The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Films > Movies (I - X) > explain reason you disliked insurrection
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:17 PM
jpfeiffer001 jpfeiffer001 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Default explain reason you disliked insurrection

because i hear people saying its one of the worst moives. i disagree wall its not really my favorite by far i still think it had a ok story. my only complaint is that they should have kept the movie series dark after the success of first contact.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-10-2010, 08:55 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I didn't dislike Insurrection and I think that people that actually dislike it are over dramatizing. It wasn't a bad movie...it was just extremely mediocre.

The characters were essentially in character.
The plot was solid, no contrivances, no plot holes.
It was a solid story...but it wasn't very interesting either...

That's not enough to garner my "dislike" There are so many bad movies out there. Insurrection isn't one of them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:01 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Mediocre is a good word to describe it, as is 'redundant', 'superflous' and any expression which points to the fact that it's not a very well done PD story. If it was, it would be probably be higher up my list, but when episodic Trek has superior PD episodes it really becomes pointless watching INS when one of them is both better and 45 mins shorter.

If they could have actually explored the central morality question in the middle instead of simply telling the audience which the right answer was then it may also have improved, as it is we're told for us which is right and are left very little to chew over by the movie's end.

Most of the cast (especially Crusher, Troi and Worf) have very little to do, and given the silly line 'explaining' Worf's presence isn't this really a Trek film where we would never really have noticed if he had been absent anyway?

Add in the little things like poor visual effects, bad production design, flat characters (amongst the new characters) and what's always seemed to me like a palpable lack of enthusiasm that permeates the thing and you have a film that exists..........but probably doesn't really need to exist.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-11-2010, 02:12 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

It's my belief that there are really only three TNG movies in the series. I know everyone holds this notion that there are four, but I'm not listening.

Maybe it's because if I happen to be in a 'Star Trek movie' mode, there is only so much TNG I want to sit through. TNG worked well on television, it was exceptional for disregarding the rules of TV drama (or drama in general) in favor of holding up its utopian values... but it just did not translate very well onto the big screen.

Or maybe it's because, at the same time, the TNG films weren't different enough to set themselves apart from their parent series like the TOS films did. Or perhaps because the TNG films just didn't seem as 'big', cinematically speaking, as their lower-budget TOS film counterparts (which themselves were already viewed as second-rate cinema).

But for whatever reason, there are only three TNG films. If I decide to watch the TNG films again, I will skip one of the four... and that movie just won't exist this time around.

Sometimes Generations will be the odd man out. It's the one that does not have a theatrical-quality music score, not to mention the one in which Stewart and company are still walking around on their TV sets wearing their TV pajamas.

Or maybe I will skip Nemesis this time. It's so dark I have to adjust the contrast on my TV set; perhaps it should have been a Voyager film. God, this movie feels so out of touch. People blame John Logan or Stuart Baird, but you also have to wonder if maybe it had just been too long since the cast and crew remembered these characters.

Or just maybe, Insurrection should be singled out. The one that looks and feels least like a 'movie', the one that is least different from the series in sound and appearance. The one that seems the most dreadfully familiar to a franchise that was already (by 1998) commonly perceived as having run out of fresh things to say.

There are some things I like about this movie. It's the first and perhaps only TNG film that feels honest with its main characters (although it's hard to mess up the characters when, as Kevin points out, half of them were just along for the ride. This has been an ongoing complaint with all the TNG films). It's the film in which Picard gets to be the controlled man we knew from the series.

My favorite parts in the movie are early on. The festivities aboard Enterprise, the approach to the Baku homeworld, Picard's humble apologies when he realizes he's underestimated the admittedly quaint townsfolk, the discovery of the holoship and the Sona's plans, Geordi's sunset, and finally Picard's memorable confrontation with the Admiral (I love when Dougherty says the Federation can 'handle' the Sona. Was it really that recently that we still thought we could handle the Middle East?).

Sadly, my attention begins to waiver after that. Once Picard and company side with the natives, three things become painfully clear:

First, the story is just going to be "a bunch of moves" from here on out (I have the same problem with Nemesis).

Second, everything about this movie is going to be 'safe'. The Federation/Starfleet won't already be as committed as Admiral Dougherty wanted to believe, it won't take much 'talk' to bring them back around, and the Sona will prove to be 'evil' bastards who can take the blame for everything so Picard and company need not worry about long-term repercussions. Even Dougherty's anthropology team (did none of them know about the holoship or wonder what it was doing submerged in a lake?) are never seen or mentioned again. Better hope they've polished their resumes recently. Ruafo microwaves Dougherty's face so Picard won't even have to deal with him. The scene with Picard solemnly taking off his rank pins suddenly seems laughably meaningless (although they morph well into that one Sona dude's rotting teeth).

