Virogen

Into Darkness Omega Sector Reviews and Ratings

Favorite Overall Trek Series/Movie   198 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your overall favorite Star Trek series?

    • Star Trek: Enterprise
      16
    • Star Trek: The Original Series
      46
    • Star Trek: The Animated Series
      0
    • Star Trek: The Next Generation
      55
    • Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
      48
    • Star Trek: Voyager
      33
  2. 2. What is your overall favorite Star Trek movie?

    • Star Trek - I: The Motion Picture
      8
    • Star Trek - II: The Wrath of Khan
      39
    • Star Trek - III: The Search for Spock
      6
    • Star Trek - IV: The Voyage Home
      22
    • Star Trek - V: The Final Frontier
      4
    • Star Trek - VI: The Undiscovered Country
      28
    • Star Trek - VII: Generations
      11
    • Star Trek - VIII: First Contact
      64
    • Star Trek - IX: Insurrection
      6
    • Star Trek - X: Nemesis
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

185 posts in this topic

It seems odd to me that there is a new ST movie out there right now, and I've only had the desire to see it twice. Usually I go see ST movies multiple times (I saw ST09 about 5 times or so). While it wasn't one of the worst ST movies for me, it was not among the best either....

I'd say a consensus of 6.8 (rounded up to a 7) is about right.

It's also reflected in the lower-than-expected box office. It still hasn't hit that magic number of doubling it's budget ($190 million; with marketing, you could round that up to $200 million). It's about $70 million shy of that (last I checked, it pulled in about $330 million internationally and domestically)....

Sad that movies have largely become a numbers game these days, but compared to its predecessor (which didn't get a 3D release either), STID has not exactly pulled in the kind of money it should have...

I actually did the math. It's 6.8. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd to me that there is a new ST movie out there right now, and I've only had the desire to see it twice. Usually I go see ST movies multiple times (I saw ST09 about 5 times or so). While it wasn't one of the worst ST movies for me, it was not among the best either....

I'd say a consensus of 6.8 (rounded up to a 7) is about right.

It's also reflected in the lower-than-expected box office. It still hasn't hit that magic number of doubling it's budget ($190 million; with marketing, you could round that up to $200 million). It's about $70 million shy of that (last I checked, it pulled in about $330 million internationally and domestically)....

Sad that movies have largely become a numbers game these days, but compared to its predecessor (which didn't get a 3D release either), STID has not exactly pulled in the kind of money it should have...

I actually did the math. It's 6.8. ;)

And I chose to round it up to 7. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd to me that there is a new ST movie out there right now, and I've only had the desire to see it twice. Usually I go see ST movies multiple times (I saw ST09 about 5 times or so). While it wasn't one of the worst ST movies for me, it was not among the best either....

I'd say a consensus of 6.8 (rounded up to a 7) is about right.

It's also reflected in the lower-than-expected box office. It still hasn't hit that magic number of doubling it's budget ($190 million; with marketing, you could round that up to $200 million). It's about $70 million shy of that (last I checked, it pulled in about $330 million internationally and domestically)....

Sad that movies have largely become a numbers game these days, but compared to its predecessor (which didn't get a 3D release either), STID has not exactly pulled in the kind of money it should have...

I actually did the math. It's 6.8. ;)

And I chose to round it up to 7. :laugh:

And they say us of the younger generations failed at school. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd to me that there is a new ST movie out there right now, and I've only had the desire to see it twice. Usually I go see ST movies multiple times (I saw ST09 about 5 times or so). While it wasn't one of the worst ST movies for me, it was not among the best either....

I'd say a consensus of 6.8 (rounded up to a 7) is about right.

It's also reflected in the lower-than-expected box office. It still hasn't hit that magic number of doubling it's budget ($190 million; with marketing, you could round that up to $200 million). It's about $70 million shy of that (last I checked, it pulled in about $330 million internationally and domestically)....

Sad that movies have largely become a numbers game these days, but compared to its predecessor (which didn't get a 3D release either), STID has not exactly pulled in the kind of money it should have...

