Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Critics Pan Nemesis 1058

Posted by michael
from the bombs-away dept.
CgiJobs writes "The critics aren't much impressed with the new Star trek: "The 10th entry in the Star Trek movie franchise ... is the dullest and drabbest of the lot"; "this ship-bound and lackluster entry tells a rather harebrained story"; "suffers from a nasty case of the cutes"; More at Google News. Of course, I'll still be going to see it." Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism...

Reader NCC1701E submitted a short write-up on the movie:

"First, the executive summary: wait for the video. Now, the Gory Details, in all their splendor. I somehow received an email invitation to an advance screening to the Paramount Theater in Times Square, here in NYC. I had to wait in line for 30 minutes, and there was some confusion in swapping my email print out for a pass. But they didn't even check names against a list; it was basically first-come, first served among those who had been inveigled there through various means. In the end, there were even some empty seats. The movie itself? Basically disappointing. IMHO, the weakest entry yet in the series. Production values and special effects were excellent. And it was great to see the movie in a big theater with Dolby sound. But NEMESIS is little more than a Western type "shoot out" movie. The bad guys attack. The good guys fight back, Then, there's more attacking and more fighting back. Then it happens again. And again. You get the idea. I'm a sucker for the hokey humanism that was the hallmark of Star Trek at its best. There was very little of that on display here. In fact, there was very little in the way of a plot. Just some mildly amusing cutesy scenes, plus some murky musings about the nature vs. nuture debate re: a Picard clone. So I didn't much care for the movie. And judging by the subdued response in the theater, neither did the audience. BTW, NY audiences can be cruel. This one snickered at corny lines that weren't supposed to be funny. The phrase "derisive laughter" leaps to mind. I predict NEMESIS will be a huge box office hit. But long-time fans may be as disappointed as I was."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Critics Pan Nemesis

Comments Filter:
  • BAH (Score:-1, Interesting)

    by Romothecus (553103) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:46PM (#4881307)
    I feel there are some inherent problems with movie criticism. The problem is that most people who review things are the very people who seem to have the most hang ups about that thing. This makes their reviews worthless to the rest of us who simply enjoy watching movies or reading books. So Mr. Moviereviewerman, you think Nemesis had a "derivative, punch-the-keyboard plot." You think it was "crude, but occasionally laugh-out-loud funny, merely for its sheer ridiculousness." You think that a movie like Nemesis is just too far below your standards. Well I bet you twenty bucks you have a painting in your house that you bought because it matched your couch, how pedestrian.
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:47PM (#4881328)
    . . . and how much is culture.

    I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast.

    We've also had plenty of other sci-fi series to come around - Babylon 5, Farscape, X-files. Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.
  • Hrm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by autopr0n (534291) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:52PM (#4881378) Homepage Journal
    Of course, all the geeks around here will buy the DVD so we can see Wil Wheaton's deleted scene... :P

    It's to bad it didn't turn out so well. They seemed to really have something with First Contact. I mean, with all the money they spend on special effects why can't they hire a good writer create an interesting world to put them in?

    It's to bad, too. I'm not a huge star-trek fan, but I was hoping this would be good, and at least worth seeing, given this is going to be the last one with this cast, and thus the last one worth seeing ever (probably)

    I mean, who want's to see a Deep Space 9 movie, or *gag* voyager!?
  • by Mothra the III (631161) on Friday December 13, 2002 @12:55PM (#4881413)
    I am not sure what these reviewers are looking for in a Star Trek movie. It has good special effects and a lot of action and thats what I want to see on the big screen. If you want a bunch of character development you can watch the 10 years of back episodes they show every day on TV. These movies are supposed to be fun. If you would rather see a movie with more depth I am sure they will be churning out another 4 hour Jane Autin novel movie in the near future
  • by SuperDuG (134989) <be@NOspAm.eclec.tk> on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:04PM (#4881498) Homepage Journal
    Calling this movie the worst of the series is a pretty harsh criticism... Have you not seen The Wrath of Kahn. Revenge, Emotion, and of course destroying a ship. I'm happy to no hear any reports of the enterprise being destroyed in this movie, I was really afraid as time progressed we'd see the Enterprise 1701-AA and that'd just be weird.

