Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am excited to see where my beloved nufranchise goes but am a little worried since Abrams isn't there anymore.


http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/14/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3

I'm hoping they go for an entirely new story rather than a retelling of a previous film. No point in having a new divergent timeline if they're just going to use it to have slightly different versions of the original one.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm hoping they go for an entirely new story rather than a retelling of a previous film. No point in having a new divergent timeline if they're just going to use it to have slightly different versions of the original one.

Like you wouldn't want to see time-travel and whales again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like you wouldn't want to see time-travel and whales again. Bhub4ExmVQg

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm hoping they go for an entirely new story rather than a retelling of a previous film. No point in having a new divergent timeline if they're just going to use it to have slightly different versions of the original one. Into Darkness was amazing and shared certain parallels to Wrath of a Khan. To me it was the nest of both worlds and really worked for me. I do agree I want to see the third film go into an entirely different direction. I'd love to see an intergalactic war with the Klingons done. If they get this done right I believe 2016 would be the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

LOL "it paralleled Wrath of Khan". STFU you wannabe film analyst. You haven't seen WoK in your life, you mindless popcorn muncher. And no, ID was not "amazing". It was a mindless forgettable generic substance-lacking popcorn flick which only simple-minded sheep would hail as something "amazing".

Maybe this new director will make it that I will actually care about what's going on in the movie. Maybe make it exciting like Best of Both Worlds, instead of the suspense hinging on "Is main franchise star Kirk going to die? "

Originally posted by Lestov16
STFU you wannabe film analyst.

My how KMC has changed. That would have gotten a warning or temp ban, in the past.

Calm down DDM. It's not like you haven't pulled uncouth shit in the past

Originally posted by dadudemon
My how KMC has changed. That would have gotten a warning or temp ban, in the past. He's very upset these days and unhappy. I feel bad for the kid tbh. I don't report people anyways. They report me out of rage and unhappiness in their own lives. They seek to blame me for their own problems.

The subjective opinion of the priceline mascot is supposed to be fact now? Cumberbytch mode is in full swing

You are right though, you are fully energized to rape

I like Shatner, but that was just a nice thing to say in the moment; it's not mathematically correct.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture alone banked more money than Into Darkness if we adjust for inflation and deduct production fees, since 1979 dollars are not the same as 2013 dollars

Originally posted by Lestov16
The subjective opinion of the priceline mascot is supposed to be fact now? Cumberbytch mode is in full swing

You are right though, you are fully energized to rape He was the original Kirk. I have him fully endorsing the new Star Trek whereas you have no one save yourself to just moan about the new Treks. It is an objective statement they grossed more money than anything the older, boring, Treks produced. I produced evidence of the original Kirk actor supporting my opinion. You like your sex life have nothing.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is an objective statement they grossed more money than anything the older, boring, Treks produced.


Factually incorrect

Even in his 'compliment', he basically acknowledges the new trek films are shallow and only succeed in hollow mindless special effects and action.

Originally posted by Robtard
Factually incorrect Prove it. And don't you dare disrespect Shatner's intelligence. These new Treks are a lot more enjoyable and factually more successful. Figures you would turn on Shatner too and attempt to discredit him. You have no loyalty.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Even in his 'compliment', he basically acknowledges the new trek films are shallow and only succeed in hollow mindless special effects and action. No, he doesn't. He admits Abrams did what he never could. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Disney also believes in Abrams. You can continue to hate the man who clearly knows what he is doing.

Abrams is a better director than Shatner. Not exactly a difficult conclusion to come to.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Abrams is a better director than Shatner. Not exactly a difficult conclusion to come to. He is a great director and one in which the billion dollar franchise known as Star Wars is entrusted to. Saying he did a piss poor job on Star Trek is being illogical and ignoring the success he had with resurrecting the tired and washed up franchise.

Cry more.

Oh gawd, not another fight.

Peace be with you all

Originally posted by quanchi112
Prove it. And don't you dare disrespect Shatner's intelligence. These new Treks are a lot more enjoyable and factually more successful. Figures you would turn on Shatner too and attempt to discredit him. You have no loyalty.