I actually did the math. It's 6.8. ;)

And I chose to round it up to 7. :laugh:

And they say us of the younger generations failed at school. :P

Guess they don't teach rounding up anymore... a lost art; along with cursive handwriting. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess they don't teach rounding up anymore... a lost art; along with cursive handwriting. :laugh:

We were taught to round up, only when it wasn't going to improve the odds on something very relevant to our survival. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess they don't teach rounding up anymore... a lost art; along with cursive handwriting. :laugh:

We were taught to round up, only when it wasn't going to improve the odds on something very relevant to our survival. ;)

I wouldn't call rating a ST movie relevant to my survival.... :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess they don't teach rounding up anymore... a lost art; along with cursive handwriting. :laugh:

We were taught to round up, only when it wasn't going to improve the odds on something very relevant to our survival. ;)

I wouldn't call rating a ST movie relevant to my survival.... :laugh:

startrektng102.jpg << Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't post an extremely long review, but I did end up seeing the movie (finally, I know). You all pretty much said what I thought (for the most part...). A lot of the so-called complaints seemed over exaggerated. If I hadn't seen the movie, I would've assume Alice Eve's infamous scene was a full out adult scene... It wasn't. It lasted a gut wrenching five seconds. Hardly as bad as people made it out to be. Same with her having an English accent. PLOT HOLE!!! No it's not. Her father is an American and let's say her mother was.......oh I don't know....ENGLISH? Nero's attack cause Admiral Marcus to work in London for S31 as a new headquarters was established there to counter future threats. Carol now grows up in England with her mother...thus her accent. In the original universe, she grew up in America with her father...thus her accent. Plot hole solved. Happy?

On the issue of Kirk coming back to life....so did Spock. Why is it cheap for one movie but awesome for the other?

There was a lot of action, I'll grant you that. This movie was not for the thoughtful, but it was a decent flick in terms of excitement and another view of our beloved Trekverse.

There were a lot of cons, though. Not that it was unexpected. As I said, you all mostly touched upon it so I won't go too into detail. I'll just say I agree with a lot of the points already made.

  • No ships around Earth? Around Qo'noS? Is it that easy to sneak through Klingon space? Apparently...
  • As pointed out above, the transporters. I can only guess that Khan didn't know he could beam through the shields... IDK. Although, it was inexcusable that Chekov couldn't beam them up after establishing he's a wunderkid with the transporters in the first movie. But I already commented on this in the board for Marauders - ENT. Transporters are a tricky story telling device and throughout Trek, they constantly have to establish some issue with them so there is a threat.
  • Were Sulu and Chekov even in this movie?
  • The cameo by Nimoy's Spock. While it's always cool to see him...um...why? No reason to have him and if he is constantly going to give information on problems, will he be in every movie? Why didn't S31 go after Spock? A bit more useful than Khan, I'd say.
  • Why did that Section 31 agent kill himself? I know he made a deal with Khan for his daughter, but...why did he do that? He could've told Khan he would obey and then when inside the facility he could've warned people that Khan was standing outside... My only guess is Khan threatened to kill his family if he didn't do it. IDK...
  • Why was the Enterprise under water? No reason for that.
  • Did the Enterprise even fight? I seem to recall it getting its ass kicked up and down this movie. Same for the last movie. If there is a trilogy, I hope Abrams has enough respect for the material to give the Enterprise one good solid battle in the final movie.
  • I didn't understand the Augments inside missile plot. Why not just hide them somewhere?
  • Um...Marcus was pretty open about S31. What's up with that? I can only think back to Sloan saying "I won't lose any sleep..." at Bashir's threat to go public with S31. So I'm guessing Marcus doesn't care.
  • ....Khan. No reason to include him in the movie. He was underused and pretty much a gimmick. Honestly? If they wanted to keep the Augment angle, they could have had Harrison be ANOTHER Augment that is fanatically loyal to Khan. S31 won't unleash the big dog, but they threaten to kill Khan and the other augments if Harrison doesn't obey. Boom. Simple as that. The plot doesn't even have to change much. It's not like Kirk or Spock were impressed that it was Khan. Nothing at all came out of him being Khan Noonien Singh. They didn't even explain his radically different appearance. It was a waste. My only guess about including him was to bring him back for part 3...
  • Last but not least...Khan's magical blood. Um....they just established something dangerous. Just like they did with Scotty's magic transporters in the first movie. Now they just need vats of Khan's magic blood and boom...people return from the dead. Same thing with the t.v. show Heroes through Claire's magic blood. I heard a rumor that part 3 may establish there is a repercussion with the magic blood...so we'll see...