    But anyways back to Star Trek, here's the thing people, there's one thing to being a fan and there's another to dedicate your lifestyle to it. Fans enjoy watching the films and know the characters and MIGHT own some memorabilia. HOWEVER, if you dress up in star trek outfits, and would consider yourself a Dorn Groupie, then you are no longer a fan, you are obsessed with it all. Fans won't correct if I'm right or wrong about Star Trek facts.

    Star Trek may not follow the same plot/storyline as its previous movies, but for a series of movies and television shows this long, wouldn't it be absolutely boring if all they did was rescue disparaged refugees all the time??

    I'm going to see it, probably two or three times because this one looks like a story builder where you can get more into the movie and there's not just unexplainable things (IE: Q) that can just make things unexplainable acceptable. New aliens, new weapons, and new characters will make this one a good edition to the Star Trek series.

    Lastly, what the hell did you expect from a movie called Nemesis (enemy of equal power), them to go hug and kiss? NO! there gunna fight because that's what they do.

  • by LostCluster (625375) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:11PM (#4881552)
    Star Trek was never a mainstream hit. The original series got canceled 3 years into its run because of simple low ratings.

    TNG and DS9 survived because the requirements for syndication in the late 1980s to early 1990s were lower than network TV in the 1960s... there finally were enough TV channels so that a show aimed only at the sci-fi fans could work.

    Voyager was created expressly to launch the UPN network and provide it with a stable program to anchor an otherwise week lineup of programming. Enterprise appears forced to air by the fact that if it wasn't accepted, the Star Trek TV franchise would be suspended.

    Quanity is more important than quality now... that's a problem we're seeing all over TV.
  • Ebert puts it nicely (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JJAnon (180699) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:13PM (#4881569)
    here [suntimes.com]. For example,
    Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus. This far in the future they wouldn't have sparks because they wouldn't have electricity, because in a world where you can beam matter--beam it, mind you--from here to there, power obviously no longer lives in the wall and travels through wires.

    It's the little things that you don't really realize (until someone points them out to you) that put you off a movie.
  • by T-Kir (597145) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:20PM (#4881652) Homepage

    I am a fan, and plan on trying to see the movie tonight... but I'm not sure about your good writer bit, John Logan has a rather good pedigree (IMHO) and is a Trek fan as well... combined with a director who knew bugger all about Trek so he could focus the movie on being a movie (rather than Just Another Star Trek MovieTM and to challenge the actors more. Although I will reserve my judgement until I've seen the movie, but the potential for it to be good has been there since the beginning (not counting the odd/even rule).

    You're right about the DVD, they cut (AFAIK) around 45 minutes of stuff that *would* have made it into the film, but the orders were for a length of about 2 hours (rather than nearing 3). And Paramount have been quoted as saying there will be an extended DVD (not a Directors cut, because Stuart Baird was happy with the end result).

    DS9 was good, but it has a new direction in the books (which I just finished the first one called "Avatar", which is quite good). And Voyager was seriously let down by the writers and producers, i.e. look how they watered down the Borg, and their constant pressing of the "Continuity Reset" button. As well as Enterprise, I watched most of the first season, but have completely given up on it now... it is complete pants (although not as shit as Andromeda).

    Oh well, at least my Science Fiction appetite is whetted by Stargate SG1 and the announced season 7.

  • Re: cameo v. extra (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew (463832) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:21PM (#4881656) Homepage
    I think his cameo was shopped out because the film was over 3 hours, and that now he merely appears -- no lines.

    That, or they didn't want to pay him. ;-) Although how much does an "extra" -- or whatever a star who doesn't talk is called -- get paid, anyway? I guess CleverNickName can tell us.
  • What about Worf? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:32PM (#4881771)
    Well, reviews be damned, I'm seeing it tomorrow. However, it occurs to me they've opened up another continuity hole with Worf. At the end of DS9, Worf was appointed Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire. Now he's back on board the Enterprise.

