Re: zero?

posted by [identity profile] dachte.livejournal.com at 05:24pm on 19/06/2006
Oh, I was meaning to say that one possible naming for a "Star Trek prequel" would be "Star Trek 0"....
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: zero?

posted by [identity profile] rfunk.livejournal.com at 05:29pm on 19/06/2006
I see. I think that might be cheating, since they haven't been explicitly numbering them in a while anyway, and it would still be the 11th movie.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: zero?

posted by [identity profile] nicosomething.livejournal.com at 08:02pm on 19/06/2006
In my opinion, one and three were not "bad", they just weren't very good. Five.... I wish I could pour enough bleach into my skull to erase the memory of five. Six was very good.

After that it gets murky. Generations and First Contact both had good and bad points. Most people seem to like First Contact more, I prefer Generations a little bit more, but while better than Three I don't consider either a great movie. Insurection was second only to Five for being utter crap.

I never saw Nemesis. I heard it wasn't bad, but not that great, and not really worth the effort to go see. A very sad ending to the legacy.
[link] [parent] [reply]

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
        1
 
 2
 
 3
 
4
 
 5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
11
 
 12
 
 13
1
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30