OT: [spoiler] Star Trek XI - worst ST movie ever?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009.

  1. Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    cake.

    A star gone nova threatens the "GALAXY"? I'm sorry - is there a super
    giant star able to explode and throw matter through deep space all the
    way to ANOTHER star system that has escaped our notice? Because if it
    was the star in the Romulan system reducing it to a black hole would
    still kill the entire system - just a lot more slowly. Why would the
    Romulans be ok with THAT?

    There's an M-class planet (that's more like a L-class planet (barely
    habitable worlds with primitive ecosystem)) RIGHT NEXT to Vulcan (i.e.
    must be in the same system) where apparently there are no Vulcans, just
    a Federation outpost. How convenient to watch Vulcan's destruction from!
    Wow!

    Vulcan has no orbiting satilities or planetary defences able to notice
    there's a giant freaking ship causing the seismic activity? Okkk...

    Time travel - AGAIN? Isn't that just a TAD old as a plot device in ST?

    I could go on, but I'm too disappointed to want to think anymore about
    this :-(

    I suppose people will enjoy XI if they can leave their brains at the
    door - which I imagine is no problem for the average non-geek who has no
    clue about stars or ever thinks through stuff like giant ships being
    missed hovering over major Federation worlds. But I just kept having WTF
    moments time after time throughout the movie :-(

    Also - where was the character development? Bloody hell it was a fast
    movie - all action, no substance.

    Finally I had a tough time accepting Vulcan - a cornerstone of the
    Federation - being destroyed. But that's a question of taste, and at
    least it didn't provoke a WTF - did this screenwriter take ANY science
    or logic courses? Do they even know what science and logic ARE?

    I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!

    Gah! What an awful movie. Rushed, shallow, short, and stupid (like Die
    Harder type stupid in Space). Gack! How the HELL is this getting good
    reviews?

    - Jamie Kahn Genet
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Nick Naym Guest

    In article 1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%, Jamie Kahn Genet
    at wrote on 5/12/09 8:32 PM:

    > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > cake.
    >
    > A star gone nova threatens the "GALAXY"? I'm sorry - is there a super
    > giant star able to explode and throw matter through deep space all the
    > way to ANOTHER star system that has escaped our notice? Because if it
    > was the star in the Romulan system reducing it to a black hole would
    > still kill the entire system - just a lot more slowly. Why would the
    > Romulans be ok with THAT?
    >
    > There's an M-class planet (that's more like a L-class planet (barely
    > habitable worlds with primitive ecosystem)) RIGHT NEXT to Vulcan (i.e.
    > must be in the same system) where apparently there are no Vulcans, just
    > a Federation outpost. How convenient to watch Vulcan's destruction from!
    > Wow!
    >
    > Vulcan has no orbiting satilities or planetary defences able to notice
    > there's a giant freaking ship causing the seismic activity? Okkk...
    >
    > Time travel - AGAIN? Isn't that just a TAD old as a plot device in ST?
    >
    > I could go on, but I'm too disappointed to want to think anymore about
    > this :-(
    >
    > I suppose people will enjoy XI if they can leave their brains at the
    > door - which I imagine is no problem for the average non-geek who has no
    > clue about stars or ever thinks through stuff like giant ships being
    > missed hovering over major Federation worlds. But I just kept having WTF
    > moments time after time throughout the movie :-(
    >
    > Also - where was the character development? Bloody hell it was a fast
    > movie - all action, no substance.
    >
    > Finally I had a tough time accepting Vulcan - a cornerstone of the
    > Federation - being destroyed. But that's a question of taste, and at
    > least it didn't provoke a WTF - did this screenwriter take ANY science
    > or logic courses? Do they even know what science and logic ARE?
    >
    > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!
    >
    > Gah! What an awful movie. Rushed, shallow, short, and stupid (like Die
    > Harder type stupid in Space). Gack! How the HELL is this getting good
    > reviews?
    >
    > - Jamie Kahn Genet



    Other than that, Jamie, how'd you like the movie? ;P

    --
    iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.6)
     
    Nick Naym, May 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%>,
    (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

    > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > cake.


    I wonder whether we saw the same movie; I thought it was second only to
    The Wrath of Khan.