    Ok let's talk pros...

    • Were those Caitians with Kirk? Haha
    • I liked seeing a more futuristic Earth. In the show, Earth in the 24th century looks exactly like now...except a runabout or two zipping about in the air.
    • I liked the mention of the Gorn and Mudd.
    • The actors seemed....better. I don't know. They seemed more relaxed into the roles whereas in the first movie it felt like they were trying too hard to channel the original actors. Even Kirk, who I didn't like, is a lot more bearable in this movie.
    • SECTION 31!!! I love DS9 and I love them mentioning it...sorta. Admiral Marcus proved to be a cool agent and I loved their ship. At first I wasn't sure on the idea of Section 31 having their own ship but the more I thought about it the more it made sense to me.
    • Peter Weller did great. I was nervous he'd be Paxton part 2, but he made himself different enough that I didn't feel they were one and the same. Even though it's overdone, the admiral gone bad plot line worked pretty well.
    • I also liked that this movie kind of dug at the idea of the perfect Star Trek Roddenberry verse being kind of a farce. That now humans have been at peace so long they've lost the edge in a fight. It was a clever idea on bringing back Khan instead of re-doing Space Seed.
    • Even though Khan was unnecessary and shouldn't have been white, I liked they made him a little different and had him work with Khan. It was kinda cool. Cumberbatch has a very unique voice haha.
    • The Klingons....I don't know how I feel about them. It was cool to see what was under the mask but did they need to reimagine their look again? Couldn't they have updated the forehead to look a bit more real and that was it? I didn't like their new look but the fight scene was cool and it was nice to see Uhura speaking Klingon. I had read that Nichelle did not like that Uhura couuldn't speak Klingon in 6. I wonder if this was a nod to that...
    • I liked the Prime Directive debate.
    • I liked the small models of starships in Marcus' office.
    • I love main engineering. I know people dismiss it as a beer factory or whatever nonsense, but I prefer the industrial look than just a room with a giant strobe light in the center. Yes, yes, yes I know. The t.v. budget couldn't do much better, but still....

    Overrall it was a decent movie but not worth the long wait at all. It was unique in some cases, but a derivative of TOS in many other cases. Some of the complaints are justified...some...debatable. At this point, I'm ready for the Abrams movies to end and to go back to the original universe.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much what I thought about it for the most part.

On the issue of Kirk coming back to life....so did Spock. Why is it cheap for one movie but awesome for the other?

I'll take this one! :biggrin:

As Nicholas Meyer says, I'm not a big fan of resurrections either, BUT... (and here's the difference) in STIII, Spock's resurrection came at great cost. The loss of the ship, the death of David Marcus, Kirk throwing away his career (at least for one movie), etc. There was a major series of hard choices and sacrifices that made the resurrection feel earned. In STID, it was just a cheap gimmick that came right out of the TV series ("Nomad? Could you reactivate that guy you killed? Much obliged..." :nomad: ). But since I utterly hated how they handled Kirk's death in STID anyway (cut and pasted almost verbatim from WOK), I was OK with him coming back so soon (albeit too easily).

Carol now grows up in England with her mother...thus her accent. In the original universe, she grew up in America with her father...thus her accent. Plot hole solved. Happy?

Actually, this didn't bother me so much either (I grew up with a father who had a different accent than myself or my mother, so that was no big deal). Although there was a line in the film where she says something like, "you can't be the same man who raised me" or some such thing (implying she grew up with him as well; but again, not a deal breaker).

