Chris Marquette Message Board

Bought these today.

$1 from a garage sale.

$5

All I was trying to say is that Trek movies have sort of been lacking in the "action" area quite a lot. Even when they had action it was all too brief.

I've always felt in away that Trek films should have more action than they did. Something they've always lacked, so I'm glad that this one upped the ante.

Don't want to post any potential spoilerish material, but I think his reasons are much more understandable than what's been shown for villains in previous Trek films. Most of the Trek films used Klingons as the main villain and most of them were never really given a reason other than they simply hated the Federation or Kirk. Only II, Generations and perhaps Insurrection & Nemesis gave the villain any real reason for what they were doing.

Perhaps you can answer some questions, but don't post any spoiler material if possible.
1. How is the acting? Can go actor by actor.
2. How are the visual effects?
3. Any real "neat/cool" scenes? Try and be as vague as possible.
4. Any cool shots of the Enterprise?
5. Lens flare - overused - too much?
6. Is it easy to follow the action?
7. How much is Nimoy in it?

Not to pick on Ebert, but I can't believe that he gave 3 stars (and a better review) to Next Day Air.

That film is being slammed fairly hard right now by the critics, which from what I've seen looks deserved.
But not surprising since years ago he gave one of the few positive reviews for the remake of The Honeymooners.

As of right now it has a 95% rating on Rottentomatoes.com. 70 positive reviews out of 74. 4 negative.

One of the negatives came from Ebert.
But he hasn't liked the majority of them anyways, only giving positives to II, IV and First Contact.

Perhaps it's just me, but his nitpicking of the "science" aspects makes little sense to me.

ok, can't copy & paste off his site.

But he mentions that time travel is impossible.
However he liked the two previous movies that involved time travel, IV and First Contact.

Then he rags on warp speed and saying that it's just a convenience for the screenwriters so that they can "push a button and zap to the next scene". And that it "prevents any sense of wonder at the immensity of space".

Where in the world has he been for the past 40 plus years. Warp speed has been a staple of Trek from the very first episode. Plus it's also used in the Star Wars films too. And I'm sure many other science fiction films.

Does he really think that either every thing should only happen within the orbit of Earth or that viewers which to sit through a long and boring stretch of film watching them travel through space to another planet? Just so that he can watch a film that shows the wonder and immensity of space, viewers would be bored out of their minds.

He's in the minority on this one.

I've never seen Coke or Pepsi w/ sugar before up here in the spring.

And I buy pop every week.

Went on a little Star Trek shopping spree today.

1st stopped at Burger King and got an entire set of the glasses.
Also got 4 toys. Kirk, Scotty, Tricorder & Shuttle.

$12 for BK stuff.

Then Toys R Us for the following.
Transporter Playset
6" Uhura to start the 6" line.

$34 at TRU.

Target:
Enterprise D from Hot Wheels
USS Reliant from Hot Wheels
$26 Target

I think First Contact is the best of the Next Gen. films.

If I had to put the Next Gen. Trek films in order from best to worst.

1. First Contact
2. Nemesis
3. Generations
4. Insurrection.

Is Nemesis 1 or 2 discs?
I own the Collector's Edition, which is 2 discs, and it's loaded with extras.

Luckily I was able to get all 10 Trek film Collector's Editions before they went OOP. So I could have a marathon any time I want to.

My thoughts on the Star Trek film since I first heard about it.

First I didn't like the idea at all.
Then when I started to see whom they cast, I started to like it even less.
And then when they debuted the revised Enterprise I had very mixed feelings.

But when I started to see stills my thoughts started to sway the other way.
And then when I started to see the Trailers/TV Spots I really started to like what I was seeing.

Now about 20 years ago if they would have done this I would have been 100% against it, but now I am more accepting.

More accepting because they didn't do what ruined the Lost in Space movie.
In that their costumes was completely different, whereas in Star Trek they kept the basic style the same.
In LOS they just completely redesigned the Jupiter II into something that didn't even look like the original, whereas in Star Trek the basic form is there. It doesn't look like a Star Destroyer or from Star Trek - the Voyager.
The Enterprise bridge keeps the basic layout of the original Enterprise bridge, but just lights it up quite a bit.
And in LOS they just got rid of the classic robot design into something that looked rather stupid.

About the only thing that the LOS movie got right is the robot voice, but other than that it's LOS in name only.

As far as I can tell the new Star Trek film is Star Trek.

Completed my 3.75 " figures today.

Bought Nero & Sulu.

I've already spent over $120 on toys and that doesn't include all of the Kellogg's cereals and products to get the badges and plates(that I still need to send off for).

The 6 inch figures will cost about $90 plus about $55 for the Bridge & Transporter sets.

Then beginning next week I'll be going to Burger King to get the glasses & toys too.

Here is a list of the Playmates toys that I now own.

3.75 inch figures
Uhura
Spock
Original Spock
Cadet McCoy
Scotty
Pike
Cadet Chekov
Kirk

Role Playing
Communicator
Tricorder

Ships
Enterprise

All I need to complete the 3.75 inch figures are:
Sulu
Nero

http://www.movieweb.com/news/NECueCFKpKWEGI

OK, I've read that he needs glasses because he's near-sighted.

First. He's got tons of money - couldn't he have gotten better style of glasses.

Second. What about contact lenses?
Unless he can't - perhaps his eyes are too sensitive.