And finally, this movie is going to look like a TV production (if the sing-along shuttle chase and that inadequately-submerged holoship weren't already sufficient warning signs). Block-shaped runabout shuttlecraft fly in circles around each other like this is DS9 or something (Seriously, change those designs if you're going to start having space battles with them), while poorly-superimposed baseball bat drones swoop over targeting extras who then 'pretend' to get hit (or sometimes fail to react altogether). The Sona spacecraft, for all the design work put into them, still look like typical alien-spacecraft-of-the-week from any one of the second generation TV shows. Ditto on the Sona interiors, which look more like recycled "humanoid planet X" sets from TNG's third season (Harve Bennett's team did at least a somewhat better job recycling old sets for STs II and III, and on a much cheaper budget). And the Micheal Westmore alien-of-the-week appearance of the two Sona 'subordinate' races (or was it three? I don't remember). Even Jerry Goldsmiths music score takes on this annoyingly electronic percussion sound (tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick) that seems vaguely and unintentionally retro. Maybe that was supposed to be the Sona leitmotif?

I'm not sure you could use the Prime Directive concept for a movie. Movies by their nature are larger than life and often melodramatic. I also think the Prime Directive had already become overused on ST after Roddenberry's death, with diminishing effectiveness. I even suspect the creative approach had become "Pick an issue, then flip a coin to determine which side Janeway would advocate in 'this' situation. There! Yeah, that's a real Star Trek story."

PD stories have traditionally lead to a 'talking heads' kind of TV drama... and I think to put that in a feature film you really have to think out of the box. Maybe go for a film that is more thriller/suspense rather than action/adventure. I'm talking about the 'ticking-clock' espionage type of film, the Bourne films, or maybe the Hunt for Red October in outer space. Maybe a ST plot like 'Unification' would have made a good story for such a film. And then the question becomes, would general audiences 'let' Star Trek (of all things) become that kind of a 'serious' big-budget movie franchise? Maybe popcorn action/adventure is the only thing that will fit with both ST and 'big budget' (although it's worth mentioning that just two years ago, even that was considered a gamble).

Insurrection's biggest sin is that it is too safe, familiar, and unremarkable. It takes a serious subject matter, but presents it as being so obvious a fifth grader could choose the right side, while at the same time undermines it by choosing an unsuitably lighthearted tone. If First Contact found many of the right elements that made TNG exciting in the middle years and managed to score a (modest) hit of STII proportions, Insurrection lazily borrowed from the remaining pages of ST's catalog of Big Ideas and proved to casual audiences FC had just been a fluke. ST really was still on an ever-declining slope.
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 08-11-2010 at 02:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-11-2010, 05:35 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpfeiffer001 View Post
because i hear people saying its one of the worst moives. i disagree wall its not really my favorite by far i still think it had a ok story. my only complaint is that they should have kept the movie series dark after the success of first contact.
If somebody who doesn't know Trek were interested in it and would ask me which movie he or she should watch first I would name Insurrection (and then add that Trek lives on the small screen).
Insurrection is "Trekish" Trek and as Samwise has pointed out this is not merely an asset but also a liability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
If First Contact found many of the right elements that made TNG exciting in the middle years and managed to score a (modest) hit of STII proportions, Insurrection lazily borrowed from the remaining pages of ST's catalog of Big Ideas and proved to casual audiences FC had just been a fluke. ST really was still on an ever-declining slope.
I couldn't disagree more, First Contact illuminated the origins of the future of humankind and thus lay the foundation for the fifth series which explored these very origins. Pitty that this series stumbled too long before it got on the right track.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-11-2010, 05:45 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
It's my belief that there are really only three TNG movies in the series. I know everyone holds this notion that there are four, but I'm not listening.

Maybe it's because if I happen to be in a 'Star Trek movie' mode, there is only so much TNG I want to sit through. TNG worked well on television, it was exceptional for disregarding the rules of TV drama (or drama in general) in favor of holding up its utopian values... but it just did not translate very well onto the big screen.

Or maybe it's because, at the same time, the TNG films weren't different enough to set themselves apart from their parent series like the TOS films did. Or perhaps because the TNG films just didn't seem as 'big', cinematically speaking, as their lower-budget TOS film counterparts (which themselves were already viewed as second-rate cinema).

But for whatever reason, there are only three TNG films. If I decide to watch the TNG films again, I will skip one of the four... and that movie just won't exist this time around.

