Next Star Trek Movie Will Go Wrong
- Thread starter Carpe Occasio
- Start date
Hey, I don't think a follow up (or prequel?) to Conspiracy would be a bad idea, though it'd be hard to avoid that Aliens-meets-Star Trek feel.
My contributions:
1. The Borg show up with a Seven of Nine cameo
2. Abrams gives in to fanatical Shatner fans and comes with an embarrassingly contrived way to bring him back.
3. The following two ideas are combined a la "The Return" (though I admit to loving the idea of the Borg not assimilating Spock because they consider him a part of the collective due to his mindmeld with V'ger which was transformed by the Borg according to the book.)
My contributions:
1. The Borg show up with a Seven of Nine cameo
2. Abrams gives in to fanatical Shatner fans and comes with an embarrassingly contrived way to bring him back.
3. The following two ideas are combined a la "The Return" (though I admit to loving the idea of the Borg not assimilating Spock because they consider him a part of the collective due to his mindmeld with V'ger which was transformed by the Borg according to the book.)
4. (the parenthetical explanation is longer than the original point)
... anything involving the Shat is shit... so that should be the #1 Reason.
The number one reason is clearly:
1. It's an odd-numbered movie.
Everyone knows that Star Trek XII is going to be titled "So Very Tired".
IT MUST BE! OR I SHALL SURELY BOYCOTT!
1. It's an odd-numbered movie.
Everyone knows that Star Trek XII is going to be titled "So Very Tired".
IT MUST BE! OR I SHALL SURELY BOYCOTT!
IS there actually a rule about parenthetical explanations not too long or it just considered "bad form"? I agree I made it a little too long in general, but at least it had the unintended side effect of being somewhat amusing.
Didn't someone write a book or novel once where essentially the entire thing was footnotes, and only like a couple of regular sentences?
#1: Time travel is involved.
(Oh.....crap.... it IS!!!!)
(Oh.....crap.... it IS!!!!)
"Faith of the Heart" plays over the opening titles.
11f. Daniels and the Suliban pay a visit.
11g. Space Nazis!
11g. Space Nazis!
IS there actually a rule about parenthetical explanations not too long or it just considered "bad form"? I agree I made it a little too long in general, but at least it had the unintended side effect of being somewhat amusing.
Douglas Adams often used both the long subclause and the long parenthetical phrase to comic effect in his earliest Hitch-hiker's books. By the latter books, however, he became very self-referential about it (at one point including the line "Go back and read it again and you'll get it") and the gimmick lost some of its humor.
No offense was meant, my friend... I was just being a smartass and having fun with it...IS there actually a rule about parenthetical explanations not too long or it just considered "bad form"? I agree I made it a little too long in general, but at least it had the unintended side effect of being somewhat amusing.
That's a good one.
13b. Based on an original story by Gene Roddenberry
16c. They're all Cylons
13c. screenplay by Gene Roddenberry...no, Harold Livingston...no, Gene Roddenberry. Wait, Harold Livingston. No, Roddenberry...
It's directed by Stuart Baird.
Interesting that that's number 13...
I don't see why you guys have to make stuff up.
The number one reason is that the guy who created the la Femme Nakita knockoff and Gilligan's Island with polar bears and directed Mission: "Let's blow up a lot of stuff while Tom Cruise looks intense" is directing it.
It will suck. nuff said.
The number one reason is that the guy who created the la Femme Nakita knockoff and Gilligan's Island with polar bears and directed Mission: "Let's blow up a lot of stuff while Tom Cruise looks intense" is directing it.
It will suck. nuff said.
1G: It's a follow-up to TOS: Spock's Brain. 
Similar threads
- Poll
