Thanks! I gave it my best shot! I like FHC's comparison of the two franchises, even though I don't much care for Star Wars. I think he's quite astute in suggesting it's more like silly escapism/your wacky friend or relative, while Star Trek is something you can rely on for a much deeper and more emotionally satisfying relationship.

I saw "Captain America: The First Avenger" and loved it. It's not as emotionally powerful or epic as "The Dark Knight" and it's not as morally thoughtful and witty as "Iron Man", but I liked it more than either. I prefer less needlessly complicated superhero movies with a lighter tone. I get exasperated when there's too much angst. I liked "Iron Man" a lot, but I thought the sequence where he becomes "Iron Man" by making his costume in a cave sort of stopped the movie dead. It was too reminiscent of "Batman Begins". That's my main complaint about the movie. Also,  the big fight at the end was a bit forgettable.

I liked Captain America's back story before donning the costume more. The scenes of Rogers working his way towards being selected for the experiment through his determination and heart were great to watch. Pity Stanley Tucci wasn't on screen for very long...loved his character and its dialog. Beyond that, the movie gave me everything I wanted in a superhero movie - a hero I got to know who had an appealing personality, a suitably maniacal villain, a strong love interest, and action scenes with plenty of moments to cheer and/or laugh at.

Speaking of the love interest, I think "Captain America: The First Avenger" had one of the best love stories of any superhero movie. Unlike in the Batman movies, the girl felt organic to the story instead of shoehorned into it. She didn't just spout exposition most of the time. She wasn't a damsel-in-distress. She was independent, tough, could stick up for herself, and helped make a surprisingly poignant ending possible. I was really caught off-guard by how moving her chaste, doomed relationship with Steve was. The last thing I expected from this movie was an ultimately tragic love story. Steve's last line was simultaneously cool and heartbreaking.

This was my favourite superhero movie since "X2", which is and I'm quite sure will always be my favourite. I like my superhero/comic books movies with less dourness, and more pure fun through enthralling fights, cartoonishly charismatic villains, and simple, but satisfying romance.  

I prefer the term "rebootquel". The movie wasn't exactly a straight prequel, because it's not said to simply occur directly before the events of the "Star Trek" series (like the events of the Star Wars prequel trilogy). It operates on the premise that the characters in the movie, while identical to those of the TV series in DNA, have lead different lives and will continue to lead different lives in an alternate timeline. Also, the character of Nero is connected to events of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (Spock being an mediator between Vulcans and Romulans), so the movie is a sequel of sorts to "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation", while also being a pseudo prequel to "Star Trek".

Hey Gothneo, just out of curiosity (and slightly of topic), as a fan of Nurse Chapel, did you like her better as a blonde or brunette? I was watching "Turnabout Intruder" recently and thought she looked AMAZING as a brunette in it...better than she'd ever looked in any other episode. To (I guess) sorta get this back on topic...I know she'll most likely be blonde if and when a Nurse Chapel figure is released, but I'd like to see a brunette one!

I actually prefer those more practical special effects to C.G.I and I definitely think the special effects in the first three Star Wars movies are much more enjoyable than those in "Revenge of the Sith". Sad how the newest Star Wars movie also has the worst use of technology for special effects. I think sometimes people get lazy when they don't have to put forth the kind of effort required to use things like models, mattes, and camera tricks. I'd take the stop-motion special effects of Ray Haryhausen (no matter how goofy they may look) over the dull C.G.I. in "Revenge of the Sith" any day. I recently watched "The Beast from 20, 000 Fathoms" and was in complete awe of the giant lizard creature in it.

I appreciate everyone for being magnanimous and understanding about my opinion on the Star Wars films. I find that many people online tend to be very defensive and obnoxious towards others who don't agree with them on movies. There are several science fiction films of the 80s considered seminal works of the genre that didn't do much for me. I used to feel freer to express my opinions about them, but years of being insulted by their online fans made me reluctant. It's nice to know I shouldn't have to worry about that here. "Blade Runner" is another highly acclaimed sci-fi film that I didn't much care for. I absolutely adored the special effects, make-up, and production design in that movie, but I thought the characters and story were lousy.