ST: The Motion Picture grossed 93mil (after production cost), or 303mil in 2014 dollars

Into Darkness grossed 283mil (after production cost), or 287mil in 2014 dollars.

303 > 287 or in other words: Math > you

You don't even like Shatner, bandwagonboi. But this thread is about the next coming film, so maybe stop derailing it with attention grabbing nonsense? Thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
ST: The Motion Picture grossed 93mil (after production cost), or 303mil in 2014 dollars

Into Darkness grossed 283mil (after production cost), or 287mil in 2014 dollars.

303 > 287 or in other words: Math > you

You don't even like Shatner, bandwagonboi. But this thread is about the next coming film, so maybe stop derailing it with attention grabbing nonsense? Thanks. You don't get ignore the worldwide numbers just because you're biased.

Math and objectivity >>>you.

Dec 7, 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $35,000,000 $11,926,421 $82,258,456 $139,0
00,000
Jun 4, 1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $12,000,000 $14,347,221 $79,912,963 $96,800,0
00
Jun 1, 1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $18,000,000 $16,673,229 $76,471,046 $87,000,
000
Nov 26, 1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $24,000,000 $16,881,888 $109,713,132 $133,000
,000
Jun 9, 1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $30,000,000 $17,375,648 $52,210,049 $70,2
00,000
Dec 6, 1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $27,000,000 $18,162,837 $74,888,996 $96,90
0,000
Nov 18, 1994 Star Trek: Generations $38,000,000 $23,116,394 $75,671,262 $1
20,000,000
Nov 22, 1996 Star Trek: First Contact $46,000,000 $30,716,131 $92,027,888 $150,0
00,000
Dec 11, 1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $70,000,000 $22,052,836 $70,187,658 $
117,800,000
Dec 13, 2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $60,000,000 $18,513,305 $43,254,409 $67,31
2,826
May 8, 2009 Star Trek $140,000,000 $79,204,289 $257,730,019 $385,68
0,446
May 15, 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness $190,000,000 $70,165,559 $228,778,661 $46
6,978,661 Play


http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek


This is fun shooting down your bias. Shatner and I are right. You're clearly wrong. I never said I liked him but you twisting the numbers and acting like the man is an idiot is exposing the bias located inside you. It's disgusting.

Don't throw such complex math at Quan. He doesn't even know what inflation is.

Anyways, like I said, I hope this new film has some substance to it, rather than an over-bloated yet hollow plot.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You don't get ignore the worldwide numbers just because you're biased.

Math and objectivity >>>you.

Dec 7, 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $35,000,000 $11,926,421 $82,258,456 $139,0
00,000
Jun 4, 1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $12,000,000 $14,347,221 $79,912,963 $96,800,0
00
Jun 1, 1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $18,000,000 $16,673,229 $76,471,046 $87,000,
000
Nov 26, 1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $24,000,000 $16,881,888 $109,713,132 $133,000
,000
Jun 9, 1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $30,000,000 $17,375,648 $52,210,049 $70,2
00,000
Dec 6, 1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $27,000,000 $18,162,837 $74,888,996 $96,90
0,000
Nov 18, 1994 Star Trek: Generations $38,000,000 $23,116,394 $75,671,262 $1
20,000,000
Nov 22, 1996 Star Trek: First Contact $46,000,000 $30,716,131 $92,027,888 $150,0
00,000
Dec 11, 1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $70,000,000 $22,052,836 $70,187,658 $
117,800,000
Dec 13, 2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $60,000,000 $18,513,305 $43,254,409 $67,31
2,826
May 8, 2009 Star Trek $140,000,000 $79,204,289 $257,730,019 $385,68
0,446
May 15, 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness $190,000,000 $70,165,559 $228,778,661 $46
6,978,661 Play


http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek


This is fun shooting down your bias. Shatner and I are right. You're clearly wrong. I never said I liked him but you twisting the numbers and acting like the man is an idiot is exposing the bias located inside you. It's disgusting.