    --
    It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
     
    Michelle Steiner, May 13, 2009
    #3
  4. Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

    > In article 1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%, Jamie Kahn Genet
    > at wrote on 5/12/09 8:32 PM:
    >
    > > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > > cake.
    > >
    > > A star gone nova threatens the "GALAXY"? I'm sorry - is there a super
    > > giant star able to explode and throw matter through deep space all the
    > > way to ANOTHER star system that has escaped our notice? Because if it
    > > was the star in the Romulan system reducing it to a black hole would
    > > still kill the entire system - just a lot more slowly. Why would the
    > > Romulans be ok with THAT?
    > >
    > > There's an M-class planet (that's more like a L-class planet (barely
    > > habitable worlds with primitive ecosystem)) RIGHT NEXT to Vulcan (i.e.
    > > must be in the same system) where apparently there are no Vulcans, just
    > > a Federation outpost. How convenient to watch Vulcan's destruction from!
    > > Wow!
    > >
    > > Vulcan has no orbiting satilities or planetary defences able to notice
    > > there's a giant freaking ship causing the seismic activity? Okkk...
    > >
    > > Time travel - AGAIN? Isn't that just a TAD old as a plot device in ST?
    > >
    > > I could go on, but I'm too disappointed to want to think anymore about
    > > this :-(
    > >
    > > I suppose people will enjoy XI if they can leave their brains at the
    > > door - which I imagine is no problem for the average non-geek who has no
    > > clue about stars or ever thinks through stuff like giant ships being
    > > missed hovering over major Federation worlds. But I just kept having WTF
    > > moments time after time throughout the movie :-(
    > >
    > > Also - where was the character development? Bloody hell it was a fast
    > > movie - all action, no substance.
    > >
    > > Finally I had a tough time accepting Vulcan - a cornerstone of the
    > > Federation - being destroyed. But that's a question of taste, and at
    > > least it didn't provoke a WTF - did this screenwriter take ANY science
    > > or logic courses? Do they even know what science and logic ARE?
    > >
    > > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    > > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    > > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    > > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!
    > >
    > > Gah! What an awful movie. Rushed, shallow, short, and stupid (like Die
    > > Harder type stupid in Space). Gack! How the HELL is this getting good
    > > reviews?
    > >
    > > - Jamie Kahn Genet

    >
    >
    > Other than that, Jamie, how'd you like the movie? ;P


    Ehhh... *shrug* It was an ok way to spend an... hour (the film seemed
    VERY short - how long WAS it in reality?) or so. I wish I hadn't paid to
    see it at the Cinema, though.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > In article <1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%>,
    > (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
    >
    > > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > > cake.

    >
    > I wonder whether we saw the same movie; I thought it was second only to
    > The Wrath of Khan.


    The Final Frontier? Or this new movie?
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #5
  6. In article <1iznqcy.jjm9pj1ybmypaN%>,
    (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

    > > > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take
    > > > the cake.

    > >
    > > I wonder whether we saw the same movie; I thought it was second
    > > only to The Wrath of Khan.

    >
    > The Final Frontier? Or this new movie?


    This new one.

    --
    It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
     
    Michelle Steiner, May 13, 2009
    #6
  7. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!


    If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.

    Transporter believable? Not to anyone who believes E = M * C^2

    Or to anyone who can guess within five orders of magnitude the computing
    power necessary to capture the location and state of every atom in a
    human body in a few seconds, or the bandwidth to reproduce that
    configuration at a distance.

    How about the way they say that warp factor N means N^2 tiems the
    speed of light. Then they say maximum sustainable speed is warp six.
    Speed of light times 36 ? So the trip from earth to the nearest star
    would take seven weeks, two years to the next nearest.....

    And if it had a creative plot, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
    Out of 100 episodes in the original series, about ninety
    of them were the same two stories with the names changed.
    (The other ten were pretty good though)

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Recognize these?
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=52
     
    Wes Groleau, May 13, 2009
    #7
  8. In article <3wsOl.997$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.


    I have a book somewhere in my library titled The Physics of Star Trek;
    it's about a decade old, but it does explain what is possible, what is
    probable, and what is pure fancy in the show.

    --
    It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
     
    Michelle Steiner, May 13, 2009
    #8
  9. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Party Animal Guest

    Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > In article <3wsOl.997$>,
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >
    >> If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.

