Greetings all, I'm back - if I was ever regular enough to qualify for gone in the first place.
I saw Nemesis on opening day, interestingly, the first and so far only movie I've ever gone to and seen myself.
I wasn't that impressed. I've always been fond of the even/odd legend and for me at least, it's held true all these years, so I perhsaps biasedly placed it in the middle of the list, at the bottom of the evens but above the odds.
But really, I didn't like it all that much. The plot holes bothered me, the dune buggy scene was downright angering, I didn't think the mirror self theme was executed very well, and I thought Stuart Baird's direction was mediocre on the high end and averaged at incompetent.
Through most of the movie, all I could think of were jokes, the writing of a spoof, and on the whole could not take the movie very seriously. Coming into a second time, I had meant (but forgot) to carry along a notebook and scribble down whatever further myriad of jokes would come to my mind, thinking that the movie would prove only even funnier a second time around.
To my suprise though, I found I liked the movie significantly better on a second viewing. The Dune buggy race is still pointless, the turning to stone is a stupid effect, and for a Star Trek fan, Logan's weaving of the great tapestry is still not what it was hyped to be.
But it is there, and I noticed it more (or more accurately, with more appreciation) a second time. They are not completely, throwaway references (things like a Kirk Epsilon manuever not withstanding). The Dominion War is established as part of Shinzon's history. Yes, I remember that scene from before, but I suppose I just didn't register it significantly before.
Spiner and Stewart continue to impress me, though I still think Stewart's lines were too out of character for even him to deliver effectively at times. And Tom Hardy's performance impressed me even more this time.
Logan's mirror identity theme seemed more competent this time. This aspect I can't explain, I don't know why I felt it worked on the second viewing and not the first. I can only think to chalk it up to bias before walking in.
The space battle I liked the second time whereas the first time I had beef. It wasn't as fast paced and the tracking shots and cutting didn't seem as incomprehensibly fast as they did before. And I don't think I gave the viewscreen bit as much credit as I should've, again most likely for having known about it before hand. It really was a cool idea.
Out of all this, the thing that I noticed most significantly was concerning the rest of the cast's involvement. A fairly constant critique of at least the new movies is the involvement of the rest of the bridge crew. Generations is the most notable of these, and to a lesser extent, Insurrection, and First Contact. I would've, and did, criticize Nemesis for the same infraction. But looking again, while the characters don't have subplots of their own, they do have a good amount of lines and contribute to the two main plots around them. The good doctor who had maybe three lines in Generations at least delivers a good deal of exposition. Geordi does his bit with Data and the battle, and Riker filled his usual role (though the less said about Troi's involvement the better). Only Worf is lacking for supporting screen time, which is a fault, but overall the scorecard doesn't look that bad.
Yes, there are faults with the movie. It does not approach the quality of Wrath of Kahn or Undiscovered Country, but I think, it's a better movie than I gave it credit for in the beginning. Where at once I had placed it in the middle without really feeling it had deserved that spot, I've come to feel that it has genuinely earned it.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
I rather enjoyed the Dune buggy. I thought it was lots of fun, and Worf in the back with that huge ass canon was cool as hell, as well as how they jumped back into the Argo.
What was wrong with it, specificly?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Its primary sin, in my opinion, was that it lacked connection to the rest of the film. (My primary complaint about the entire movie is that is suffers from a terminal case of disconnection; each scene exists more or less on its own, with the links between them being almost entirely arbitrary, and the entire film suffers from a disconnect with the wider Star Trek universe.) For instance, why are the locals just lying in wait around the scattered pieces of an android? The movie never bothers to tell us. Far worse, the characters never bother to ask.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: I rather enjoyed the Dune buggy. I thought it was lots of fun, and Worf in the back with that huge ass canon was cool as hell, as well as how they jumped back into the Argo.
What was wrong with it, specificly?
