Just got in from Star Trek: Into Darkness which I thoroughly enjoyed. I was expecting it to just be the Enterprise v John Harrison, but there were several nice twists waiting to unravel.
I've just seen... Page 358
Quote: Ben @ May 18 2013, 5:04 PM BSTJust got in from Star Trek: Into Darkness which I thoroughly enjoyed. I was expecting it to just be the Enterprise v John Harrison, but there were several nice twists waiting to unravel.
Yes, it's brilliant, everything you could want from an action movie, plus an intelligent plot, and a few very funny bits, too.
I love all the stuff it didn't do.
So the big ship punch up is just one on one much tenser then dizzying loads of CGI nuisances
Zachary quintos spok is awesome
Only simon pegg is a not of a loss and not enough spok vs bones
Loved Pegg in it. Thought the ending a bit weak.
I have the first one to watch. I'm not a Trek fan, is it worth watching considering that?
I don't like Star Trek and I enjoyed the first film.
Well I will blame you zooo if I don't enjoy it 
I also.like how they play around with the history from the TV show
My only minor gripe was when I was reminded of Godfather 3's helicopter attack, although I suppose it was meant as a homage/joke; like the obvious Star Wars reference when they were escaping the Klingons. But really, the film was awesome.... not a word I often use.
I just watched a cheerful documentary about the Challenger disaster. Very interesting, some of the safety standards with the shuttle were terrifying.
I always wonder with the Shuttle if the US put so much effort into it becauase NASA couldn't face upto the fact that the Russian's were getting better results with much more old fashioned rockets.
I'm just surprised any government invested so much in a space system with so little military value.
Well, the only point of the wing stubs on the shuttle was so that it could change direction while in atmosphere and go in an unexpected direction. Which does have military value, what's odd is that the shuttle wasn't being used that way, so it just seemed like an overly complicated design. It meant that the shuttle could land on a runway instead of splashing down in the ocean though.
The US military are actually developing an unmanned shuttle, for what purpose they won't reveal. But spying would be an obvious use, or intercepting / destroying enemy satellites.
Incidentally I watched that documentary after watching the one about Richard Feynman, which mentioned his involvement in the enquiry after the disaster. There's also another documentary on iPlayer about the Challenger and Columbia, which I might watch later if I think I'm not depressed enough.
Lourdes. What a bizarre place Lourdes is, a sort of Disney Land for the diseased, disabled and desperate. Great film, though.
I was in Lourdes for the day when I was 16 and I've yet to find the holy stuff. It seemed full of stalls with tourist stuff and an old man tried to steal my duffel bag. Melted into the crowd when I turned and glared at him.