Those numbers support the numbers I posted

Too bad you don't understand that you deduct for production fees (as that's money lost, not earned) and adjust for inflation to get the accurate comparisons.

eg, if a movie made 400mil but cost 401mil to produce, it's not a "success"

Now stop derailing the thread with your rants? Thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
Those numbers support the numbers I posted

Too bad you don't understand that you deduct for production fees (as that's money lost, not earned) and adjust for inflation to get the accurate comparisons.

eg, if a movie made 400mil but cost 401mil to produce, it's not a "success"

Now stop derailing the thread with your rants? Thanks. No, you ignored worldwide numbers. You tried to twist it into domestic only and want to ignore Shatner's opinion and the overall numbers. That is called twisting evidence. Studios don't ignore worldwide box office.

Again, Quan doesn't understand anything about the economics of cinema. He thinks inflation is what you do to a balloon.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Don't throw such complex math at Quan. He doesn't even know what inflation is.

Anyways, like I said, I hope this new film has some substance to it, rather than an over-bloated yet hollow plot. I know the numbers support me not him. I posted proof as well. You don't ever seem to post any proof to back your claims.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you ignored worldwide numbers. You tried to twist it into domestic only and want to ignore Shatner's opinion and the overall numbers. That is called twisting evidence. Studios don't ignore worldwide box office.



What I linked/posted and what you posted matched numerically

You just don't understand production cost and inflation.

Now stop derailing the thread with your rants? Thanks.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Calm down DDM. It's not like you haven't pulled uncouth shit in the past


I got warnings and threats of bans when I did that shit, though.


I like it that it is more relaxed around here, though. I prefer people to be able to post like you are doing.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I know the numbers support me not him. I posted proof as well. You don't ever seem to post any proof to back your claims.

Well Rob already posted direct evidence which contradicts your bullshit, and you're ignoring that. Not sure what I could post that would get a different response. But keep on wanking the hollow, themeless "NuTrek" films, you mindless little Cumberbytch

Originally posted by Robtard
What I linked/posted and what you posted matched numerically

You just don't understand production cost and inflation.

Now stop derailing the thread with your rants? Thanks. You posted domestic only while ignoring worldwide numbers. That is the truest indicator.



You tried twisting. I caught you. Quit disrespecting Shatner's intelligence.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well Rob already posted direct evidence which contradicts your bullshit, and you're ignoring that. Not sure what I could post that would get a different response. But keep on wanking the hollow, themeless "NuTrek" films, you mindless little Cumberbytch Worldwide numbers and I posted a link confirming my numbers and exposing his bias in hiding the truest indicators.

Quit being a baby, momma's boy.

So you are ignoring the evidence because you are too stupid to comprehend the evidence. Understood

Originally posted by quanchi112
You posted domestic only while ignoring worldwide numbers. That is the truest indicator.



You tried twisting. I caught you. Quit disrespecting Shatner's intelligence.

From your post:

ST: The Motion Picture totals: 267mil, or 869.01 in 2014 dollars

ST: Into Darkness totals 534mil, or 541.65 in 2014 dollars

869.01 > 541.65

You lost again, condolences.

It was a smart move for JJ to give up Star Trek and expand Star Wars, now we will actual see some good Star Wars movies the way they should be.

Finally, Jar Jar becomes a Jedi Master!

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are ignoring the evidence because you are too stupid to comprehend the evidence. Understood The correct evidence are the worldwide numbers not just one country's gross profit. One shouldn't talk about intelligence when a family member like tying oneself up in public.

LOL, the butthurt oozes out of you like a volcano.

Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL, the butthurt oozes out of you like a volcano. Says the bondage spawn of his bondage mom.

i want the next star ttek film to involve a kick ass storyline .. i want the klingons to come in and put up a much better fight..