What was wrong, specifically, was that "cool as hell" was ALL the sequence was. There was no plot sense behind it at all. It was just an excuse to do some dune-buggying and a stupid CAR CHASE with aliens. Most un-Trek-like, if you ask me. And the chasm jump looked reeeaaally fake.
Trek movies should be exciting and entertaining, but that's not a proper end in itself. They can't simply be rock 'em sock 'em action films, they have to be dramatically satisfying as well. Nemesis largely failed at this, not because of the overall story but because of the distracting and pointless stunts like the Kolarus III chase.
-MMoM Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
It was just wow factor material. It's terribly convenient that Picard and co. end up being chased by a vehicle that's equal in speed to their own. It was only so there could be a chase element, nothing more. Why were they not being encountered by a vastly more rapid vehicle...all just terribly convenient.
Since Spock said in "A Piece of the Action" that the automobile was a 'primitive form of transportation' (or something to that effect), why is it that a four-wheeled vehicle is suddenly a practicality 100 years after Spock's statement?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Simply. A four wheeled vehicle does NOT equal an automobile. Gasp.
I mean, a carriage had four wheels, but few would confuse it with an automobile.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
It's funny... I was given the option of watchin Nemesis again or Celebrity Mole: Hawaii and I ended up watching Stephen Baldwin get eliminated instead of this film... that's how bad the movie is still to me. I find Celebrity Mole more entertaining and funny than the movie.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
But within established Star Trek technology, I would argue that any four wheeled vehicle would be an old idea to them. They had a shuttlecraft with them and that would've been sufficient to collect the android parts.
They *couldn't* do that, though, because a shuttle could easily outrace the Kolaran hummers. Where's the fun in that?
And why does an android, who can withstand natural radiation and the vaccuum of space need goggles when he goes for a drive?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I saw it twice too, and I still couldn't get past the dune buggy chase, either. I read an interview with the director in the Magazine and didn't feel any better about any of it. The decisions in his own words often came down to "satisfying fans or moving the story along". He decided to move the story along because "why would fans want a scene that was longer than it needed to be?" Ummm... to make the story make sense? To make us feel like we're getting something important for this that is being billed as the last movie for the TNG cast?
I feel that the whole film and the details of the story lacked the impressive quality that was needed in order to wrap this up. Perhaps the indecision was part of it. They want to bill it as the last movie for effect, but they don't want to ake it *too* impressive or final just in case they want to do another one. That bigs me. Make a decision. Make a good movie. Don't say "this is the impressive last chapter... but we'll leave it open for a sequel just in case." It's insulting to the story and to the characters.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Well, the movie has finally started here today. I'm going to see it tomorrow and I will try to leave my bias outside the cinema. Will have my two cents worth ready this weekend...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Logan says he couldn't work Spock into this? Raise your hands if you couldn't help but think: hey, this particle of the week could have been a ressurection of the Genesis device. You could have a lot of fun with Spock considering dying AGAIN to stop the thing. And why couldn't Sela have been worked in, anyway? What is this guy talking about when he says he couldn't figure out a way?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Meh, I'm sorry you let those things get in the way from enjoying the flick. But really, there�s nothing to �get in the way� here�
There was certainly a reason they needed to use the dune buggy. Because taking off and landing in a shuttle would be too tedious for every part of B4, and beaming was obviously not an option.
I was satisfied with those reasons that a fast-moving land vehicle (which I�m really glad was finally introduced into the Star Trek universe) was needed on Kolarus III.
Plus, the scene was very fun, and although the vehicle itself wasn�t used In the rest of the film, retrieving B4 certainly effected the plot, which was pretty much WHY they were down there in the first place.
What�s wrong with that?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Its primary sin, in my opinion, was that it lacked connection to the rest of the film. (My primary complaint about the entire movie is that is suffers from a terminal case of disconnection; each scene exists more or less on its own, with the links between them being almost entirely arbitrary, and the entire film suffers from a disconnect with the wider Star Trek universe.) For instance, why are the locals just lying in wait around the scattered pieces of an android? The movie never bothers to tell us. Far worse, the characters never bother to ask.