    I saw a brief red-carpet interview with Michael Dorn (who plays Worf) who said, "You know, they never addressed that..."

    Which makes me wonder...
  • Re:Characters (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Luxury P. Yacht (18865) on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:41PM (#4881836)
    Heh, here are a few that I stole from an unsuspecting fansite:

    "I'm a Doctor, not a bricklayer" - The Devil in the Dark
    "I'm a Doctor, not a moon shuttle conductor" - The Corbomite Maneuver
    "I'm a Doctor, not a psychiatrist" - The City on the Edge of Forever
    "I'm a Doctor, not a mechanic" - The Doomsday Machine & The Empath
    "I'm a Doctor, not a scientist" - Metamorphosis
    "I'm a Doctor, not a physicist" - Metamorphosis
    "I'm a Doctor, not an escalator" - Friday's Child
    "I'm a Doctor, not a magician" - The Deadly Years
    "I'm a Doctor, not a flesh peddler" - Return to Tomorrow
    "I'm a Doctor, not a coal miner" - The Empath
  • The original series got canceled 3 years into its run because of simple low ratings.

    Actually, Paramount and the network might not have cancelled except for the fact that ratings at the time only reflected the entire audience. When after the fact, the analyzed the ratings and subdivided among demographics (which was becoming the new standard practice during the 70s), they realized their mistake in that the show was doing phenominal among the desired key 18-49 male range (which it continued to perform well against in syndication).

    It was this realization, among with the whole Star Wars thing, that led Paramount to build up ST Phase 2, which eventually settled down to just become the first movie.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 13, 2002 @01:55PM (#4881948)
    Someone who works as a critic for living is someone who failed in life and devotes his life in destroying those who did.

    This story reminds me of a critic in the Toronto Star back in the seventies when I lived in Canada. I sent a letter to the editor thanking them for their great information on movies. I pointed out the movie of the Pink panther that was destroyed in the critic's column. If it hadn't been for the critic I might have missed a good movie. I usually looked at his critic in order to make my choice on a movie at the cinema. I would pick among the ones he hated the most. I don't rememver a bad choice of movie with this technique.

  • by podperson (592944) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:01PM (#4881999) Homepage
    What really bugs me is that with hundreds of great SF (and fantasy) novels that have never been made into films, folks spend hundreds of millions making terrible scripts into films. Sure, making Lord of the Rings into a film is a no brainer -- we had to wait fifty years for that?!

    Just off the top of my head (and everyone will have their own ideas):

    Note: I'm picking big, generally violent, splashy stories that would turn into the kind of movies that Hollywood likes, and not subtle stuff. Most of the books have franchise potential (i.e. they're part of long series).

    Isaac Asimov's "Foundation"
    Iain Banks's "Excession"
    Greg Bear's "Eon"
    David Brin's "Startide Rising"
    C.J. Cherryh's "Downbelow Station"
    Arthur C. Clarke's "Earthlight"
    Gordon R. Dickson's "Tactics of Mistake"
    William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
    Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"
    Cordwainer Smith's "Norstrilia"
    Neil Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" (or get Spielberg to do "Cryptonomicon" since he has this WWII bug)
    Jack Vance's "To Live Forever"
    Walter Jon Williams's "Aristoi"

    I won't even bother listing fantasy series that could be made into movies once they've finished making every posthumous exhumation of Tolkein's crap into movies (I foresee five films based on the Silmarillion and then there's the volumes and volumes of junk published by his son...)

    On a side note: why is it that Philip K. Dick's most obscure novels and short stories that are often boring or make no sense do get made into films? And generally they're stories about someone who is totally passive and runs away at every sign of trouble who ends up being played by Arnold Schwarzenegger... Maybe the screenwriters see a kindred spirit or something. Or maybe the rights were cheap.

    If we're going to make Dick's books into movies, what about:
    "Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said"
    "A Scanner Darkly"

    Maybe Pixar can make "Ubik"...
  • by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:10PM (#4882069)
    Star Treks ratings were low because they put it in the worst time slots, and shifted the bloody program around so it was difficult to catch the broadcast.