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
i want the next star ttek film to involve a kick ass storyline .. i want the klingons to come in and put up a much better fight.. They were impressive and easily were more formidable than Spock, Kirk, and Uhura. The problem was Khan who is vastly superior to pretty much everyone in combat.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Into Darkness was amazing and shared certain parallels to Wrath of a Khan. To me it was the nest of both worlds and really worked for me. I do agree I want to see the third film go into an entirely different direction. I'd love to see an intergalactic war with the Klingons done. If they get this done right I believe 2016 would be the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

Yeah I think the introduction of the Klingons in the last film is an indicator as to how they'll go. Testing the water to see how people would react to the new aesthetic. I personally thought they looked badass as **** even if their showing was a bit weak. I'd be happy with it being them. I do think the timeline limits what species from the established trek canon they can bring in. If they're going to mirror old films and bring in aspects of other non film ST media then I would also be happy with the whole V'Ger/Borg origin being explored. If they could make the Klingon look that imposing, here's what they could do with the Borg.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah I think the introduction of the Klingons in the last film is an indicator as to how they'll go. Testing the water to see how people would react to the new aesthetic. I personally thought they looked badass as **** even if their showing was a bit weak. I'd be happy with it being them. I do think the timeline limits what species from the established trek canon they can bring in. If they're going to mirror old films and bring in aspects of other non film ST media then I would also be happy with the whole V'Ger/Borg origin being explored. If they could make the Klingon look that imposing, here's what they could do with the Borg. We were just introduced to one party of the Klingons. Once we meet some major players hopefully they will definitely play them up on screen. Imagining the possibilities with the new direction of the series is an enticing thought.

I think now that they have the director we will see it released for the fiftieth anniversary.

The more success it has, the increasing likelihood of a new series that can go into deeper political intrigue rather than surface motivations and big action. I think there's an appetite for something that crosses the extended plots and characterizations from shows like DS9 with less hammy acting and better action.

Originally posted by quanchi112
They were impressive and easily were more formidable than Spock, Kirk, and Uhura. The problem was Khan who is vastly superior to pretty much everyone in combat.


not really, they weren't impressive at all which is why in part 3 i will get a klingon who will kill at the drop of a hat

George Lucas

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
not really, they weren't impressive at all which is why in part 3 i will get a klingon who will kill at the drop of a hat Again, they were above Spock and Kirk for the most part and they were no names. Khan is on another level so don't ignore that aspect of the film. Klingons were portrayed just fine.

Spock would have wrecked the Klingons. His battle against Khan proves that. At least in HTH.

Originally posted by playa1258
Spock would have wrecked the Klingons. His battle against Khan proves that. At least in HTH. Spock didn't engage the Klingons hand to hand. Spock also lost the hand to hand fight despite raging out on Khan after he just survived a crash landing on earth. So you can't argue hand to hand when it wasn't hand to hand. Khan also shot Spock's gun away from him further proving armed he is well beyond them all.

Originally posted by jaden101
The more success it has, the increasing likelihood of a new series that can go into deeper political intrigue rather than surface motivations and big action. I think there's an appetite for something that crosses the extended plots and characterizations from shows like DS9 with less hammy acting and better action.

I'd like to see a new series, definitely. Just with the depth that a Star Trek show should have, like you said.

Khan was only able to do bad-ass things because he was empowered by Cumberbatchs voice

Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, they were above Spock and Kirk for the most part and they were no names. Khan is on another level so don't ignore that aspect of the film. Klingons were portrayed just fine.

they were portrayed like shit.. their skills were embarrassing

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
they were portrayed like shit.. their skills were embarrassing No, they weren't since they had beaten the Enterprise crew and were unnamed Klingons to boot.

Roberto Orci to direct the 3rd Star Trek movie.

^

Yeah, Quan pretty much established that the first post.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, they weren't since they had beaten the Enterprise crew and were unnamed Klingons to boot.


What Enterprise crew? There was 3 of them. That's hardly a crew. The Klingons were not very impressive in that movie.


Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you ignored worldwide numbers. You tried to twist it into domestic only and want to ignore Shatner's opinion and the overall numbers. That is called twisting evidence. Studios don't ignore worldwide box office.




And your ignoring inflation which is the much bigger factor. It's too difficult to account for inflation on a WW basis, since every country has a different rate of inflation, and they probably were not even released in the same number of countries.

So the best comparison is to take the biggest and most profitable market (domestic) and account for inflation within that market. Which is exactly what Robtard did. His figures are the best and most fair comparison. Yours are not fair at all.

