<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/424417</link>
		<description>Comments by Everton_C</description>
<item>
<title>/Film : New Star Trek TV Spot</title>
<link>http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/03/23/new-star-trek-tv-spot/#IDComment17625272</link>
<description>What is &amp;quot;emo&amp;quot; supposed to be / mean? Also, since when is putting explosions / action shots NOT been obligitory in &amp;quot;bug&amp;quot; movie trailers? It&amp;#039;s a given. Casiono Royal is critiscised for being action light, but the trailer is almost 50% action. Also to try and suggesy Star Trek wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;eye candy&amp;quot; when it came out is a bit silly. The short skirts, flashing / beeping bridge and colourful uniforms were very much eye candy, on which good stories were often hung.  There was plenty of action &amp;amp; effects too, notoriously it was having enough of those in that got the series made at all!   Atrailer designed to show, that as well as Being &amp;quot;Trek as sterotyped&amp;quot;, talking and human condition) it is also, what is too often forgotten in many, budget hamstrung,  Trek movies; excition, sexy, spectacular. To me Trek was all of them, at it&amp;#039;s best it was all of  them together. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/03/23/new-star-trek-tv-spot/#IDComment17625272</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>