Perhaps they wernt WAITING. I saw it more as they were detected, so they went out to see what the hell it was.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There may have been reasons for the dune buggy, but those reasons were placed there by the same person who put the dune buggy there in the first place. You say that beaming wasn't an option. Why not? Because the writer made it not an option? What was stopping him from writing the scene so that they beam down to each part and beam back up?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Or beam the part up itself?
NOT COOL AS HELL!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hey, beam the party down to look at all the body parts lying around. Have the ion storm strike, and the heroes unable to beam back up. Have the uglies turn up in their dune buggies now that the storm blocks sensors. Have Picard and pals carjack a buggy, and run like hell towards a shuttlecraft pickup.
That way, there isn't even the logical flaw of Shinzon planting the parts in a location where Picard's life is in danger. It wouldn't be, if not for the ion storm that Shinzon couldn't predict.
You could insert the dialogue about Picard's newly gained taste for fast cars in there easily enough. And you could show off the Argo, and do the leaping trick, and all.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: There may have been reasons for the dune buggy, but those reasons were placed there by the same person who put the dune buggy there in the first place. You say that beaming wasn't an option. Why not? Because the writer made it not an option? What was stopping him from writing the scene so that they beam down to each part and beam back up?
By that logic Shinzon should of been a female romulan named Sela. But it wasnt! because the writer didnt want it to be. He made it a clone of Picard, which in turn lead to the personal nature of this enemy.
The point is.. they didnt beam beause they didnt. Period. Its obvious that they would use transporters if they could, but they didnt. Every event in any piece of fiction leads to another event. If one thing didnt happen, the next wouldnt.
Why did the Enterprise-E win the battle near the end.. because the writer said it did.
What stopped him from writing the scene so that they beam down to each part and beam back up was that ITS FRIGGEN BORING. Do you really want to see them just beam up the pieces or do you want to see them take a dune buggy down and engage some 'bad guys' in a high-speed chase.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: That way, there isn't even the logical flaw of Shinzon planting the parts in a location where Picard's life is in danger. It wouldn't be, if not for the ion storm that Shinzon couldn't predict.
Shinzon didnt plant the parts where Picard would be in danger to begin with, since its pretty common knowledge that Picard doesnt (read: shouldnt) go on away missions anyway. Shinzon probably thought that if anyone was in danger, it would be the first officer and some crew... no one he cared about.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: What stopped him from writing the scene so that they beam down to each part and beam back up was that ITS FRIGGEN BORING. Do you really want to see them just beam up the pieces or do you want to see them take a dune buggy down and engage some 'bad guys' in a high-speed chase.
Gods forfend that we should be BORED. There's a difference between "suspension of disbelief" & "What the fuck was THAT?!?" absurdity. The chase not only crossed that line, it went trolling for cod to take to Grandma's house. It would be like if Indiana Jones had nowhere to go, no more ideas, went out for a walk in the desert, & oop! just tripped over the topstone to the Well Of The Souls, which had just magically been uncovered just enough after 5000 years for HIM to find by stubbing his toe on it. No. Poor planning (NO planning?) & poor conceptual flow.
quote:Shinzon didnt plant the parts where Picard would be in danger to begin with, since its pretty common knowledge that Picard doesnt (read: shouldnt) go on away missions anyway. Shinzon probably thought that if anyone was in danger, it would be the first officer and some crew... no one he cared about.
Buh? Is he Kreskin now? Or just the Stupendous Yappi?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Do you really want to see them just beam up the pieces or do you want to see them take a dune buggy down and engage some 'bad guys' in a high-speed chase."