Sometimes Generations will be the odd man out. It's the one that does not have a theatrical-quality music score, not to mention the one in which Stewart and company are still walking around on their TV sets wearing their TV pajamas.

Or maybe I will skip Nemesis this time. It's so dark I have to adjust the contrast on my TV set; perhaps it should have been a Voyager film. God, this movie feels so out of touch. People blame John Logan or Stuart Baird, but you also have to wonder if maybe it had just been too long since the cast and crew remembered these characters.

Or just maybe, Insurrection should be singled out. The one that looks and feels least like a 'movie', the one that is least different from the series in sound and appearance. The one that seems the most dreadfully familiar to a franchise that was already (by 1998) commonly perceived as having run out of fresh things to say.

There are some things I like about this movie. It's the first and perhaps only TNG film that feels honest with its main characters (although it's hard to mess up the characters when, as Kevin points out, half of them were just along for the ride. This has been an ongoing complaint with all the TNG films). It's the film in which Picard gets to be the controlled man we knew from the series.

My favorite parts in the movie are early on. The festivities aboard Enterprise, the approach to the Baku homeworld, Picard's humble apologies when he realizes he's underestimated the admittedly quaint townsfolk, the discovery of the holoship and the Sona's plans, Geordi's sunset, and finally Picard's memorable confrontation with the Admiral (I love when Dougherty says the Federation can 'handle' the Sona. Was it really that recently that we still thought we could handle the Middle East?).

Sadly, my attention begins to waiver after that. Once Picard and company side with the natives, three things become painfully clear:

First, the story is just going to be "a bunch of moves" from here on out (I have the same problem with Nemesis).

Second, everything about this movie is going to be 'safe'. The Federation/Starfleet won't already be as committed as Admiral Dougherty wanted to believe, it won't take much 'talk' to bring them back around, and the Sona will prove to be 'evil' bastards who can take the blame for everything so Picard and company need not worry about long-term repercussions. Even Dougherty's anthropology team (did none of them know about the holoship or wonder what it was doing submerged in a lake?) are never seen or mentioned again. Better hope they've polished their resumes recently. Ruafo microwaves Dougherty's face so Picard won't even have to deal with him. The scene with Picard solemnly taking off his rank pins suddenly seems laughably meaningless (although they morph well into that one Sona dude's rotting teeth).

And finally, this movie is going to look like a TV production (if the sing-along shuttle chase and that inadequately-submerged holoship weren't already sufficient warning signs). Block-shaped runabout shuttlecraft fly in circles around each other like this is DS9 or something (Seriously, change those designs if you're going to start having space battles with them), while poorly-superimposed baseball bat drones swoop over targeting extras who then 'pretend' to get hit (or sometimes fail to react altogether). The Sona spacecraft, for all the design work put into them, still look like typical alien-spacecraft-of-the-week from any one of the second generation TV shows. Ditto on the Sona interiors, which look more like recycled "humanoid planet X" sets from TNG's third season (Harve Bennett's team did at least a somewhat better job recycling old sets for STs II and III, and on a much cheaper budget). And the Micheal Westmore alien-of-the-week appearance of the two Sona 'subordinate' races (or was it three? I don't remember). Even Jerry Goldsmiths music score takes on this annoyingly electronic percussion sound (tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick) that seems vaguely and unintentionally retro. Maybe that was supposed to be the Sona leitmotif?

I'm not sure you could use the Prime Directive concept for a movie. Movies by their nature are larger than life and often melodramatic. I also think the Prime Directive had already become overused on ST after Roddenberry's death, with diminishing effectiveness. I even suspect the creative approach had become "Pick an issue, then flip a coin to determine which side Janeway would advocate in 'this' situation. There! Yeah, that's a real Star Trek story."

PD stories have traditionally lead to a 'talking heads' kind of TV drama... and I think to put that in a feature film you really have to think out of the box. Maybe go for a film that is more thriller/suspense rather than action/adventure. I'm talking about the 'ticking-clock' espionage type of film, the Bourne films, or maybe the Hunt for Red October in outer space. Maybe a ST plot like 'Unification' would have made a good story for such a film. And then the question becomes, would general audiences 'let' Star Trek (of all things) become that kind of a 'serious' big-budget movie franchise? Maybe popcorn action/adventure is the only thing that will fit with both ST and 'big budget' (although it's worth mentioning that just two years ago, even that was considered a gamble).

