The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No, not Phil Collins et al.
I am talking of course about Star Trek. So if you are not at least a bit of a trekkie, you'd be advised to back away now.
The title of this is a line from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock. In my opinion this film is one of the best in the series. Admittedly it suffers from a distinct lack of Nimoy throughout, but it has the rest of the usual cast on hand and if that isn't enough, the "villain" in this particular classic is played superbly by non other than Christopther "Marty!!" Lloyd.
What is currently vexing and perplexing me is the common ideal within the trekkie fraternity that;
"All the odd numbered Star Trek films are pants"
No doubt, if your finger is on the pulse of the Sci-Fi world, you will have heard those words be uttered.
How is that justifyable? I'd be the first to admit that the first star trek film is pants, number 5 doesn't exactly do the odd numbers any favours, but you can't ignore number 3's quality. What is there not to like about it?
In my opinion; 2,3 & 4 are the best and for very different reasons. 2 is an intelligent, interesting follow on from one of the series episodes, its slow moving but builds tension amazingly throughout. 3 is just brilliant, more of a conventional film; in that it has very distinct goodies and baddies, and a classic fight scene twixt man and klingon! 4 is like everything holy about the 80's spliced with Star Trek, it will always have a special place in my heart!
Anyway, the reason I suggested the Trekkies read on is that I hoped they could offer some kind of explanation for this. I know you non trekkies may also have some opions on this, they are also welcome.
So, why is star trek 3 not more widely recognised as being mint?
Its got Chritopher Lloyd and everything!!!!!
I am talking of course about Star Trek. So if you are not at least a bit of a trekkie, you'd be advised to back away now.
The title of this is a line from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock. In my opinion this film is one of the best in the series. Admittedly it suffers from a distinct lack of Nimoy throughout, but it has the rest of the usual cast on hand and if that isn't enough, the "villain" in this particular classic is played superbly by non other than Christopther "Marty!!" Lloyd.
What is currently vexing and perplexing me is the common ideal within the trekkie fraternity that;
"All the odd numbered Star Trek films are pants"
No doubt, if your finger is on the pulse of the Sci-Fi world, you will have heard those words be uttered.
How is that justifyable? I'd be the first to admit that the first star trek film is pants, number 5 doesn't exactly do the odd numbers any favours, but you can't ignore number 3's quality. What is there not to like about it?
In my opinion; 2,3 & 4 are the best and for very different reasons. 2 is an intelligent, interesting follow on from one of the series episodes, its slow moving but builds tension amazingly throughout. 3 is just brilliant, more of a conventional film; in that it has very distinct goodies and baddies, and a classic fight scene twixt man and klingon! 4 is like everything holy about the 80's spliced with Star Trek, it will always have a special place in my heart!
Anyway, the reason I suggested the Trekkies read on is that I hoped they could offer some kind of explanation for this. I know you non trekkies may also have some opions on this, they are also welcome.
So, why is star trek 3 not more widely recognised as being mint?
Its got Chritopher Lloyd and everything!!!!!
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
No, not Phil Collins et al.
I am talking of course about Star Trek. So if you are not at least a bit of a trekkie, you'd be advised to back away now.
The title of this is a line from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock. In my opinion this film is one of the best in the series. Admittedly it suffers from a distinct lack of Nimoy throughout, but it has the rest of the usual cast on hand and if that isn't enough, the "villain" in this particular classic is played superbly by non other than Christopther "Marty!!" Lloyd.
What is currently vexing and perplexing me is the common ideal within the trekkie fraternity that;
"All the odd numbered Star Trek films are pants"
No doubt, if your finger is on the pulse of the Sci-Fi world, you will have heard those words be uttered.
How is that justifyable? I'd be the first to admit that the first star trek film is pants, number 5 doesn't exactly do the odd numbers any favours, but you can't ignore number 3's quality. What is there not to like about it?
In my opinion; 2,3 & 4 are the best and for very different reasons. 2 is an intelligent, interesting follow on from one of the series episodes, its slow moving but builds tension amazingly throughout. 3 is just brilliant, more of a conventional film; in that it has very distinct goodies and baddies, and a classic fight scene twixt man and klingon! 4 is like everything holy about the 80's spliced with Star Trek, it will always have a special place in my heart!
Anyway, the reason I suggested the Trekkies read on is that I hoped they could offer some kind of explanation for this. I know you non trekkies may also have some opions on this, they are also welcome.
So, why is star trek 3 not more widely recognised as being mint?
Its got Chritopher Lloyd and everything!!!!!
I am talking of course about Star Trek. So if you are not at least a bit of a trekkie, you'd be advised to back away now.
The title of this is a line from Star Trek 3: The search for Spock. In my opinion this film is one of the best in the series. Admittedly it suffers from a distinct lack of Nimoy throughout, but it has the rest of the usual cast on hand and if that isn't enough, the "villain" in this particular classic is played superbly by non other than Christopther "Marty!!" Lloyd.
What is currently vexing and perplexing me is the common ideal within the trekkie fraternity that;
"All the odd numbered Star Trek films are pants"
No doubt, if your finger is on the pulse of the Sci-Fi world, you will have heard those words be uttered.
How is that justifyable? I'd be the first to admit that the first star trek film is pants, number 5 doesn't exactly do the odd numbers any favours, but you can't ignore number 3's quality. What is there not to like about it?
In my opinion; 2,3 & 4 are the best and for very different reasons. 2 is an intelligent, interesting follow on from one of the series episodes, its slow moving but builds tension amazingly throughout. 3 is just brilliant, more of a conventional film; in that it has very distinct goodies and baddies, and a classic fight scene twixt man and klingon! 4 is like everything holy about the 80's spliced with Star Trek, it will always have a special place in my heart!
Anyway, the reason I suggested the Trekkies read on is that I hoped they could offer some kind of explanation for this. I know you non trekkies may also have some opions on this, they are also welcome.
So, why is star trek 3 not more widely recognised as being mint?
Its got Chritopher Lloyd and everything!!!!!