    The NBC exec who made the decision to cancel it probably is camping with Jimmy Hoffa.

    People may not like Star Trek, I happen to (other than Enterprise) DS 9 was hitting into a great stride right before they shelved it, and Voyager really did hold my interest (even though the finale sucked).

    OTOH I find Star Wars to be marginally entertaining, and with the new plot lines and the new explanations for the force - I'm starting to find it annoying. I'd sorta wish Lucas would just quit cranking them out.

    I guess it all depends on your point of view.
  • by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda&etoyoc,com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:12PM (#4882094) Homepage Journal
    Ah who believes what the read on slashdot anyways! I'm going out to see it for the sheer fact that I'm I've been watching Star Trek since before Star Trek was cool.

    I still have at my parent's place a copy of the TV Guide from about a year before the TNG came out describing what the series would be like. Hell some of my first CAD projects were models of the Enterprise. In my office I have a model of the Klingon Bird of Prey. It has earned me names like "geek".

    But then again, who on Slashdot really minds being called a geek? And while we are at it, who on SlashDot really gives a flying foo what anyone else really thinks?

  • by benzapp (464105) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:19PM (#4882156)
    Now a lot of us are really sick of the franchise -- but that's only because our hopes have been dashed and we've lost faith in the creative individual behind the story.

    Well, this is the essence of the problem. In the case of Star Trek, the creative genius was one Gene Roddenberry, deceased since 1991. Now, Gene did some goofy things here and there, but he an aesthetic vision of Star Trek that allowed it to become what it did. I think as soon as he died, the spirit of Star Trek died with him.

    Anyway, I completley agree with you otherwise. People are not sick of Star Trek, they are sick of what Paramount and Rick Berman have done with the name since Gene died.
  • Re:the WORST? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by p3d0 (42270) on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:37PM (#4882308)
    <SPOILERS>

    IMHO the worst was definitely Generations, for three reasons:

    1. The "plot dev^H^H^H nexus" was the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It was a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did.
    2. They gratuitously wrecked practically every feature of the Star Trek universe they could get their hands on:
      • Data got emotions.
      • Geordi got eyes.
      • The Enterprise was destroyed.
      • Kirk was killed.
      • Lursa and Betor died.
      • et cetera...
    3. Oh, and by the way, the plot sucked.
    </SPOILERS>

    To go from that dreck to First Contact (IMHO the best movie of them all) was a triumph, and Jonathan Frakes deserves a lot of credit. (I think he also deserves credit for making the best odd-numbered movie, Insurrection. Yeah, it wasn't very good, but look at the other odd-numbered movies.)

  • by X-Nc (34250) <nilrin@GAUSSgmail.com minus math_god> on Friday December 13, 2002 @02:41PM (#4882331) Homepage Journal
    I have found that, particularly with F&SF, if the critics hate it then I know it will be a good movie. One of the most acruate collection of critics I know is the Washington Post Entertainment section. When they hate a movie I know it will be good. If they like a movie, it's a good bet that it will suck. So far they've been about 95% correct with this.

    Well, at least for me.

  • by aridhol (112307) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Friday December 13, 2002 @03:43PM (#4882845) Homepage Journal
    I've always been curious: on modern warships, does the "battlestations klaxon" keep sounding at maximum volume so no one can think, or do they just sound it for a few seconds and figure that everyone now has a clue what's going on?
    I don't know how it's done on American ships, but in Canada, we get a five-second alarm, a PA announcement saying the nature of the emergency (action stations, man overboard, fire, etc), and a single repeat. For lesser emergencies, or for a bomb threat, there's a bosun's call "still" (3-second whistle), an announcement, and a repeat.

    And no, a bomb threat isn't considered a lesser emergency; a bosun's call is sent over the standard PA, which has been used routinely since leaving harbour, and is therefore less likely to trigger the bomb than the general alarm which hasn't been used.