Insurrection's biggest sin is that it is too safe, familiar, and unremarkable. It takes a serious subject matter, but presents it as being so obvious a fifth grader could choose the right side, while at the same time undermines it by choosing an unsuitably lighthearted tone. If First Contact found many of the right elements that made TNG exciting in the middle years and managed to score a (modest) hit of STII proportions, Insurrection lazily borrowed from the remaining pages of ST's catalog of Big Ideas and proved to casual audiences FC had just been a fluke. ST really was still on an ever-declining slope.

Boy. You need movie critic blog.
That was pretty good. ..."talking Heads", indeed...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-11-2010, 06:35 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I couldn't disagree more, First Contact illuminated the origins of the future of humankind and thus lay the foundation for the fifth series which explored these very origins. Pitty that this series stumbled too long before it got on the right track.
I have kind of a love/hate relationship with FC... I now rank it 5th out of 11, which is still pretty good (it was 3rd place when I first saw it). As long as the second generation franchise was the 'happening' thing, I recommended FC as the ideal starting point for Trek virgins. It starts with a bang, it's self contained, it pretty much 'explains' the premise of the ST world if a little more straightforward than I would've liked. So 'fluke' is a poor choice of words on my part (it won't be the last time).

Though I can't say I agree with everything about the movie, it was a modest hit, non-fans seemed to like it, ST seemed to be going strong again. The franchise had its fans back. And then in the space of two years they dropped the ball again.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-11-2010, 06:43 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I guess that everybody would agree with the generalized statement that TOS got better on the big screen while TNG got worse.
Short-run thinking let to too much Trek and a decline of quality in this time, might have turned out better if they had waited some years with a TNG movie and a TNG successor series.
Yet a few years later when ENT reached its fourth season Trek was, pardon the pun, on the right track again in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-11-2010, 07:03 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

While I doubt I will ever find or make the time to 'catch up' on a lot of the latter Trek I missed after tuning out (being as how I tend to tune out again whenever I try), it sounds like I really need to check out this final season.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-11-2010, 08:58 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
It's my belief that there are really only three TNG movies in the series. I know everyone holds this notion that there are four, but I'm not listening.

Maybe it's because if I happen to be in a 'Star Trek movie' mode, there is only so much TNG I want to sit through. TNG worked well on television, it was exceptional for disregarding the rules of TV drama (or drama in general) in favor of holding up its utopian values... but it just did not translate very well onto the big screen.

Or maybe it's because, at the same time, the TNG films weren't different enough to set themselves apart from their parent series like the TOS films did. Or perhaps because the TNG films just didn't seem as 'big', cinematically speaking, as their lower-budget TOS film counterparts (which themselves were already viewed as second-rate cinema).

But for whatever reason, there are only three TNG films. If I decide to watch the TNG films again, I will skip one of the four... and that movie just won't exist this time around.

Sometimes Generations will be the odd man out. It's the one that does not have a theatrical-quality music score, not to mention the one in which Stewart and company are still walking around on their TV sets wearing their TV pajamas.

Or maybe I will skip Nemesis this time. It's so dark I have to adjust the contrast on my TV set; perhaps it should have been a Voyager film. God, this movie feels so out of touch. People blame John Logan or Stuart Baird, but you also have to wonder if maybe it had just been too long since the cast and crew remembered these characters.

Or just maybe, Insurrection should be singled out. The one that looks and feels least like a 'movie', the one that is least different from the series in sound and appearance. The one that seems the most dreadfully familiar to a franchise that was already (by 1998) commonly perceived as having run out of fresh things to say.

There are some things I like about this movie. It's the first and perhaps only TNG film that feels honest with its main characters (although it's hard to mess up the characters when, as Kevin points out, half of them were just along for the ride. This has been an ongoing complaint with all the TNG films). It's the film in which Picard gets to be the controlled man we knew from the series.

My favorite parts in the movie are early on. The festivities aboard Enterprise, the approach to the Baku homeworld, Picard's humble apologies when he realizes he's underestimated the admittedly quaint townsfolk, the discovery of the holoship and the Sona's plans, Geordi's sunset, and finally Picard's memorable confrontation with the Admiral (I love when Dougherty says the Federation can 'handle' the Sona. Was it really that recently that we still thought we could handle the Middle East?).

Sadly, my attention begins to waiver after that. Once Picard and company side with the natives, three things become painfully clear:

First, the story is just going to be "a bunch of moves" from here on out (I have the same problem with Nemesis).