I have to admit I probably have a bit of a bias towards Star Trek like those of you who grew up watching Star Wars movies in the '70s, because I grew up watching "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in the '90s. On the other hand, my love for some of the '80s Star Trek movies is not influenced by nostalgia. I just think they're tremendously entertaining, emotionally and philosophically deep, and beautifully written movies no matter how old you are when you see them. I didn't get to them until I was out of the teen years, long after my opinions on a movie could be influenced by rose-coloured nostalgia glasses.

I didn't get to see a Star Trek movie in theatres until "Star Trek: Nemesis", and although I loved it the first time I saw it, I've since come to feel it was a very ill-conceived film. I still appreciate Tom Hardy's intense performance, though...he was just stuck playing a silly idea for a character that lacked convincing motivation behind his actions. As I said before, the Star Trek series has its share of clunky stories, but I still think in terms of substance, Star Trek's best stories are light years ahead of Star Wars at its peak.

For the record, I never liked "Star Wars". At all. I watched the original trilogy as a teenager and found all of the movies completely forgettable. Literally. I watched all three of them on video around the same period, and once they were over, I could remember almost nothing about them. Han Solo is a pretty cool, smooth, confident guy. Leia is pretty. Luke is an admirably sweet and good-hearted hero. Darth Vader has a neat costume/mask, a cool voice, and does some fun standard menacing villain stuff.

Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3PO are all mildly amusing one joke characters (the first two are funny because they speak in gibberish, yet people can understand them, and the third one is a stereotype of a neurotic person, but he's a robot, so it's novel). There are some creative special effects, good make-up, and striking production design. But so what? There's no substance. We have three movies with simple, marginally interesting characters and nothing stories.

Then there's the prequel trilogy. "The Phantom Menace" is another movie I remember nothing about, so I can't really say whether I like it more or less than the original three. I never saw "Attack of the Clones". I can say that "Revenge of the Sith" is the most memorable Star Wars movie to me, because it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting and dialog in the movie are horrendous. Hayden Christensen is pitifully stiff and completely devoid of charisma, the storytelling is shoddy, obvious, and childish (I can't believe a man as old and experienced at filmmaking as George Lucas could write such hackneyed, childish tripe), the special effects look like a computer game, and Natalie Portman (crippled by the script's shockingly weak arc for her character) gives the worst performance of her career.

The Star Wars franchise gave us three movies that are respectable only on a superficial level for the originality of their look and some very basic characters who are iconic because they resonated with a generation who saw them as children. Then after 16 years of nothing, it gave us three more movies that stink (again I've only seen two of them, but by most accounts, the other one isn't much better).

The Star Trek franchise on the other hand, gave us three excellent TV series: "Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", which while they have their share of terrible episodes, also feature some of the best episodes, characters, and writing in the history of television. Characters and stories with depth, emotional resonance, and social consciousness. Stories that explore and comment on the human condition and the foibles of society through the words, actions, and personalities of unique and multi-faceted characters. Even the other two lesser series have their occasional moments of inspiration, despite being mostly mediocre.

The Star Trek franchise also gave us three brilliant movies in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", and "Star Trek: First Contact", a few decent movies, and only two (out of eleven) that are downright awful. And the best Star Trek movies weren't just good because they had fun adventure and characters who were occasionally compelling because they could recite dialog with conviction or humour.

Those movies had ideas about human nature and mankind's place in the universe and casts with more chemistry, whose personalities are given much more attention. The characters aren't just good or bad, brave or cowardly, endearing or despicable like in the Star Wars universe. We see many sides of them and sometimes we even see their mortality and flaws as individuals confronted. Star Wars, in contrast, only offers the empty spectacle of shallow adventures featuring one-dimensional characters. It's pretty obvious which franchise is superior...in my not-so-humble opinion.

Well even if they just call it a generic Borg, it could still be Hugh. After all, DST's Romulan was clearly modeled after the actor who played the Romulan scope operator, even though it was just called "Romulan". The facial resemblance was obvious.

Does anyone know what that Borg is called? I mean, is it labelled as just a generic Borg? I think it looks like "Hugh" because of the eyepiece, since not every Borg has the exact same eyepiece.

I never thought I'd say this about a Borg (action figure or otherwise), but that Borg is adorable.

I wholeheartedly support the suggestion to use a Bashir action figure due to the strong resemblance between Callis and Siddig.

Still waiting for an answer...