  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Friday December 13, 2002 @03:44PM (#4882857) Homepage Journal
    (my opinion is that everything after TNG has been crap)

    My view on this is as follows: In ST7 (Generations), there is little thing called the nexus. If you get caught in the nexus, you can never leave (unless ripped out by transporter like Guinan was), and while in the Nexus all your wishes, concious or not, are fulfilled.

    Picard gets caught in the nexus, and somehow wills himself out (without being ripped out), only to then live out his fantasy (being the hero, the captain, surving difficulty, etc).

    So my personnal opinion is that Picard never left the nexus and that everything since the nexus has only been a Picard hallucination.

    Crappy DS9, crappy Voyager (had a few good eps, but a LOT of awfull ones)...all of that is just good old Jean-Luc having a freakout in the nexus.

  • by cje (33931) on Friday December 13, 2002 @04:06PM (#4883036) Homepage
    Let me get this straight .. you honestly believe that a statement like "At present rates of hunting, humpback whales will become extinct in the next 50 years" is an "over-the-top environmentalist message?" You're kidding, right? If you don't care about the whales, that's your business, but the whole humpback sub-plot was not about the crew of the Enterprise chaining themselves to trees or railing about the evil of "multinational corporate polluters." There's a world of difference between conservation and radical, over-the-top (as you say) environmentalism.

    If you didn't like The Voyage Home, then that's fine, but try to keep your criticism credible.
  • Re:What about Worf? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lostboy2 (194153) on Friday December 13, 2002 @04:52PM (#4883336)
    Slightly OT:
    At this year's Comic Con International [comic-con.org], Marina Sirtis mentioned that Michael Dorn didn't have a real good time making parts of this movie -- particularly the ones where they were tooling around in a dune-buggy thing. Apparently, he was in the back seat all the time and got bounced around a lot.

    She also mentioned that Dorn joked that this movie should be named "Star Trek: Narcissist" and coyly said that we could figure out who he was talking about ourselves. ;-)

  • by stickyc (38756) on Friday December 13, 2002 @05:25PM (#4883528) Homepage
    I read a fascinating bit in Time where they listed the box office gross of all the ST movies. ST1, which was widely panned by critics (and audience) is by far the leader, $145m ahead of the next best grossing film (ST4).

    ST1 - $370m
    ST2 - $194m
    ST3 - $159m
    ST4 - $225m
    ST5 - $104m
    ST6 - $127m
    ST7 - $147m
    ST8 - $174m
    ST9 - $131m
    (all figures in adjusted 2002 dollars, worldwide gross)

  • Re:Too bad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DroppedPacket (621464) on Friday December 13, 2002 @06:48PM (#4884036)
    Ermm... ST6 had a fatal flaw.

    Yes it did, but you missed it. :-)

    The next time you watch the movie, realized that it was Excelsior returning from a mission exploring gaseous nebulas when the Kronos moon exploded. Then when you reach the climax of the movie, ask yourself, "Why does the Enterprise have the equipment from Excelsior on board?"

    I seem the be the only person who noticed this in the theater when it first came out. Nobody else ever notices until I mention it. Then they see it. It scares me.

  • uhg. trek. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EvilAlien (133134) on Friday December 13, 2002 @07:51PM (#4884412) Journal
    This is not a troll, but over-sensitive Trek geeks might think it is...

    Are there are reviews by NON-fans of the whole Trek thing? The only thing that attracts me about Nemesis is that I hear that it is about as non-Trek as you can get in the franchise. I'd like to know what someone who doesn't want to see Yet Another Trek Movie thinks. I'm sick of the preachiness of Star Trek and would like some Sci Fi that is a little bit innovative.

    Does anyone remember a sci-fi short story from the 70s called "Common Denominator" or something like that? It had excellent descriptions of ship-to-ship combat in space, used rocket propelled missles, some sort of nasty beetle creatures were the enemies. I can't remember exactly what the story was called or who wrote it, but I think it would make an excellent flick. There is just something very tired and "blah" about the whole Star Trek thing that makes me crave something new...

  • Re:Listen..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dswensen (252552) on Friday December 13, 2002 @09:27PM (#4884851) Homepage
    You can't make a Star Trek movie that you guys will like. Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.