    >
    > I have a book somewhere in my library titled The Physics of Star Trek;
    > it's about a decade old, but it does explain what is possible, what is
    > probable, and what is pure fancy in the show.
    >


    Its about as useful as explaining the physics of Bugs Bunny cartoons.
    Its a story.
     
    Party Animal, May 13, 2009
    #9
  10. Jamie Kahn Genet

    J Brockley Guest

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%...
    > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > cake.
    >
    > A star gone nova threatens the "GALAXY"? I'm sorry - is there a super
    > giant star able to explode and throw matter through deep space all the
    > way to ANOTHER star system that has escaped our notice? Because if it
    > was the star in the Romulan system reducing it to a black hole would
    > still kill the entire system - just a lot more slowly. Why would the
    > Romulans be ok with THAT?
    >
    > There's an M-class planet (that's more like a L-class planet (barely
    > habitable worlds with primitive ecosystem)) RIGHT NEXT to Vulcan (i.e.
    > must be in the same system) where apparently there are no Vulcans, just
    > a Federation outpost. How convenient to watch Vulcan's destruction from!
    > Wow!
    >
    > Vulcan has no orbiting satilities or planetary defences able to notice
    > there's a giant freaking ship causing the seismic activity? Okkk...
    >
    > Time travel - AGAIN? Isn't that just a TAD old as a plot device in ST?
    >
    > I could go on, but I'm too disappointed to want to think anymore about
    > this :-(
    >
    > I suppose people will enjoy XI if they can leave their brains at the
    > door - which I imagine is no problem for the average non-geek who has no
    > clue about stars or ever thinks through stuff like giant ships being
    > missed hovering over major Federation worlds. But I just kept having WTF
    > moments time after time throughout the movie :-(
    >
    > Also - where was the character development? Bloody hell it was a fast
    > movie - all action, no substance.
    >
    > Finally I had a tough time accepting Vulcan - a cornerstone of the
    > Federation - being destroyed. But that's a question of taste, and at
    > least it didn't provoke a WTF - did this screenwriter take ANY science
    > or logic courses? Do they even know what science and logic ARE?
    >
    > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!
    >
    > Gah! What an awful movie. Rushed, shallow, short, and stupid (like Die
    > Harder type stupid in Space). Gack! How the HELL is this getting good
    > reviews?
    >
    > - Jamie Kahn Genet
    > --
    > If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


    You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?
     
    J Brockley, May 13, 2009
    #10
  11. Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > In article <1iznqcy.jjm9pj1ybmypaN%>,
    > (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
    >
    > > > > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take
    > > > > the cake.
    > > >
    > > > I wonder whether we saw the same movie; I thought it was second
    > > > only to The Wrath of Khan.

    > >
    > > The Final Frontier? Or this new movie?

    >
    > This new one.


    Hmmm... what did you like about it? The daft moments didn't bother you?
    By and large I actually liked the characters - I just felt their was
    barely any character development for all but Kirk and Spock - and even
    then it was _extremely_ rushed and shallow. It was like a it was made
    for the 30 second attention span generation - and suffered greatly as a
    result.

    BTW - total agreement about The Wrath of Khan :) Awesome movie! I have
    to say I also enjoyed the very funny The Voyage Home. First Contact was
    my favourite TNG movie. Nemisis was a poor cut down end :-(
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #11
  12. Michelle Steiner <> wrote:

    > In article <3wsOl.997$>,
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >
    > > If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.

    >
    > I have a book somewhere in my library titled The Physics of Star Trek;
    > it's about a decade old, but it does explain what is possible, what is
    > probable, and what is pure fancy in the show.


    Cool book :) I'd love to track down a copy - not seen one since I was a
    kid.