But it's ok, I'm sure the maths of all this is too complicated for you to get.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
What Enterprise crew? There was 3 of them. That's hardly a crew. The Klingons were not very impressive in that movie.





And your ignoring inflation which is the much bigger factor. It's too difficult to account for inflation on a WW basis, since every country has a different rate of inflation, and they probably were not even released in the same number of countries.

So the best comparison is to take the biggest and most profitable market (domestic) and account for inflation within that market. Which is exactly what Robtard did. His figures are the best and most fair comparison. Yours are not fair at all.

But it's ok, I'm sure the maths of all this is too complicated for you to get. This ship can be controlled by a minimal crew one if necessary.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8npGLg2g8

They were impressive since they easily had Spock and company subdued even amidst Khan took them out.

So yes the word crew applies since in this same universe the word can even apply to one person. I cite the movie whereas you just rage on.

You then insult my intelligence and then say you're too stupid to account for inflation country by country. Then have the audacity to say ignore the overall big picture and just focus on domestic numbers. Sorry, can't do that. I cited the original actor who portrayed Kirk to back me.

You have an inability to comprehend (you admitted it) and want to ignore the totality of the numbers which is the truest indicator. Evidence and the original Kirk backing me.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This ship can be controlled by a minimal crew one if necessary.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8npGLg2g8

They were impressive since they easily had Spock and company subdued even amidst Khan took them out.

So yes the word crew applies since in this same universe the word can even apply to one person. I cite the movie whereas you just rage on.


It took dozens of Klingons to show dominance over 3 people with massively inferior firepower. Great feat


Originally posted by quanchi112
You then insult my intelligence and then say you're too stupid to account for inflation country by country. Then have the audacity to say ignore the overall big picture and just focus on domestic numbers. Sorry, can't do that. I cited the original actor who portrayed Kirk to back me.

You have an inability to comprehend (you admitted it) and want to ignore the totality of the numbers which is the truest indicator. Evidence and the original Kirk backing me.




Stop being a hypocrite. Your the one ignoring the overall picture by ignoring inflation. By comparing numbers made in 1979 to numbers made in 2009 (30 damn years later) your showing yourself to being either deliberately dishonest or an ignorant fanboy, or just plain stupid.

If I insult your intelligence it's because the words you state deserve to be for their blatant stupidity.

Comparing domestic figures adjusted for inflation, is the fairest possible way to compare the 2. Deal with it.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
It took dozens of Klingons to show dominance over 3 people with massively inferior firepower. Great feat





Stop being a hypocrite. Your the one ignoring the overall picture by ignoring inflation. By comparing numbers made in 1979 to numbers made in 2009 (30 damn years later) your showing yourself to being either deliberately dishonest or an ignorant fanboy, or just plain stupid.

If I insult your intelligence it's because the words you state deserve to be for their blatant stupidity.

Comparing domestic figures adjusted for inflation, is the fairest possible way to compare the 2. Deal with it. It didn't take dozens since you're ignoring the fact Khan was dominating them and they were diverted by him. Yet despite all this they still managed to easily capture the Enterprise crew.

I quoted a website that did so. I didn't put the numbers on the site. Calm down. I also quoted and cited William Shatner.


Overall the NuTreks are vastly more profitable. Look at the numbers from the website. Overall.

The site, Shatner, and myself agree. Stew in your own ignorance.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, they weren't since they had beaten the Enterprise crew and were unnamed Klingons to boot.

then we gonna have to agree to disagree then.. they weren't the klingons i want to see on screen.. even unnamed klingons are supposed to be good and not canon fodder


Originally posted by DARTH POWER The Klingons were not very impressive in that movie.




which is why i hope to get some klingons that have mad skills

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
then we gonna have to agree to disagree then.. they weren't the klingons i want to see on screen.. even unnamed klingons are supposed to be good and not canon fodder




which is why i hope to get some klingons that have mad skills Taking down Spock, Kirk, and uhura by unnamed Klingons with your attention diverted by Khan is really impressive IMO.

I for the life of me cannot fathom all this hatred online from various sites voicing their displeasure with the new Abrams universe. Anal fans.

Would like to see an all-out war with the Klingons and fleets of ships fighting each other, instead of the super-ship of doom.