I'd rather hear them say that they are going to beam the parts up, then see them skip ahead to where the parts are all beamed up. The time saved could be used for something interesting.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: It would be like if Indiana Jones had nowhere to go, no more ideas, went out for a walk in the desert, & oop! just tripped over the topstone to the Well Of The Souls, which had just magically been uncovered just enough after 5000 years for HIM to find by stubbing his toe on it[/QB]
Saw that one. It was called Temple of Doom.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, Temple of Doom was good and Nemesis sucked. So I'm not getting the comparison.
Besides, Indiana Jones movies are like James Bond movies. They're supposed to be action-packed adventures that are simply fun and entertaining to watch. I used to like to believe that Star Trek was something just a little bit more than this. My mistake, I guess...
-MMoM Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Somehow I always get this feeling of self-fulfilling prophecy when reading most of your comments.
I went to see Nemesis yesterday, biased as hell against the film by knowing so much beforehand and reading all the negative remarks and so forth.
You know what? I THOROUGLY ENJOYED this film!!! Throw your stones, bash me if you like, but I couldn't find a lot of things that are wrong with Nemesis.
The story was Star Trek II meets TNG - so what? It made for an exciting, funny and touching movie. I liked the dark atmosphere and the new ideas they tried. Take the ramming scene near the end. Wasn't that the only realistic choice? No more torpedoes, Phaser power down to a minimum, auto destruct system destroyed. Hardly any power to speak of. What else could they have done?? Sure, it was intended as a "Cool as hell" sequence - which it was, judging from the reactions of everyone in the cinema, including myself - but I think it fitted in the story perfectly. Like so many other things you are critisizing. Moreover, I think it was the first Trek movie where CGI effects looked almost as realistic as model effects. (I particularly liked the spacedock sequence near the end, with that spacedock being in orbit over Europe, Italy in particular - a nice touch to show that the Star Trek world does not exist solely of America!!)
Also, you should have seen the reaction of the audience when Data died. Stunned silence and some remarks like "this can't be happening". Total shock. I seem to have been the only one knowing the fact beforehand. Somehow I regret this. Now I would rather have liked to have gone into the cinema not knowing anything. But can't be helped - I liked the film all the same.
And the soundtrack IMHO was one of the best in any Trek movie - and that to me is always the icing on the cake.
I will definitely go and see this at least once or twice more!
Why it wasn't a hit at the box office in the US? Bad timing and bad publicity - that's all! As soon as people go to the film wanting to believe that it's bad, it's no wonder they will be led to that belief in the end.
Just my two cents...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, the thing is, the things you've mentioned enjoying aren't the things that most people have been criticising.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I know, but there is still something I don't understand. Normally I can follow rational critisizm, but this is different. Most comments just seem like simple "bash as much as you can". Almost nobody seems to be willing to watch the movie and at the same time leave their hatred of B&B outside the cinema. I don't like what they have done to Star Trek either, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Nemesis for what it is - an entertaining Star Trek film.
The only critisizm I can really understand is the one about the dune buggy sequence - that was totally un-Star-Trek. But is one sequence really enough to ruin the enjoyment of a whole film?
Or your own point of disconnection. I read that posting right on the day before I went to the cinema, and to be honest I can't understand what you mean. I tried to find disconnected scenes but didn't find any - exept for a weird cut near the end where Picard is looking at the camera at the end of a scene and they cut to Picard at his desk talking to B4. That cut seemed extremely odd, but just from a technical standpoint. Not that it interfered with the story.
And another one. Someone around here critisized Riker for being an idiot (or something to that effect), because in a trailer for Nemesis he ordered "bring us about" after Data said that forward shields were down to ten percent. Well, the thing is that in the final film, these statements occur at different points in time so that they are not connected like in the trailer and therefor actually do make sense. But of course it's convenient to critisize something before even having seen it.
But of course personal taste is a difficult subject. I'm just sad that many of us have started - mainly because of bias - to bash the franchise we once loved/liked/enjoyed. Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Well, I enjoy a good car case, and for a car chase, this was done well. I'm sorry most of you are so above a action scene that you'd rather see something more 'intresting', but I enjoy that sort of thing.