Thanks for the response, Jules. I didn't know about the other thread...I'll post about the new Batman movie over there from now on. One thing about Hardy's casting that intrigues me is how it will likely lead to his role in "Star Trek: Nemesis" being one of the things he's LEAST remembered for! How many actors star as the villain in a Star Trek movie and that ends up only being a stepping stone to better roles rather than one of the roles they're best known for?

Shinzon was one of Hardy's first roles, but it already seems to be forgotten by many since the movie was not a hit. In his review of "Bronson", critic Roger Ebert identifies Hardy as a veteran of British gangster films. It is only now, after almost 10 years since "Star Trek: Nemesis" that Hardy is starting to be seen as a 'rising star'.

I think I'll have to check out "Bronson" to help me get psyched for "The Dark Knight Rises" before it comes out. It would be like how I watched "Equilibrium" and "American Psycho" to get pumped up for "Batman Begins" when I heard about Christian Bale being cast as Batman.

Wow, this thread is really out-of-date. Well, Jedigreedo called it...Bane is indeed in the film, to be played by Tom Hardy! I loved Tom Hardy's performance in "Star Trek: Nemesis", but I did not like his character. I thought his back story was too convoluted and his motivations were unconvincing. I'm sure Hardy will play a more impressive villain this time.

Bane is in some ways a rather ludicrous character, but I can imagine Nolan finding a way to make the character work in live action (after Joel Schumacher completely bungled the opportunity by turning him into a brainless, grunting thug). What I'm wondering is how he'll handle the whole gimmick of Bane's venom formula (if at all). I can't imagine a guy pumping up his body to grotesquely gigantic size with super vein-y muscles in a Christopher Nolan movie.

I figured Bane might be in the movie because he's one of the more realistic Batman villains, being a really muscular and tough assassin who is extremely intelligent and famous for hunting down and seriously injuring Batman in the comics. Also, there was apparently a poll where fans voted for which villains they most wanted to see in the sequel, and the top votes went to The Penguin, The Riddler (both of whom Nolan considers too wacky for his more realistic Batman world), Catwoman (who will be in the movie, or at least her alter ego Selina Kyle will be), and Bane.

So we now know Selina Kyle and Bane will be in the movie. Marion Coitillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Inception" reunion!) are also rumoured to join. Their roles are unknown, but I think it's a safe bet that Marion will be Talia. Thoughts on the latest developments?

I just got through watching the series and movie again in the past few weeks (only my second time ever). This time I liked the movie more and the series less. I still think both are great at times, but there are a fair number of episodes that bore me. People often talk about this as a series that was cancelled too soon because it was perfect for as long as it was around, but I disagree. Out of the 14 episodes, I'd say only 7 them are really excellent. A few of them just have plots that really drag.

The one thing that's really consistent about every Joss Whedon series (including this one) is solid casting and a top to bottom wonderfully written set of characters. Every character is beautifully developed and played by someone who seems born to play their role. Just a fantastic set of actors and characters. The plots aren't flawless, though. Watching the movie for only the second time ever, I really feel it's a perfect way to end the franchise and fans wishing for a sequel don't know what's good for them. The final scene of the movie left it a bit open-ended for sequels, but I think we're better off without any.

About 30 minutes from Toronto.

Thanks for all the info and pics, Artistix. I've seen most of those pictures before, I just wasn't sure which of the pictured figures were cancelled and/or delayed. I'd never heard of the D'Anna figure, though. I agree, it's magnificent...I would have loved to pick that one up. I would have preferred for her to wear her leather jacket, though (like in "Sometimes a Great Notion"). Roslin looks lovely...seems like they shaved a few years off from how old she was in the series. I find it amusing that even in action figure form, James Callis bears a resemblance to Siddig/Bashir from DS9.

Hey guys, I saw some pictures online of Gaius Baltar and Laura Roslin figures from DST, but can't find any information about them actually being released. Were these cancelled like some of DST's previously announced Star Trek figures that were also displayed without ever being released? I think that's weird since Baltar and Roslin are two of the most important characters...I'd expect them to be two of the first figures made in a BSG line. I'm trying to figure out why they would release some much more obscure characters before these ones. Maybe because Baltar and Roslin usually wore suits instead of the BSG uniforms, so they couldn't just make new head sculpts for these figures and stick them on existing bodies?