    No, but I'd settle for something that lived up to what I saw in 1996 when First Contact came out. And I assure you, I was not a kid.

    There has barely been a single year since the premiere of TNG in the late 80s when Star Trek has NOT been on television or the big screen in some form or another. Indeed, there was a time, not so many years ago, when there were two Trek series AND a movie available all at the same time! So it isn't as if good Trek is some kind of distant memory that's had 25 years to accumulate unrealistic expectations, like Star Wars has.

    Trek is capable of being good, and it has been capable of being good quite recently, by comparison -- at least to my mind. I have not been "building up" any image of Trek -- it's always been there, from TNG up on to Voyager and Enterprise. And if I feel it's declined in quality, that isn't necessarily nostalgia talking.

    I recently purchased a couple seasons of TNG on DVD, and while it's not perfect, it's every bit as good as I remember. And if Enterprise had the same caliber of writing, I would not be panning it. Instead I'm just not watching it.

    So, I'm sorry, but I don't think the "oh you were but a wee lad when you liked Star Trek" argument holds water. Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out when I was a kid, and I thought it was junk even then. And I think First Contact is right up there with Wrath of Khan -- they're both excellent.

    Time has no meaning with Trek -- either it's good, or it isn't. I don't know a single person who liked Trek V because they happened to be young when they saw it.
  • by dilvish_the_damned (167205) on Friday December 13, 2002 @10:04PM (#4884997) Journal
    Why was the kid so pissed at earth anyway? It would seem he should be pissed at Romulus for sending him to work in the mines and such... What the hell did Earth ever do to him?
    What was his hangup at being touched by a female?
    Why did the green guys follow him when he was a prickly scrawny human and they were big and bad?
    They were bred for war. Why were they such bad shots?
    Why couldnt warf hit the barn?
    That seemed to be some pretty decent method for tracking andriod parts from pretty far away. Why couldnt have that been used before to track Data?
    Why was Warf whinging like a little girl at his hange over? Why wasnt he busy being pissed at Riker for taking his woman?
    What the hell is it to Picard if his officers dont want to get publicly naked, at what could only be described as a personal event? (maybe he has some other issues....)
    Why all the anoying closup shots?
    When Troy tells Picard she has 'been violated' why didnt he look with suspision to Riker like anyone else would have reacted?
    Picard tried to kill everyone with self destruct becouse the situation just got really bad, they all live. Instead of having a party and celebrating life, they go on about a peice of hardware(Data) that was lost.
    These people just are not normal damnit! They all need help.
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Friday December 13, 2002 @11:50PM (#4885307) Homepage Journal
    With Voyager gone, UPN needed to get some ST project on the air or they would find themselves trying to rely WWE Smackdown as the only major show on their network.

    Budget minded? Combine the two: Klingon Wrestling, or should I say Klingon Wrestling/Biting. It's all fake anyhow.
  • by Delphix (571159) on Saturday December 14, 2002 @02:18AM (#4885714)
    Star Trek: Nemesis is like Mission Impossible 2... It's a decent movie. They just gave it the wrong name. Other than the fact that they used characters from STNG... the feel of the movie is completely different from the TV show. And if you pay attention to the technology...it's more akin to what we have now..than any future. A 4-Wheel Offroad vehicle. The tools Crusher uses in sick bay... The pop up computer panel in Picard's office...

    It's all 20th/21st Century Tech. Even the computer displays look like stuff out of the recent Star Trek video games. Maybe it's just me...but it doesn't feel like "Star Trek." The mood is dark, and the main characters seem way to jovial...

    Decent story. Wrong name.
  • by Reziac (43301) on Saturday December 14, 2002 @03:23AM (#4885912) Homepage Journal
    The dichotomy really is that TOS, TOS, and Voyager are all PLOT-driven. DS9 is CHARACTER-driven. This makes them appeal to completely different audiences, both of whom generally think that the other's guy's taste sucks.

HEAD CRASH!! FILES LOST!! Details at 11.

Working...