Its a shame your 'superior intellect' gets in the way. Life would be much more fun if you enjoyed things for what they were, not what they could be, especially if you do not have the power to change whatever it happens to be.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
My point exactly!!
And I didn't dislike the car chase in itself. I enjoyed it as an action piece. I just thought it seemed a bit odd having Mad Max in a Star Trek environment.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Well, I enjoy a good car case, and for a car chase, this was done well. I'm sorry most of you are so above a action scene that you'd rather see something more 'intresting', but I enjoy that sort of thing.
Its a shame your 'superior intellect' gets in the way. Life would be much more fun if you enjoyed things for what they were, not what they could be, especially if you do not have the power to change whatever it happens to be.
"Bullitt" it wasn't. "Smokey & the Bandit II" it even wasn't. Nor "Cannonball Run." Come to think of it, the addition of Burt Reynolds would've been a major improvement.
As for "superior intellect," I watch things for reasons. I don't expect "Die Hard" or "Bill & Ted" to be a masterpiece. Neither do I expect anyhting by those "pain technicians" over at Merchant/Ivory to be fast-paced. But there are certain elements that are standard for ANY film--plot, motive, character. Unless it's porn. Or Troma.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
fap fap fap fap..... huh?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Shithead.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
quote: As for "superior intellect," I watch things for reasons. I don't expect "Die Hard" or "Bill & Ted" to be a masterpiece. Neither do I expect anyhting by those "pain technicians" over at Merchant/Ivory to be fast-paced. But there are certain elements that are standard for ANY film--plot, motive, character. Unless it's porn. Or Troma.
What about the connection to Nemesis? It had a plot, motives and character. I just fail to see the point you're trying to make.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And the soundtrack IMHO was one of the best in any Trek movie
Hang on. This movie had a soundtrack? I must have missed it.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Perhaps you should check your hearing!!
Everyone I have talked to loved the soundtrack. Hang on, I think I know what's going on. Possibly TPTB released a crappy version of Nemesis for the U.S. audiences: without soundtrack, plot, motive, etc. I suppose THAT'S the REAL reason why Nemesis started so much later here - they had to re-insert all the positive elements for us over here who go to a movie open-minded!!
(Sorry for my sarcasm, but I just feel really angry when reading stupid comments like the one from the last post!)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: What about the connection to Nemesis? It had a plot, motives and character. I just fail to see the point you're trying to make.
It seems like the writers were like Billy Crystal as the movie exec in "The Critic"--"Plot. What a funny word. PLOT. Plotplotplotplotplotplotplotplot. Nope, never heard of it." Motive? Please. "I'm angry that humnaity never rescued me! They didn't know I existed, but they still should've saved me! Boohoo!" Character? I'm sorry, but if something has turned Picard from being a paragon of composure to one of the two yahoos down at Kill 'N' Spill doing donuts with their F150s in the middle of the rival high school football field, then dammit, that should be addressed. None of this magic shit.
No. This movie was a framing member, that's all. The supposedly "logical jumps" were in fact leaps of faith & fancy bordering on Indy at the lion's head.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I don't know why everyone seems to be bashing the writing. Writing is not the reason it didn't do so well here in the US. It was the editing which took out the background info for the movie in favor for the action sequences. A bad release date also factored in seeing as The Two Towers opened up half a week later and took over the box office. If it had been released on the original date of around Thanksgiving, it would have done a little better. I think Logan did a wonderful job as a writer. Baird also did well as a director, but did a poor job at editing (along with the other regular editors). I'm just glad the actors themselves enjoyed the movie and the work that went behind in creating it. I enjoyed the movie for it's entertainment value.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: Shithead.
THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE THREAD, PLEASE MAKE MORE WITTY COMMENTS, YOU ARE SO FUNNY AND POPULAR! OMG!
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
sorry, double post.
[ January 19, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Proteus ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Proteus: Stop. Now.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Proteus: Stop. Now.