Second, everything about this movie is going to be 'safe'. The Federation/Starfleet won't already be as committed as Admiral Dougherty wanted to believe, it won't take much 'talk' to bring them back around, and the Sona will prove to be 'evil' bastards who can take the blame for everything so Picard and company need not worry about long-term repercussions. Even Dougherty's anthropology team (did none of them know about the holoship or wonder what it was doing submerged in a lake?) are never seen or mentioned again. Better hope they've polished their resumes recently. Ruafo microwaves Dougherty's face so Picard won't even have to deal with him. The scene with Picard solemnly taking off his rank pins suddenly seems laughably meaningless (although they morph well into that one Sona dude's rotting teeth).

And finally, this movie is going to look like a TV production (if the sing-along shuttle chase and that inadequately-submerged holoship weren't already sufficient warning signs). Block-shaped runabout shuttlecraft fly in circles around each other like this is DS9 or something (Seriously, change those designs if you're going to start having space battles with them), while poorly-superimposed baseball bat drones swoop over targeting extras who then 'pretend' to get hit (or sometimes fail to react altogether). The Sona spacecraft, for all the design work put into them, still look like typical alien-spacecraft-of-the-week from any one of the second generation TV shows. Ditto on the Sona interiors, which look more like recycled "humanoid planet X" sets from TNG's third season (Harve Bennett's team did at least a somewhat better job recycling old sets for STs II and III, and on a much cheaper budget). And the Micheal Westmore alien-of-the-week appearance of the two Sona 'subordinate' races (or was it three? I don't remember). Even Jerry Goldsmiths music score takes on this annoyingly electronic percussion sound (tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick) that seems vaguely and unintentionally retro. Maybe that was supposed to be the Sona leitmotif?

I'm not sure you could use the Prime Directive concept for a movie. Movies by their nature are larger than life and often melodramatic. I also think the Prime Directive had already become overused on ST after Roddenberry's death, with diminishing effectiveness. I even suspect the creative approach had become "Pick an issue, then flip a coin to determine which side Janeway would advocate in 'this' situation. There! Yeah, that's a real Star Trek story."

PD stories have traditionally lead to a 'talking heads' kind of TV drama... and I think to put that in a feature film you really have to think out of the box. Maybe go for a film that is more thriller/suspense rather than action/adventure. I'm talking about the 'ticking-clock' espionage type of film, the Bourne films, or maybe the Hunt for Red October in outer space. Maybe a ST plot like 'Unification' would have made a good story for such a film. And then the question becomes, would general audiences 'let' Star Trek (of all things) become that kind of a 'serious' big-budget movie franchise? Maybe popcorn action/adventure is the only thing that will fit with both ST and 'big budget' (although it's worth mentioning that just two years ago, even that was considered a gamble).

Insurrection's biggest sin is that it is too safe, familiar, and unremarkable. It takes a serious subject matter, but presents it as being so obvious a fifth grader could choose the right side, while at the same time undermines it by choosing an unsuitably lighthearted tone. If First Contact found many of the right elements that made TNG exciting in the middle years and managed to score a (modest) hit of STII proportions, Insurrection lazily borrowed from the remaining pages of ST's catalog of Big Ideas and proved to casual audiences FC had just been a fluke. ST really was still on an ever-declining slope.
Say what you think!!

For me the problem with the central plot is that there is no real discussion about the supposed issue that's central (the Baku vs the percieved benefits to the Federation) to the film. I understand the film didn't have the budget to realize a planet with a larger population etc, but the problem is the fewer people you have it affect (600 vs 6 million say) then the harder you have to argue that it perhaps shouldn't be happening, because it then creates a larger group of people that would benefit.

But there is no discussion. As you point out, the problem was created, the side was picked and that was that. No further attention paid to the issue at all.

Plus, the film then takes the turn that the Sona just want to 'get back at mummy and daddy' for what happened a century before, but I'm not sure what they thought they were adding with that part really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I guess that everybody would agree with the generalized statement that TOS got better on the big screen while TNG got worse.

Yet a few years later when ENT reached its fourth season Trek was, pardon the pun, on the right track again in my opinion.
A true statement re the first and a lot of people seem to believe this about ENT S4.

But the fact that it took 4 years to get there was it's handicap. In the current age of TV it's actually a wonder that it got to exist that long to try in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
While I doubt I will ever find or make the time to 'catch up' on a lot of the latter Trek I missed after tuning out (being as how I tend to tune out again whenever I try), it sounds like I really need to check out this final season.
I sometimes wonder if I should do the same, even though I've seen the first three seasons and it never clicked for me at all.

Everyone says the fourth season was the best and the episode synopsis are somtimes interesting (I'll never get particularly enthusiastic about the Klingon Ridge explanation however).
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.