    And all I meant is they portray the transporter in such a way that it's
    is easy to suspend belief (though the curvy lines transport effects in
    this new movie seemed very odd and did it's best to shatter belief).
    However this new movie had all too many moments where I was going "WTF?
    Is this a kid's cartoon?".
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #12
  13. J Brockley <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1iznk0c.yxkz3vhp0o5N%...
    > > Ok, The Final Frontier was pretty bad, but this one may well take the
    > > cake.
    > >
    > > A star gone nova threatens the "GALAXY"? I'm sorry - is there a super
    > > giant star able to explode and throw matter through deep space all the
    > > way to ANOTHER star system that has escaped our notice? Because if it
    > > was the star in the Romulan system reducing it to a black hole would
    > > still kill the entire system - just a lot more slowly. Why would the
    > > Romulans be ok with THAT?
    > >
    > > There's an M-class planet (that's more like a L-class planet (barely
    > > habitable worlds with primitive ecosystem)) RIGHT NEXT to Vulcan (i.e.
    > > must be in the same system) where apparently there are no Vulcans, just
    > > a Federation outpost. How convenient to watch Vulcan's destruction from!
    > > Wow!
    > >
    > > Vulcan has no orbiting satilities or planetary defences able to notice
    > > there's a giant freaking ship causing the seismic activity? Okkk...
    > >
    > > Time travel - AGAIN? Isn't that just a TAD old as a plot device in ST?
    > >
    > > I could go on, but I'm too disappointed to want to think anymore about
    > > this :-(
    > >
    > > I suppose people will enjoy XI if they can leave their brains at the
    > > door - which I imagine is no problem for the average non-geek who has no
    > > clue about stars or ever thinks through stuff like giant ships being
    > > missed hovering over major Federation worlds. But I just kept having WTF
    > > moments time after time throughout the movie :-(
    > >
    > > Also - where was the character development? Bloody hell it was a fast
    > > movie - all action, no substance.
    > >
    > > Finally I had a tough time accepting Vulcan - a cornerstone of the
    > > Federation - being destroyed. But that's a question of taste, and at
    > > least it didn't provoke a WTF - did this screenwriter take ANY science
    > > or logic courses? Do they even know what science and logic ARE?
    > >
    > > I mean don't get me wrong - obviously stuff like the transporter can't
    > > really exist - but at least it looks and sounds believable. Or certainly
    > > it's easy enough to suspend belief for. But I'm supposed to accept stars
    > > going nova can threaten a GALAXY? Come on!
    > >
    > > Gah! What an awful movie. Rushed, shallow, short, and stupid (like Die
    > > Harder type stupid in Space). Gack! How the HELL is this getting good
    > > reviews?
    > >
    > > - Jamie Kahn Genet

    >
    > You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?


    It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
    impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to allow
    the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the story.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #13
  14. Party Animal <> wrote:

    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > In article <3wsOl.997$>,
    > > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> If it were scientifically credible, it wouldn't be star trek.

    > >
    > > I have a book somewhere in my library titled The Physics of Star Trek;
    > > it's about a decade old, but it does explain what is possible, what is
    > > probable, and what is pure fancy in the show.
    > >

    >
    > Its about as useful as explaining the physics of Bugs Bunny cartoons.
    > Its a story.


    I wonder what a life is like without imagination and fantasy? I'm not
    sure I want to think about it...
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, May 13, 2009
    #14
  15. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Rhino Guest

    On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:03:21 +1200, (Jamie
    Kahn Genet) wrote:

    >It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
    >impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to allow
    >the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the story.


    Good comment Jamie,

    While I haven't seen the new ST movie (and thus can't remark on it) I
    agree with the "realistic" presentation of scientific impossibilities
    in movies and books. Read anything by the following;

    1. Isaac Asimov (the three laws of robotics are a classic)
    2. Arthur C Clarke (he was the first to describe geo-stationary
    satellites)
    3. Larry Niven (The Ringworld series and Neutron Star)

    In regards to movies, my list is smaller;
    2001
    2010

    Cheers, Rhino
     
    Rhino, May 13, 2009
    #15
  16. Jamie Kahn Genet

    jt august Guest

    In article <1izofty.1bm5c7k15h89viN%>,
    (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

    > I just felt their was
    > barely any character development for all but Kirk and Spock - and even
    > then it was _extremely_ rushed and shallow.


    This has been typical of much of Star Trek. Many characters in ST:TOS
    were shallow. Then there was the first season and a half of ST:TNG.

    jt
     
    jt august, May 13, 2009
    #16
  17. Jamie Kahn Genet

    jt august Guest

    In article <1izoiov.12gprovxirpabN%>,
    (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

    > > You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?

    >
    > It order to enjoy fantasy and science fiction even the scientifically
    > impossible must be portrayed in a 'realistic' manner in order to allow
    > the viewer to suspend belief and immerse one's self in the story.