But for me it was the character herself; she was not the same feisty, spirited, fiercely civilian (non-military) scientist we see in "Wrath of Khan". In STID she comes off like a pretty, mini-skirted cream puff. Like one of Kirk's million other conquests we see in TOS. What made Marcus interesting in WOK was that she was NOT some pretty, miniskirted ditz; she was intelligent, fiercely devoted to science being used for its own sake (and not the military), and a leader herself. I just can't reconcile that Carol Marcus with the one we see in STID. Even adding a few years to her wouldn't make the STID Marcus become the woman in WOK.

I liked the small models of starships in Marcus' office

Yes, but did you notice that one of the models was the allegedly 'top-secret' USS Vengeance as well? ;)

Kind of odd that an admiral would keep a model of a CLASSIFIED starship hiding in plain sight (if you missed it don't feel bad; a friend pointed it out to me afterward and I only spotted it the 2nd time I saw the movie).

BTW, I totally agree with you about the use of Khan; it was gimmicky. John Harrison could've (and should've) been an augment created by S31 (in response to the Narada attacks) using some of Khan's DNA preserved after the Eugenics Wars. There was NO REASON for Harrison to be Khan; he doesn't look like him (at ALL), and he doesn't act like him (Cumberbatch is a better actor, IMO). All the writers did was give themselves even more counterfeit credibility stolen from a better movie (TWOK).

Shame....

STID is a movie that doesn't bear too much scrutiny really; even the most featherweight analysis causes it to fall apart logistically. Granted, so do many other ST movies, but this one even more so. Usually when a new ST movie comes out, I see it multiple times in theatres; this one? I saw it twice and had my fill of it, to be honest (and I say this as a fan of ST09).

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the issue of Kirk coming back to life....so did Spock. Why is it cheap for one movie but awesome for the other?
As Nicholas Meyer says, I'm not a big fan of resurrections either, BUT... (and here's the difference) in STIII, Spock's resurrection came at great cost. The loss of the ship, the death of David Marcus, Kirk throwing away his career (at least for one movie), etc. There was a major series of hard choices and sacrifices that made the resurrection feel earned. In STID, it was just a cheap gimmick that came right out of the TV series ("Nomad? Could you reactivate that guy you killed? Much obliged..." :nomad:

And, TWOK did it first. The main problem I have STID, and that scene in particular, is that is is a complete rip off of the older movie, in parts it is literally copy and pasted word-for-word.

Kirk dying in some other way and being resurrected wouldn't have bothered me as much, but when he dies in exactly the same way Spock dies in TWOK - it's just insulting. Spock at least stayed dead at the end of the film, and effectively the entire length of the next one too. - And at the end of TWOK, nobody then knew Spock would be resurrected. It was an extremely powerful moment. But at the end of STID, the big reset button is pressed and everything is hunky-dory!

I agree with almost everything else that you and The Founder said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of Kirk coming back to life....so did Spock. Why is it cheap for one movie but awesome for the other?
As Nicholas Meyer says, I'm not a big fan of resurrections either, BUT... (and here's the difference) in STIII, Spock's resurrection came at great cost. The loss of the ship, the death of David Marcus, Kirk throwing away his career (at least for one movie), etc. There was a major series of hard choices and sacrifices that made the resurrection feel earned. In STID, it was just a cheap gimmick that came right out of the TV series ("Nomad? Could you reactivate that guy you killed? Much obliged..." :nomad:

And, TWOK did it first. The main problem I have STID, and that scene in particular, is that is is a complete rip off of the older movie, in parts it is literally copy and pasted word-for-word.

Kirk dying in some other way and being resurrected wouldn't have bothered me as much, but when he dies in exactly the same way Spock dies in TWOK - it's just insulting. Spock at least stayed dead at the end of the film, and effectively the entire length of the next one too. - And at the end of TWOK, nobody then knew Spock would be resurrected. It was an extremely powerful moment. But at the end of STID, the big reset button is pressed and everything is hunky-dory!

I agree with almost everything else that you and The Founder said.

