Jolt Country

pinback wrote:So far none of this has to do with 6.

I just thought it would enhance the thread.

But now I just watched 2 again with my wife and she's telling me she still thinks 6 is better, which just infuriates me, and now I just wish everyone would go away so I could enjoy the few things I enjoy and hate the few things I hate and everyone just leave me alone.

6 better than 2. Even Nicholas Meyer thinks that's bullshit.

Six is NOT better than two. Tell your wife I said that. Tell your wife that everyone else in the world also says that thing.

In terms of stars, Wrath of Khan is four stars. Undiscovered Country is 3. First Contact is a two. Shit, maybe I had that too high. I don't mean to say the rest are two stars or below, but they weren't great films. It goes down quickly.

It IS hilarious, though, you have to admit. How-- I mean, really, how did that happen. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN. "I know we have the most dedicated, huge fanbase in the entire world who, by the way, likes to nitpick everything... but we need a new explosion!! And we don't have one!! And we're in Hollywood!!! WHERE ARE WE GONNA FIND AN EXPLOSION IN HOLLYWOOD AT THIS TIME OF-- ah fuck it just use the one from the CLIMACTIC SCENE OF THE LAST FUCKING MOVIE."

That is the worst thing ever. Yes, that's a "Generations" insult and shouldn't be held against 6, but as of right now, this thread is about how terrible that is. Oh man.

It was pretty indefensible. Who directed Generations?

(Checking)

David Carson. A TV director who never did another movie. He didn't give a shit, I guess?

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Six is NOT better than two. Tell your wife I said that. Tell your wife that everyone else in the world also says that thing.

I tried to explain it. Then I sighed and drank a half bottle of vodka.

In terms of stars, Wrath of Khan is four stars.

Correct.

Undiscovered Country is 3

EHHHhhh, 2.5-3, sure.

First Contact is a two.

Correct. That's not good, man! I didn't even consider anything under a 3, because why give these idiots the satisfaction.

ST2: 4
Abrams Trek 1: 4
Abrams Trek 2: 3-3.5
ST:TMP: 4 or 1.5 depending on how high you are.

That's it.

"YOU JUST SAID ABRAMS TREK 1 WAS JUST AS GOOD AS ST2" no. Some day I will have you explain to you people the star scale. There is still room in a single star rating for one to be better than the other, AND for one to be just as good for different reasons.

But I plan to be long dead from alcohol poisoning before that day comes.

Good day to you, sirs.

pinback wrote: 1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
2. Star Trek: Into Darkness (Abrams)
3. Star Trek (Abrams)
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (*)
5-x. Everything else is shit.
[/i]

Just saw the new one and frankly your list is completely wrong.
1)Star Trek: Into Darkness (Abrams)
2)Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
3)Star Trek (Abrams)
4) Excerpts from Star Trek III
5) Undiscovered Country
6) nothing else

Except for a few whiny bromance scenes in the new Abrams picture, it's excellent. I like that they took all of the best parts of STII and amped them up. Reversing the death through glass scene with Kirk dying was a nice touch and then not needing a whole extra movie to bring him back was great. I didn't need to see Kirk crying "i'm scared to die" like a faggy little baby though.

CO wrote:

pinback wrote: 1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
2. Star Trek: Into Darkness (Abrams)
3. Star Trek (Abrams)
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (*)
5-x. Everything else is shit.
[/i]

Just saw the new one and frankly your list is completely wrong.

"COMPLETELY WRONG!"

/lists exact same top three.

/spoils new movie for everyone.

Worst JC post of 2013 so far, CO. Nicely done.