    That would be known as "suspension of disbelief." And it does not
    require reality to be achieved. I site the original Star Wars Trilogy
    for an open example. A planet cannot blow up as instantly as was shown
    in the first movie and the explosion would be so clean. The way the
    ships zip about each other so maneuverably could not be achieved as
    shown. And for a ship to enter a restricted zone and then land away
    from the ground base without setting any alarms could never happen. Yet
    all these and much more occurred quite fluidly and naturally in all
    those movies.

    But here is the kicker: Star Wars is Science Fantasy. So the viewer
    can believe such things could happen in the Star Wars Universe and thus
    thoroughly enjoy the films.

    Well, Star Trek is equally Science Fantasy. Going backwards in time
    simply by spinning counter clockwise around the sun instead of
    clockwise. Entering into warp drive while still in 1980's Earth's
    atmosphere. Changing a nebular into a star with a "class M" planet with
    an instant eco-system. Some alien intelligence upgrading a very simple
    space probe launched in the 70's into something super high tech and as
    big as the moon that in turn worships us as its God.

    All these sample plot points require complete suspension of disbelief.
    Yet these movies draw audiences not only with each movie, but many
    repeat viewers in theater, on home video, on various broadcast
    presentations and of course at numerous fan conventions. The reason is
    not that they are presented in a way that is realistic, but in a way
    that is coherent to the story. Coherency is the real throttle point for
    a successful suspension of disbelief.

    That said, if you want something realistic, stick to documentaries. The
    new ST movie seems to me will be just flat out fun. I'm looking forward
    to seeing it.

    jt
     
    jt august, May 13, 2009
    #17
  18. Jamie Kahn Genet

    jt august Guest

    In article <3wsOl.997$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > And if it had a creative plot, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
    > Out of 100 episodes in the original series, about ninety
    > of them were the same two stories with the names changed.
    > (The other ten were pretty good though)


    Um, there were only 78 episodes in ST:TOS. 79 if you count the pilot
    episode, The Cage.

    jt
     
    jt august, May 13, 2009
    #18
  19. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Davoud Guest

    Jamie Kahn Genet wrote some nonsense that I didn't read. I've
    kill-filed him long since.

    J Brockley wrote:
    > You do know the Federation and Star Ships are fiction?


    There's the deal. Critics and viewers love the new ST movie. SF isn't
    for everyone, however. Some lack the imagination for it and expect it
    to adhere strictly to General Relativity, etc. NOT!

    That's why this form of entertainment is also called "escapist;"
    healthy minds need to escape every-day reality from time to time. Those
    who can't suspend disbelief and escape for a couple of hours from time
    to time are likely to end up like Jamie.

    Such people are to be pitied. They can't read Shakespeare (spoiler:
    Romeo and Juliet, Iago, Lear - all _fictional_ characters) or the
    marvelous fictitious history found in the Old Testament (spoiler: there
    was no bondage in Egypt, no Moses, no wandering in the Sinai). They
    can't watch SNL or Snow White or any of that. Sad, indeed. One wonders
    what Jamie & his ilk do for a life - other than write nonsense for
    Usenet.

    Davoud

    --
    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
     
    Davoud, May 13, 2009
    #19
  20. In article <1izoij3.1y4wkru2x7nzgN%>,
    (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

    > > I have a book somewhere in my library titled The Physics of Star
    > > Trek; it's about a decade old, but it does explain what is
    > > possible, what is probable, and what is pure fancy in the show.

    >
    > Cool book :) I'd love to track down a copy - not seen one since I
    > was a kid.


    It's available at Amazon, and was apparently reprinted in July of last
    year. It was originally published in 1995; that version is also
    available at Amazon.

    There's also a "Science of Star Wars" book, dated May 2000.

    --
    It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
     
    Michelle Steiner, May 13, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fire3Sky

    Question - Star Trek movie box sets

    Fire3Sky, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    648
    Waterperson77
    Aug 11, 2004
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    897
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 27, 2004
  3. Bucky Breeder
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    389
    Bucky Breeder
    May 11, 2009
  4. walter
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    413
    walter
    May 11, 2009
  5. Sky King
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    395
    Sky King
    May 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page