Yes, the Founder is wise in all things....

weyoun_528x297.jpg

Especially when he agrees with me.... :P:giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, whenever I really think about the movie, I feel more and more negatively toward it (the exact opposite reaction I had with ST09). I just dropped it another point (a 7 now, instead of an 8).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, whenever I really think about the movie, I feel more and more negatively toward it (the exact opposite reaction I had with ST09). I just dropped it another point (a 7 now, instead of an 8).

oh-snap.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of Kirk coming back to life....so did Spock. Why is it cheap for one movie but awesome for the other?
As Nicholas Meyer says, I'm not a big fan of resurrections either, BUT... (and here's the difference) in STIII, Spock's resurrection came at great cost. The loss of the ship, the death of David Marcus, Kirk throwing away his career (at least for one movie), etc. There was a major series of hard choices and sacrifices that made the resurrection feel earned. In STID, it was just a cheap gimmick that came right out of the TV series ("Nomad? Could you reactivate that guy you killed? Much obliged..." :nomad:

And, TWOK did it first. The main problem I have STID, and that scene in particular, is that is is a complete rip off of the older movie, in parts it is literally copy and pasted word-for-word.

Kirk dying in some other way and being resurrected wouldn't have bothered me as much, but when he dies in exactly the same way Spock dies in TWOK - it's just insulting. Spock at least stayed dead at the end of the film, and effectively the entire length of the next one too. - And at the end of TWOK, nobody then knew Spock would be resurrected. It was an extremely powerful moment. But at the end of STID, the big reset button is pressed and everything is hunky-dory!

I agree with almost everything else that you and The Founder said.

Yes, the Founder is wise in all things....

weyoun_528x297.jpg

Especially when he agrees with me.... :P:giggle:

Haha at the Weyoun pic!

Fair points on why the idea was bad in STID but not in WoK, but I still think there wasn't much "sacrifice" considering Kirk gets to be captain and gains a new ENT. But still, you all make fair points on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair points on why the idea was bad in STID but not in WoK, but I still think there wasn't much "sacrifice" considering Kirk gets to be captain and gains a new ENT.

I'll admit, the first time I saw "The Voyage Home", I kinda called 'bulls#!t' when I saw the shiny new Enterprise-A standing by in spacedock (although the novelization softened the blow by explaining that it was a renamed ship of the same class). But at least Kirk, like Hercules, had to go through trials (such as saving Earth) to re-earn his credibility.

In STID, everything is just so..... easy. Even when he loses his command in the beginning of STID, it seems he gets it back in less than what, 10 minutes?!? Why even bother breaking him in the first place if you're just going to hand him the keys at the first emergency? And considering how badly he screwed up at Nibiru (contaminating the entire culture with the seeds of a false religion... am I the ONLY one who thinks that was really bad?!?), I'm not sure Kirk's judgment would be the most reliable.

And even when Kirk dies, he comes right back (and Spock, who didn't even cry when his home planet or his mother were destroyed, weeps like a baby when his captain of a year or so dies.... seriously, WTF?!?). And since when is tribble blood compatible with human augment blood?!? Even in lab tests, you wouldn't inject a human with rat blood. Even the wrong antigen type in a donor's blood will kill you; let alone the blood of a different species! And the idea of Kirk being revived with 'magic blood' of Khan was just plain..... lazy.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry new and really late.

I went to this with my Big brother we went to a Midnight showing in IMAX and it was unbelievable to me. Just an amazing movie i think anyways i loved this so much better then in 09.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the 2009 movie, I actually enjoyed this movie in the theatre. Still, I was jerked back to reality by the transwarp beaming Bullcrap. There are so many massive plotholes, i really wish they replace Orci and Kurtzman as writers. And spock would not have shouted KHAAAAANNN, as he did not shout NEEEEERRROOOOOO when his mother and race was practically massacred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the 2009 movie, I actually enjoyed this movie in the theatre. Still, I was jerked back to reality by the transwarp beaming Bullcrap. There are so many massive plotholes, i really wish they replace Orci and Kurtzman as writers. And spock would not have shouted KHAAAAANNN, as he did not shout NEEEEERRROOOOOO when his mother and race was practically massacred.