Did you buy one of these recently for a price in that really high range you specified at the end? Or did you get it a long time ago at a cost closer to the original price? I also used to proudly own lunchboxes with licensed characters on them as a kid. They were plastic and had characters like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Ghostbusters on them, though. I'm sure none of them were nearly as classy as this one. The art on that box is truly magnificent. Thanks for sharing.

The guy asking the question made some good points, but his poor grammar and spelling and "Voyager" pimping killed a lot of his credibility. A "Voyager" line is far from something guaranteed to sell well. I'm sure that's part of why it's the only Star Trek TV series that hasn't had any figures made from it, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks it's the worst of the five. I'm glad Chuck at least gave a thoughtful answer for once instead of the standard dodging the question B.S. he usually does. He also provided some valid reasons for DST's lack of product, but I think maybe he was a little too defensive at times. It's understandable since the guy basically attacked his company, but he could have admitted to some of DST's mistakes, instead of insisting "it's not our fault" about everything.

Right on! People always say to me I should save my collection because it'll be worth something to sell someday. To that I say, NO WAY! I'd sooner be buried with it! Okay, realistically speaking, I'm hoping their fate is to be preserved museum-style by my family and/or friends (whoever they are handed down to).

I think it would be kind of pointless to spend so much on them just to put them away or sell them. I am proud to display everything that represents fictional characters that have meant a lot to me in life. With how rarely AA/DST produce any figures, the AA/DST line already feels dead/ended to me, so I won't feel very different when it officially does end.

Ah, that makes much more sense. At first, I thought maybe you just put YOUR favourites in bold, in which case my only thought would be, "damn straight...you definitely have better taste than most Star Trek fans, according to that poll".

I am shocked that "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", "Star Trek: The Animated Series", and "Star Trek: Generations" are ranked so highly. It MUST be due to nostalgia, because they're all vastly inferior to the things ranked directly below them.

I don't understand this talk about a "First Contact" Enterprise. How could that be different from the Enterprise E that's already been released? After all, it was the first movie to feature the Enterprise E. And how is the next version going to be different? I thought the same ship was used in the last three TNG movies, so I'm curious how there could be enough variations to justify three different versions from DST.

Well, I'm 27 and I hate "Star Trek: Voyager". I have given it chance after chance, and I still can't stand it. I tried to watch what are supposedly some of the best episodes, like the crossover with Sulu, "Year of Hell", and the series finale, and every time I watch that show I just find it and its characters SO boring. It has never really justified its existence to me. Unlike TNG and DS9, I don't feel that it did anything really new or original with the Star Trek formula.

None of its plots or characters held any unique intrigue. I find the character of Tuvok sort of cute because he's so obviously just a guy doing a Spock impression, but that doesn't say much for his substance as a character. I like Kate Mulgrew's voice and the way she interacts with Q (neat, different dynamic when the captain he's playing with is a woman), but again, that's an example of the show only having quality by playing off what came before (Q's affectionate antagonism of Picard, only with a woman). The only episodes I've even remotely enjoyed are the Q ones, and I think that's mostly because John De Lancie is so great, he can make almost anything good.

I love the first three Star Trek shows. I haven't seen much of "Star Trek: Enterprise", but I saw a few episodes from season 4, and they were worlds better than anything I've seen on "Star Trek: Voyager". Having said that, I do think Kate Mulgrew is a terrific-looking dame and a Janeway figure would be pretty cool. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is "my" Star Trek. It's the one I grew up watching and I have the most affection for its characters.

I think "Star Trek: Voyager" was one series too many. It was a miracle that three Star Trek shows could be excellent. 4 was pushing it. I don't know if I'd want "Star Trek: Enterprise" not to exist, though, because those season 4 episodes they did which tied into the continuity of the original series were just fantastic. The original "Star Trek" may not have the slick effects and more sophisticated storytelling of "Star Trek: Voyager" (which is too derivative of its two immediate predecessors to be really impressive), but it's a hell of a lot more creative, memorable, and endearing.

I love that idea! Nice one. Playmates should have made a set of Picard and Guinan fencing or Kirk and Spock playing chess like that Holodeck Data, Worf, and Alexander set. I love episode-specific sets and accessories.