Originally posted by playa1258
Would like to see an all-out war with the Klingons and fleets of ships fighting each other, instead of the super-ship of doom. I hope something like this does happen as well. What better than an all out war with the Klingons to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the franchise.

I agree and it's something never before seen in a Trek film.

Originally posted by playa1258
I agree and it's something never before seen in a Trek film. I don't want them to unfreeze Khan yet either. But if they are at intergalactic war with the Klingon machine it would make sense to unleash Khan and his crew to set them loose on the Klingons.

Khan was too badass to leave frozen, and the Vengeance class ships would be crucial to winning the war.

No reason the Federation should leave their best warrior, and one of its most brilliant minds on ice.

I wanna see Kirk and crew do a little more exploring of the galaxy, and touch on lots of ethical/moral dilemmas. Less action and more story would be good. Although I'm all for great action sequences.

Originally posted by playa1258
Khan was too badass to leave frozen, and the Vengeance class ships would be crucial to winning the war.

No reason the Federation should leave their best warrior, and one of its most brilliant minds on ice. I am not saying forever I am saying maybe wait a movie or two. Khan also kinda does his own thing and defies them. He can't be controlled.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I wanna see Kirk and crew do a little more exploring of the galaxy, and touch on lots of ethical/moral dilemmas. Less action and more story would be good. Although I'm all for great action sequences. They can touch on that but in the same vein as the first two. This is the NuTrek not the old trek. The older Trekkies need to get over it and cling to the past crapfest films.

The new films are being sold as action films, exploring and long character arcs work better on tv.

Lestov16 and Robtard are the ones I see ignoring evidence. Worldwide box office is extremely important, which is why the producers of Into Darkness partially set the film in London, and worked like crazy to get the film international appeal. It's still the ongoing challenge for Trek films, which haven't been high grossing overseas. As well as Into Darkness did, Trek films are going to have to perform even better if the franchise is to continue.

Originally posted by playa1258
Khan was too badass to leave frozen, and the Vengeance class ships would be crucial to winning the war.

No reason the Federation should leave their best warrior, and one of its most brilliant minds on ice.

Starfleet wouldn't defrost him unless it was one of those stupid "we can control him" things.

Yeah Khan can't be controlled. He is as likely to fight Starfleet as he is the Klingons.

Yep.

That and Kirk would likely phaser him if he was in the same room as him.

Originally posted by roughrider
Lestov16 and Robtard are the ones I see ignoring evidence.

Originally posted by playa1258
Yeah Khan can't be controlled. He is as likely to fight Starfleet as he is the Klingons. What would be interesting is to have a super Klingon and set Khan after him somehow. I really want Khan want to eventually interact with the new generation crew if the reboot lasts that long possibly going up against the Borg themselves.

Khan would have to up his game against the Borg. One cube was enough to solo whole fleets.

Originally posted by playa1258
Khan would have to up his game against the Borg. One cube was enough to solo whole fleets. I mean interacting against them. I don't mean the entire Borg vs. Khan. Khan would no doubt start eliminating them and studying them to know more about their weaknesses.

It would really throw everyone for a loop seeing the Borg against Kirk's era.

Originally posted by playa1258
It would really throw everyone for a loop seeing the Borg against Kirk's era. That is what is needed but I really want to see a full out intergalactic Klingon war first off. Keep in mind progression will occur faster due to Nero's trip to the past along with scaring the Federation.

I tried to enjoy ID, I nearly killed myself.

ID was one of the blandest, most generic sci-fi flicks I've ever seen. Even the horrible Total Recall remake was more imaginative.

What happened to watching the shittyness of Star Trek cause it was cool?

Originally posted by Lestov16
ID was one of the blandest, most generic sci-fi flicks I've ever seen. Even the horrible Total Recall remake was more imaginative.

Wow, hyperbole much?

Everything I said was factually factual

Originally posted by Lestov16
Everything I said was factually factual

It's a fact that that's your opinion

Originally posted by Lestov16
Everything I said was factually factual No, that was your opinion. You still cannot tell the difference between an opinion and a fact.