I watched it. If that’s the entire basis for this accusation, then this is utter nonsense.

Part of my trouble is with Frain as Sarek — and I like to think it’s not just the case of a different actor in the role. If you knew nothing about the character and had never seen TOS, is there even a character there?

Yeah, I’m not troubled by the tech stuff at all because it still, somehow, feels very much like an earlier-than-TOS (yet still mostly future-ier than now) era.

But the show isn’t quite a show on its own merits — it’s relying on TOS props (figuratively) like Sarek, Mudd and (literally) tribbles.

TV-MA yet Lorca has pants on in bed (If I had to write a 750-word review, it would just say that).

That’s fine, but I agree that it doesn’t feel like an actual ship full of people, like even the Shenzhou did. None of the bridge crew has any sort of personality.

And maybe it’s not a full-on TNG holodeck (you can’t boink the holograms or climb mountains) but a VR projection. It’s cool, so I will explain it away.

Directed by Akiva Goldsman.

Which new Star Trek movie was the surprisingly fun one?

I went and saw this, alarmingly — and the way the phrase is used in the movie (the same way you’d blurt “bullshit!”at unexpected, surprising news - except it’s “bullshit... artist!”) makes no sense (to the audience, or apparently, the actor).

Who is Charlie’s guardian?

And probably also because, on the surface, it makes us sound superior to the UK/EU.

I hate when commenters get pedantic, er, but I’ll do it anyway - stories are saying that the EU Human Rights Court ruled to pull the plug, when they actually ruled not to hear the case (because it had already been decided by three UK courts).

Yep. These specific people both work for The Rebel, Canada’s answer to Breitbart. I suspect they (or at least their editors) know that, but won’t let that get in the way of outrage.

Why? Because,like Edelstein’s, it makes some valid points?

Why does she need to be American? I actually like that this movie isn’t chanting “USA!”

For Christ’s sake - he’s talking about a scene in the movie, where, in 1919, women don’t talk to men like Gadot’s Diana does. And it’s played in a way that shows, yes, she shouldn’t understand that because it’s stupid. He’s DESCRIBING THE MOVIE.

Uh, it’s in the movie.

But this isn’t funny - or valid criticism. Edelstein’s piece doesn’t say anything remotely like this.

Are you kidding? I still don’t understand the outrage. I’m a feminist, a WW fan and liked the movie okay, but I think its a perfectly valid review. What’s sexist or misogynist about it?