Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.
I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.
If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)
waauw wrote:betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.
I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.
If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)
Star wars II wasn't all that bad in my opinion... star wars I and III were indeed a dissapointment though
and I'm pretty sure a lot of movies can beat "back to the future"
betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.
I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.
If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
universalchiro wrote:sure he did well bringing all the old characters back pretty & young
universalchiro wrote:The other flaw is Khan in the original was olive skinned, deep speaking with a Spanish draw. The new Khan is white skin, higher pitched VII e & doesn't sound the same. You mean to tell me they couldn't get off their butts and find talent that matched the original Khan? That's just lazy casting.
universalchiro wrote:Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks. +1 point Star Trek....
Star Wars has a death star +1
Let the debate commence. State your opinion of why a movie gets a +1 or -1... I will tally up the votes...
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).
Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)
universalchiro wrote:Star Trek gets +1 for Spock
john9blue wrote:nerrrrrds
Haggis_McMutton wrote:betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.
I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.
If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)
Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).
Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)
Star Wars is just a decent scifi flick with a couple good moments. I'd place it pretty much in the same category as TOS. Maybe it was groundbreaking for its time, but it doesn't stand up today.
universalchiro wrote:I just saw the new Star Trek Into the Darkness, really good special effects. Director JJ Abrams did a good job. But I have one glaring beef with him: sure he did well bringing all the old characters back pretty & young, but the amountif copying he did with The Wrath of Khan is a huge let down. Both movies have warp core drive off line. Both have radiation leaks. Both have "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one". Both have glass shielding the dying from the living. Both have the hand touching the glass. Both have the one saving the ship die. Both have the one who saved the ship resurrected.
Its silly how unoriginal JJ Abrams was.
The other flaw is Khan in the original was olive skinned, deep speaking with a Spanish draw. The new Khan is white skin, higher pitched VII e & doesn't sound the same. You mean to tell me they couldn't get off their butts and find talent that matched the original Khan? That's just lazy casting.
They did do a nice job of introducing Dr. MARCUS, Captain Kirk's mother of his child.
Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks. +1 point Star Trek....
Star Wars has a death star +1
Let the debate commence. State your opinion of why a movie gets a +1 or -1... I will tally up the votes...
betiko wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.
I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.
If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)
Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).
Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)
Star Wars is just a decent scifi flick with a couple good moments. I'd place it pretty much in the same category as TOS. Maybe it was groundbreaking for its time, but it doesn't stand up today.
I guess it depends on our age I m from 1980, what about you? When I was a kid, all the big brothers were hard core into Star Wars. All the kids had all these cool Star Wars toys, and I was so proud to go watch Star Wars for the 15th time with guys 4-5 years older. I remember I had a babysitter that would just bring Star Wars VHS so he knew I wouldn't be a pain in the ass. I don t know it depends on the age and all, but the music, the toys, the costumes really impressed me at the time.
Regarding Star Trek, the bad acting, the z-movie costumes, special effects, make ups, stages just looked uber ridiculous. No way I could ever take it seriously.
waauw wrote:you're probably right. I'm a 90's kid and I prefer the Stargate-series, probably because I grew up with it.
Woodruff wrote:I would suggest that TOS explored at least as many interesting issues as TNG did on a consistency basis, though of course TNG had a much longer run to give it many more interesting episodes and issues with them. I might be biased.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666