He's the one that says "shithead" and you tell me to stop? Okay.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
Proteus: How dare you get mad at him calling you a shithead! I think you'd better ban 'im TSN.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"He's the one that says 'shithead' and you tell me to stop? Okay."
Well, you just said "shithead", too. And now, so did I. You, however, are the one who's being a shithead, and therefore, yes, I tell you to stop.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Back to the topic.
@Dat: Thanks. At least one sensible and open-minded cinemagoer.
And if anyone critisizes Picard's behavior in Nemesis as being atypical - well what about First Contact? That movie was received oh so well, but where is the difference between FC and Nemesis?
Picard shooting Reman thugs is atypical behavior! Picard shooting Borg the same way is typical behavior?? WTF?
Come on, if you are biased against Nemesis for no real reason then at least be honest enough to admit to it!
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
There is a slight difference. Picard had a personal vendetta with the Borg, which was strong enough to drive even our beloved paragon of composure to hateful action sequences. That was part of the PLOT. It was his MOTIVATION. See? Integral to the story = much better film.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I agree with Dat in that, yes, the editing left large chunks of gappiness. This is why directors, writers, & editors always need to work together.
A friend of mine is working ona 45-minute screenplay for class & she's having a hard time with it. I told her to go see "Nemesis" even though she's not a Trek fan at all. She did. She said it was awful. Upon that statement, I mentioned that the original filmed script was 3 hours long & that there was nothing that could be edited out that wouldn't leave the movie in shredded tatters. From what I understand, Logan wrote a tight-assed (in the good sense) script, buggy chase not withstanding. But the problem was that it was SO tight that any editing made us go "HUH?"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't know, I haven't been any more impressed with the scenes I've heard about which were cut than the ones left in.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"He's the one that says 'shithead' and you tell me to stop? Okay."
Well, you just said "shithead", too. And now, so did I. You, however, are the one who's being a shithead, and therefore, yes, I tell you to stop.
Can you please tell me how i am being a shithead by taking offence to someone CALLING me one? Now you are calling me one. This makes no sence to me. I would very well like to know why so I can improve the quality of my posts for all of the Flare community. Thank you for your time.
-Wes
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:I would very well like to know why so I can improve the quality of my posts for all of the Flare community.
Don't make any. 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's certainly one option...
If you can satisfactorily explain to me how "Shithead." is any less of a contributory post than "fap fap fap fap..... huh?", I may reconsider your status as a shithead.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Thank you for reading my post kind sir.
Shik made a comment 'Unless it's porn.' and I replied saying 'fap fap fap fap' to imitate the sound a male makes when he masturbates, which is a common practice when one views porn. "Fap" is actually quite old internet slang for masturbation.
In example: "I would fap to that..." or "I fapped last night."
It�s neither meant as a derogatory comment or any sort of vulgar name. Especially not one indicating that another�s head is made of feces. Thank you for your considering withdrawing your previous comments and I look forward to future contact regarding this matter.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But I make no sounds when I masturbate. Or when I have sex. None at all really.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
This thread is supposed to be about Nemesis, you fucking shitheads!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm fully aware of the definition of "fap". And, since you were already being a bit of a jerk before that post, and someone posted something that disagreed w/ you, and your response to it was a poorly-executed masturbation reference, it certainly seemed like you were being derogatory.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Stuff
Well, now its just boiling down to your personal opinions. :oP
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: This thread is supposed to be about Nemesis, you fucking shitheads!
ROTFL. Indeed. Fap.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I'm chewing the last straw.
Ultra Magnus, I'll be honest with you. I don't find you to be a very nice person, but rather irritating, and you have given me that impression on many occasions now. And to that effect, I'll be watching you very carefully. Don't cross the line with me.
And Proteus, chill. Please.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
This is exactly the kind of behaviour that got members banned in the past. Please don't make bannings a frequent occurrance around here.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)