Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you said 
it sucked!
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

Paul Hyett wrote:
> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> said it sucked!

I avoided it.
It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting through 
the tat to get to them
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>> said it sucked!
> 
> I avoided it.
> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting through 
> the tat to get to them

Worse than Star Trek V, imo.

Aaron

"synaptyx"  wrote in message 
news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>> said it sucked!
>>
>> I avoided it.
>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>> through the tat to get to them
>
> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> Aaron

Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a 
great
film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
is turned out these days.

Dave

On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:02:01 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you said 
>it sucked!

I got free tickets to the press screening a few weeks before the
premiere, and afterwards I *still* resented wasting my time watching
it. A significant low-point in Trek history.

Here's hoping JJ does considerably better.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On 30 May, 11:11, "David Wilcox"  wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message
>
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> >> Paul Hyett wrote:
> >>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> >>> said it sucked!
>
> >> I avoided it.
> >> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting
> >> through the tat to get to them
>
> > Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> > Aaron
>
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a
> great
> film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.
>
> Dave

You know, i kind of thought it was great up untill 70%of the way in.
Sybok was great, and the build up too.
excuse spelling.

drunk AndyB

David Wilcox wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message 
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>>> said it sucked!
>>> I avoided it.
>>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>>> through the tat to get to them
>> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>>
>> Aaron
> 
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films.

It is in my collection, I've watched it hundreds of times, just for 
those teensy classic moments you mention, so it does have some re-watch 
value. I haven't even taken the wrapper off Nemesis, it's there purely 
for the sake of completeness.

> I'm not saying it's a 
> great film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.

I did say Nemesis was worse. ;)

I liked the big-hair Klingons. :)


Aaron

Paul Hyett wrote:
> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> said it sucked!

I avoided it.
It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting through 
the tat to get to them
-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>> said it sucked!
> 
> I avoided it.
> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting through 
> the tat to get to them

Worse than Star Trek V, imo.

Aaron

"synaptyx"  wrote in message 
news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>> said it sucked!
>>
>> I avoided it.
>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>> through the tat to get to them
>
> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> Aaron

Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a 
great
film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
is turned out these days.

Dave

On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:02:01 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you said 
>it sucked!

I got free tickets to the press screening a few weeks before the
premiere, and afterwards I *still* resented wasting my time watching
it. A significant low-point in Trek history.

Here's hoping JJ does considerably better.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On 30 May, 11:11, "David Wilcox"  wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message
>
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> >> Paul Hyett wrote:
> >>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> >>> said it sucked!
>
> >> I avoided it.
> >> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting
> >> through the tat to get to them
>
> > Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> > Aaron
>
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a
> great
> film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.
>
> Dave

You know, i kind of thought it was great up untill 70%of the way in.
Sybok was great, and the build up too.
excuse spelling.

drunk AndyB

David Wilcox wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message 
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>>> said it sucked!
>>> I avoided it.
>>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>>> through the tat to get to them
>> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>>
>> Aaron
> 
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films.

It is in my collection, I've watched it hundreds of times, just for 
those teensy classic moments you mention, so it does have some re-watch 
value. I haven't even taken the wrapper off Nemesis, it's there purely 
for the sake of completeness.

> I'm not saying it's a 
> great film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.

I did say Nemesis was worse. ;)

I liked the big-hair Klingons. :)


Aaron

On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:02:01 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you said 
>it sucked!

I got free tickets to the press screening a few weeks before the
premiere, and afterwards I *still* resented wasting my time watching
it. A significant low-point in Trek history.

Here's hoping JJ does considerably better.

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On 30 May, 11:11, "David Wilcox"  wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message
>
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> >> Paul Hyett wrote:
> >>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> >>> said it sucked!
>
> >> I avoided it.
> >> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting
> >> through the tat to get to them
>
> > Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> > Aaron
>
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a
> great
> film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.
>
> Dave

You know, i kind of thought it was great up untill 70%of the way in.
Sybok was great, and the build up too.
excuse spelling.

drunk AndyB

David Wilcox wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message 
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>>> said it sucked!
>>> I avoided it.
>>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>>> through the tat to get to them
>> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>>
>> Aaron
> 
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films.

It is in my collection, I've watched it hundreds of times, just for 
those teensy classic moments you mention, so it does have some re-watch 
value. I haven't even taken the wrapper off Nemesis, it's there purely 
for the sake of completeness.

> I'm not saying it's a 
> great film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.

I did say Nemesis was worse. ;)

I liked the big-hair Klingons. :)


Aaron

On 30 May, 11:11, "David Wilcox"  wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message
>
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> >> Paul Hyett wrote:
> >>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
> >>> said it sucked!
>
> >> I avoided it.
> >> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting
> >> through the tat to get to them
>
> > Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>
> > Aaron
>
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films. I'm not saying it's a
> great
> film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.
>
> Dave

You know, i kind of thought it was great up untill 70%of the way in.
Sybok was great, and the build up too.
excuse spelling.

drunk AndyB

David Wilcox wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message 
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>>> said it sucked!
>>> I avoided it.
>>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>>> through the tat to get to them
>> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>>
>> Aaron
> 
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films.

It is in my collection, I've watched it hundreds of times, just for 
those teensy classic moments you mention, so it does have some re-watch 
value. I haven't even taken the wrapper off Nemesis, it's there purely 
for the sake of completeness.

> I'm not saying it's a 
> great film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.

I did say Nemesis was worse. ;)

I liked the big-hair Klingons. :)


Aaron

David Wilcox wrote:
> "synaptyx"  wrote in message 
> news:5c4tn8F2vg8f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>>> Watched this on Monday on C4, and you guys weren't kidding when you
>>>> said it sucked!
>>> I avoided it.
>>> It did have a few redeeming moments but I couldn't be arsed sitting 
>>> through the tat to get to them
>> Worse than Star Trek V, imo.
>>
>> Aaron
> 
> Star Trek V is extremely under-rated IMO. Watch it again, the character
> interaction is some of the best of all the films.

It is in my collection, I've watched it hundreds of times, just for 
those teensy classic moments you mention, so it does have some re-watch 
value. I haven't even taken the wrapper off Nemesis, it's there purely 
for the sake of completeness.

> I'm not saying it's a 
> great film, the story stinks and some of the effects aren't the best but it's
> enjoyable enough, especially when you consider some of the filth that
> is turned out these days.

I did say Nemesis was worse. ;)

I liked the big-hair Klingons. :)


Aaron