I agree they should replace Orci and Kurtzman. But not as writers. But with writers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they should replace Orci and Kurtzman. But not as writers. But with writers.

i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they should replace Orci and Kurtzman. But not as writers. But with writers.

i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

I have never liked those type of people drawings. They are stupid IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. I wish they would replace those two geek fanboys that know nothing about Star Trek (Not saying they havent watched it, just saying they never paid attention ) with writers. I wish they replace the tv director with a film director.

Anyone who disagrees with me, Watch Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered country, THEN watch Star Trek 2009. The sudden decrease in maturity and professionalism (all characters are concerned, even the elder ones) is a kick in the head.

Edited by Sherlock Holmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. I wish they would replace those two geek fanboys that know nothing about Star Trek (Not saying they havent watched it, just saying they never paid attention ) with writers. I wish they replace the tv director with a film director.

Anyone who disagrees with me, Watch Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered country, THEN watch Star Trek 2009. The sudden decrease in maturity and professionalism (all characters are concerned, even the elder ones) is a kick in the head.

While I agree with you about STID's writing, I strongly disagree with the criticisms of JJ's direction.

I think that ST09 and STID are very well directed; in fact, this is the most theatrical the franchise has looked since TMP, IMO (not pacing, but production value... big difference). The new ST movies really LOOK and FEEL like movies; even if the scripts aren't really up to par. And while I absolutely love ST: TUC (saw it in theatres 4 times, in fact), I would argue that Nick Meyer's direction probably looks closer to what passes for television these days than the latest ST movies.

It's easy to blur the director's job with the writer's job, but they are (usually) very separate. The writing in STID was terrible; the script was a hole-ridden ripoff. But the direction (the look, the action sequences, etc) was VERY theatrical, and not television AT ALL.

On that score? Mr Abrams knows what he's doing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new ST movies really LOOK and FEEL like movies; even if the scripts aren't really up to par. And while I absolutely love ST: TUC (saw it in theatres 4 times, in fact), I would argue that Nick Meyer's direction probably looks closer to what passes for television these days than the latest ST movies.

It's not a fair comparison though; the films are a product of their time, with budgets and technology a lot better for the recent films than existed 20 years ago.

If ST:VI was made today, it would probably be a more cinematic experience (probably to its detriment IMO), while if STID had been made 20 years ago, it would probably have looked more like today's TV.

Hell, I even noticed a TV advert the other day that looked more "cinematic" than some of the old Trek films (Lynx or something). You can do so much with CGI these days that looks great, and at a fraction of the cost that physical models and stuff used to cost.

All in all, I agree with Sherlock Holmes (felt weird typing that!) Good special effects do not a good film make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, I agree with Sherlock Holmes (felt weird typing that!) Good special effects do not a good film make.

True, they don't. Some of the best episodes of any tv show are the ones with two people in a room talking. No aliens, no explosions. Just the emotional drama. If the story fails, special effects are only an added eyesore.

But, with that said, Sci-Fi needs the special effects. Even if it is a low budget movie, by it's very nature, there has to be special effects. Even if it is only redoing the lighting. Special effects are requisite for sci-fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you make a good point on the stark contrast between the Abrams' movies and for example, the Undiscovered Country. But isn't that slightly the point? Besides the obvious reason why one looks more explosive (the modern Transformers-loving audience), I think the sheer difference in the behavior of the crew comes from age.

Now that I've begun watching TOS, I get to see Kirk in his prime (no pun intended). He is pretty different from Pine's Kirk in many ways. However, again, I ask...isn't that the point? Abrams' movies are when the crew are young and unseasoned. Why would they behave the same? That would be like someone make a movie about my life and saying "plot hole....why is he so hyper and loud at age 15 but now at 27, he's all calm and quiet?" The difference should be there. I won't defend the crappy plot lines or the CGI-explosion fest, but it'd make no sense if these characters all acted the same. Add in the fact that due to differences from Nero's incursions, their experiences are now radically altered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites