calirush

Scott Weiland say's so.

"A" list talent though that's for sure. What a waste of a great voice. I respect him for his work, but am not amused with the Rush reference.

Vulcans are strong. Really strong. And Spock was majorly pissed. And Uhura had a phaser. :7up: He's not that strong. He gave Khan what I call a Hollywood beating. They went to great pains to explain to the audience how powerful Khan was but Spock beat him anyway because the plot needed him to lose. Why didn't they just say well Khan is powerful but he's not that powerful, he's about as strong as Spock but Spock can take him because he's got a few Vulcan tricks up his sleeve. Why did Spock prime tell him that he was the most dangerous ruthless guy they ever faced? Why did he not just say Oh don't worry about him mate it's a 50/50 fight, but Spock wins 7 out of 10. That would have been cool with me. I mean why build these guys up and give them all this amped up power then let some dude who they've just demonstrated is weaker just slap them silly? Don't forget Khan said, Spock couldn't even break rules never mind bones! In the original tv series episode Khan tells Kirk "I have five times your strength" then Kirk grabs a pipe thing in engineering and then hits Khan in the mid-section and back knocking him out. The situation always calls for the good guy to find a way out. http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/battleofkhan3.jpg

My favorite song on the album. There I said it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bkt51J7VNo

that would be awesome! Unfortunately I wont be able to win unless I'm in the top 3! Try putting your playing on YouTube with the vote link. Also if you have an account beg on Facebook, it can't hurt.

I voted for you. Nothing would be better than having a non-male Rush fan win this and show the world that Rush is not for guys only.

UGLY is the best western ever! yeah, probably. Though, For a Few Dollars More and Outlaw Josey Wales are up there too! I'll see your Josey Wales and raise you a Pale Rider.

Never saw that. I was worried it'd suck too much. What makes it better? Acting? Fight scenes? Other? Trouble with that is that Jaden Smith is amazingly annoying... Nothing is more annoying than Ralph Macchio in any movie, so automatically this movie is more appealing for me. Add in Jackie Chan who owned the teacher role and the terrific cinematography, those are enough for me.

Dude (or dudette as the case may be), I don't drink or do drugs so there really isn't any moderation to be had. :P http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6DizCFfBhe4/S74GML1VFEI/AAAAAAAAA3g/fLESDAu8c1g/s1600/ant_adam_.jpg

Happy Birthday Goobs

Some may disagree but this is better than the original. Great performance by Jackie Chan. Now that he is retiring from "Martial Arts" movies I hope that we can see more of these great performances. He is a very good actor although that's sometimes hidden in his comedy/martial arts/stuntwork/ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d5/Karate_kid_ver2.jpg/220px-Karate_kid_ver2.jpg

Thank the heavens cause much of it is a snooze fest on the big screen. Some of the original cast member films were ok but everything after was a let down. The mistake is what works for a tv series doesn't always translate well on the big screen. I'm saying this as someone who had a homemade transporter, sick bay area, and numerous playthings as a kid and big fan of the original series. Yeah, I had a hard time getting interested in the storyline at all. And though I like Ben Cumberbatch as Sherlock, here I think he was terribly miscast. He just wasn't believable or unique enough as a villain. I thought the special effects were really well done, especially the crashing of the ship. But none of the characters really "feel" like the originals at all, or even really look like them. They could have at least tried to get actors that resembled the people they were supposed to be. I wouldn't want to see actors puppet the originals. A lot of what I like about the new "Trek" starts with Pine and the freshness he brings. This just feels vibrant and alive. So in that sense I will disagree about the cast. I think the new cast of actors resemble the original cast just fine. It's unrealistic to expect Paramount to find not only lookalike actors, but lookalikes who are good actors. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a decent movie. :) I think since the actors are supposed to be portraying the same characters but only younger, it would help if they looked more like them. I have trouble suspending disbelief that these are supposed to be the same people. Especially Chris Pine, who has absolutely no personality or charisma. It really isn't unrealistic. IMO the actors are great. I'd agree that Pine is a bit weak but at least he's not doing a Kirk impersonation as I don't see anyone doing it right. Plot wise I think every other Star Trek movie to date had a more developed story than Into Darkness. If it's unrealistic to go into a Star Trek movie and expect a story then I think that says a lot the industry in the current state. Trek was always more plot focused (even DS9 during the dominion war had action revolving around plot instead of the other way around). Wow that's a stretch. You're going to tell me that the first movie was a well developed plot? It took 45 minutes just to get the snooze fest launched. Nemesis and Generations were just horrid. Overlong dialogue scenes do not mean that a film has a very good plot or development. Most Trek movies have long periods of dead space that apologists call plot. A couple films finally come out with a little action and they are dismissed as lacking plot and I'll take Pine and company over anyone who came after the original cast with maybe the exception of Picard.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb248/DanDierdorf/naked-gun-facepalm.gif

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/060113_ANHQ_JeanStapleton_640.jpg

Thank the heavens cause much of it is a snooze fest on the big screen. Some of the original cast member films were ok but everything after was a let down. The mistake is what works for a tv series doesn't always translate well on the big screen. I'm saying this as someone who had a homemade transporter, sick bay area, and numerous playthings as a kid and big fan of the original series. Yeah, I had a hard time getting interested in the storyline at all. And though I like Ben Cumberbatch as Sherlock, here I think he was terribly miscast. He just wasn't believable or unique enough as a villain. I thought the special effects were really well done, especially the crashing of the ship. But none of the characters really "feel" like the originals at all, or even really look like them. They could have at least tried to get actors that resembled the people they were supposed to be. I wouldn't want to see actors puppet the originals. A lot of what I like about the new "Trek" starts with Pine and the freshness he brings. This just feels vibrant and alive. So in that sense I will disagree about the cast. I think the new cast of actors resemble the original cast just fine. It's unrealistic to expect Paramount to find not only lookalike actors, but lookalikes who are good actors. It's not like the originals were Shakespeare lol.

They Stole The Name Idea From BiG Time Rush.

Thank the heavens cause much of it is a snooze fest on the big screen. Some of the original cast member films were ok but everything after was a let down. The mistake is what works for a tv series doesn't always translate well on the big screen. I'm saying this as someone who had a homemade transporter, sick bay area, and numerous playthings as a kid and big fan of the original series. Yeah, I had a hard time getting interested in the storyline at all. And though I like Ben Cumberbatch as Sherlock, here I think he was terribly miscast. He just wasn't believable or unique enough as a villain. I thought the special effects were really well done, especially the crashing of the ship. But none of the characters really "feel" like the originals at all, or even really look like them. They could have at least tried to get actors that resembled the people they were supposed to be. I wouldn't want to see actors puppet the originals. A lot of what I like about the new "Trek" starts with Pine and the freshness he brings. This just feels vibrant and alive. So in that sense I will disagree about the cast.

Thank the heavens cause much of it is a snooze fest on the big screen. Some of the original cast member films were ok but everything after was a let down. The mistake is what works for a tv series doesn't always translate well on the big screen. I'm saying this as someone who had a homemade transporter, sick bay area, and numerous playthings as a kid and big fan of the original series.

:drool: :cheers:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2862/8907574001_784611e631_z.jpg

This thread gives me an idea. Now I just need to get a costume, then I need to....................................

For this specifically probably but I've been thinking about the disappearing retail for awhile. I think retail is here to stay for things you need to see in person before buying like clothes, fruits/vegetables, etc. Retail is disappearing because of it's inability to compete with even online retailers. For instance, I love having physical copies of books and games, but why should I waste gas, time and more money to buy the latest version of Rock Band or the newest volume of <comic book> when I can get the exact same thing at amazon for $5 cheaper and have it delivered in a few days? Retail, like radio is killing itself because of its own greedy practices. Now, in this specific case of developers and game consoles wanting to cut out the middle man, frankly I don't like the idea of digital games for consoles. The reason I've stuck to consoles for so long is because of the personal aspect to consoles. You can buy a game, lend it to a friend, bring it to their house along with a controller, pop it in and go. Digital releases mean I can't do that any more, I'll need to recover my profile, install the game and/or download it first. I don't want to do that, most of the time we don't use our gamer tags because everything we need is unlocked from the get go and no significant progress is saved for the games we play. PC has always been more solitary. Sure you can move PCs around but unless everyone's got a laptop it's a pain to organize a LAN party (even that's disappearing since nobody enables LAN on their games any more). Truth be told I think it's a bit early to judge if it will be the end of retail games because every console gamer I know has stuck to consoles because it's so great and easy to start something on the couch (anyone's couch with anyone's game) with friends. There has been a lot of negative response to this by the online community because it's a feature that is expected of consoles for that reason. I'm sure we'll get more details at E3 but I'm reserving my final judgement for 6-12 months after the consoles are released because so long as these consoles aren't being mass produced yet it would be very easy to change this before production begins. Even afterwards, with how extensive a firmware can be modified chances are they'd likely be able to patch out certain DRM features depending on how extensively hard coded the protection is. It's far too early to judge a generation. The last generation around E3 people were certain that Nintendo would make a huge comeback with this amazing motion control technology they had (they promised 1:1 lightsaber fights, something that still couldn't be realized with the motionplus add on) and that Sony had completely missed the mark with their monstrosity of an overpriced machine. Things change between pre-E3 and console launch and 1+ year later. It's more about costs of doing business. Retail stores have been falling one by one for years and it is troubling in the sense that what is going to be left. Are we going to price ourselves into just sitting at home plugged in like the Matrix?

Well I finally saw it tonight and must say it is fantastic. Trekkies will groan but Abrams does a great job of mixing just enough story, great pacing, and action.

Don't mind me I'm uh..staring at Alex there. :drool: http://cdn.styleforum.net/6/67/900x900px-LL-67a82dab_simpsons-leaving-room.gif