|oddeye - 2014-04-11 |
Hella good facial massage there.
|Nominal - 2014-04-11 |
It's so depressing seeing how cute Kim Cattrall used to be.
but not as depressing as Kirstie Alley.
Wait a second...Kirstie played the exact same character in Star Trek II!
Boy is Alice Eve in for a nasty shock in 10 years.
Well, not the EXACT same character. They were technically different characters, it wasn't recast.
I think she's still pretty awesome looking. Also, this is SO rapey, SHAME Nimoy, shaaaame.
As far as "Whoa, what happened?", I'd say Kathleen Turner and Teri Garr, tho they both have the excuse of having life-shortening diseases.
...boy, now I'm depressed, too.
Have you seen pictures of Worf these days? He's lost like half his forehead! Tragedy seems to run in Star Trek, I mean Captain Picard is now wheelchair bound for fucks sake.
At least Data finally became a human, lucky bastard.
Yeah, Kathleen Turner is probably exhibit A for the saying, "a beautiful woman dies two deaths."
as far as pure looks go, no, Kim Cattrall didn't age badly. It's her personalty of acting like Sarah "vagina vagina vagina fart kegels" Silverman well into her 50s that makes me find her repulsive. Kind of like how the rest of the Sex & the City cast isn't objectively bad looking but they still make every man's dick wither.
Actually, Saavik and Valeris WERE the same character! It was originally written for Saavik to be the traitor in Star Trek 6 but she had become such a fan favorite that they just created a new clone character last minute. It's also rumored that Kim snuck a nude photo shoot (wearing only her vulcan ears) onto the empty Enterprise set, and Nimoy tore up the pictures so they wouldn't soil the franchise.
Oh dear lord yes, Kathleen Turner. I'll add to that Beverly D'Angelo. In another cloned character story, Beverly D'Angelo played a "so hideous it's comical" Hollywood talent agency executive in Entourage, so competing show Californication had to come up with the same character played by Kathleen Turner.
Kim Cattrall is 57 years old, why don't you cut her a little slack? fuck.
I'm going to disagree about Beverly D'Angelo, Nom. She just was having a bad hair day.
Just so I don't have to post again, will say I also agree that ST4 is the best ST film.
LEAVE KIM ALONE!
themikshark, I know this isn't "politically correct", but if Valeris didn't want to be mind-raped, she shouldn't have worn those gravity boots.
I suppose you'll say she was just "assassinating Gorkon", right??
But if that won't get you mind-raped in the real world, what will?
Also, Gene Tierney really let herself go.
57-year-olds already have plenty of slack
|DavidBowiesLuckyTennisBall - 2014-04-12 |
This is the only Star Trek film I've seen. Like it though, even if the Simpson's gag 'So Very Tired' hits very close to the bullseye.
You should really watch 4 (on Netflix right now). It's a damn good fish out of water comedy and easily the best of the movies despite what trekkie nerds say.
The general rule is that the even numbered movies are the good ones. 2 is largely everyones favorite and works as a sci-fi actiony sort of this, 4 is probably the best on the qualities of being a movie because it sort of drops pretension and just has fun with itself, 6 was a good sendoff to the characters and an ok political plot story.
Conversely, the odd numbered ones are to be avoided at all costs. The first one is the most tolerable yet also shockingly boring. It's basically a very long, talky episode of the old show. Not the worst story but just too goddamn long. 3 was revisionist cowardly puff-peice, basically a fan-fic there the erased the ending whole point of the second movies ending. The 5 movie is Shatner saying 'Fuck you, dad!' to god while making himself some sort of elderly adonis.
And the the TNG movies are their own category and generally not great. The Plinket reviews of them are the best way to see them.
Only the even numbered Trek movies are good, while only the odd numbered Space Quest games are good.
First Contact was the only decent Next Generation movie. At the time I thought it was very good but after Plinkett's review I realized how awful a lot of the writing was.
Yeah, I felt the same. I was young enough to think that First Contact was a really good movie and then I never watched it again. Then the Plinkett review shatteredthe memory and iupon second viewing, it's not only a terrible Trek movie, it's kinda just terrible.
It';s a shame. I consider TNG series to the the definition of the whole franchise. Still very optimistic but with enough flies thrown in the ointment to show that it's not utopia, combined with production values taht were fairly good for the time. TOS was great for being bizzare and having whatever plot the writers dreamed up but didn't have the production values it needed and DS9 tried to be too 'gritty'. And Voyager was Voyager, Enterprise was....fuck, I don't even know what Enterprise was.
Blah, I guess I'm just a Trek fan? I dunno, seems like it.
TOS: Twilight Zone with a consistent setting and cast
TNG: What you said.
DS9: Trying to be Babylon 5 and coming up short. It also marks the point where Trek shifted from speculative sci-fi to soap opera pew pew space battles.
Voyager: Trek fan fiction put to screen.
Enterprise: It reminded me of Voyager if they had distributed Neelix's personality amongst the entire crew.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|