Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Directed by Robert Wise. With William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and James Doohan.


I have never understood the rivalry between fans of Star Trek and Star Wars. There is nothing in the existing Star Trek canon that comes close to touching the cinematic achievement of the original Star Wars trilogy. It’s undisputed. People often cite The Empire Strikes Back as the greatest film of all-time, whereas, we call Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the greatest Star Trek film of all-time. It doesn’t take a warp drive engineer to see the difference.

I bring it up now, because this 1979 reintroduction of Star Trek was made possible by the success of George Lucas’s space opera. Before ’79, Star Trek existed as a cancelled 1960’s television series. The original series #(as it is now known) was fun and colourful, yet its success was a gradual achievement with people discovering it through TV repeats. Then, Star Wars exploded and sci-fi hit the mainstream.

Please understand, I consider myself a big Star Trek fan, yet, despite my love for it, I’m not blind to its frequent lack of quality. That lack of quality has never been more evident than in the various cinematic ‘Treks’. For years, people used split the quality of the films by the even and odd numbered sequels. 2,4,6,8 were considered “good”, while 1,3,5 and 7 (seven is OK, by the way) were labelled “bad”. Even the television series have been a mixed bag. The original series is enjoyable, but of its time, whereas Star Trek: The Next Generation did a great job of broadening universe, thanks to Rick Berman’s persistence and the darker spin-off show, Deep Space Nine, which added an underlying narrative depth to the canon. Voyager and Enterprise, however, offered little to tempt new fans and the the life of Star Trek as a TV experience fizzled off our screens in 2005.

What director Robert Wise unwisely attempts to achieve with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, is to emulate the symbolism-heavy science-fiction of Stanley Kubrick, thus creating a film that crumbles under the weight of its own self-importance. It doesn’t have the dry wit of a Han Solo, or the deep, spiritual aspect of ‘the force’. It has cardboard characters, walking around admittedly impressive looking sets (yay art department) omitting boring dialogue and sharing zero chemistry.

It’s one of those films that goes on and on, and never seems to end. Halfway through, you’re dying for an angry Klingon to erupt and start shooting the place up. Alas, it never comes. All we have is a convoluted plot that seems to slowly go nowhere. The usually charming William Shatner seems forced to apply the brakes as Captain Kirk. DeForest Kelley’s ‘Bones’ looks like he’s itching to let loose, but again, is hindered by a screenplay that seems underdeveloped. It”s all so hollow and lifeless.

The visual effects are good, but there comes a time in the film when they become experimental and overused. It really feels like there is less than half of a story to tell, and knowing this, the director crams the running time with long, drawn out sequences where no-one speaks and nothing happens. I think we’re supposed to be feeling awe at this stage, but we’re just bored.

The admittedly triumphant score by Jerry Goldsmith flatters to deceive. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a million miles wide and a few centimetres deep. It forgets its origins and takes itself far too seriously. If you must boldly go to this one, set phasers to snore.  2/5


About garethrhodes

Full-time lover of all things creative.
This entry was posted in Film Reviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

  1. cevans1982 says:

    Being a massive Trekkie myself, I’ve actually always enjoyed The Motion Picture (and the even numbered Trek films as well, I love The Search for Spock almost as much as Wrath of Khan – heck I even like Into Darkness!). Given the technical and budgetary constraints of the original series there was a desire to demonstrate what a big budget big screen Trek could look like.

    True it moves slowly but the DVD Director’s Edition improves the film somewhat and Jerry Goldmsmith’s score is arguably one of the greatest ever. It’s fair to say that the script doesn’t quite offer much for the principal cast but the hard SF concept is one that I like.

    I suppose at the end of the day they wanted to present something that was more Close Encounters than Star Wars – a sort of Star Trek via 2001.

    • garethrhodes says:

      Good morning. First of all, what a great response. Thank you for commenting. It’s always good to hear from you.

      With the now long and rich history of Trek, I can appreciate how a die-hard Trekkie might revisit this and mine something from it. In 1979, though, it must have been one of the most disappointing films ever, to the general movie going public. Wrath of Khan demonstrates how flat it is, certainly on an emotional level. You know from my review that I think its airless and ostentatious

      I haven’t had the chance to see the director’s edition, but yes, I love Jerry Goldsmith’s score. He’s one of the great composers in film history. I think John Williams operates on a level above everyone else, so I can’t personally say he’s the greatest, but he’s up there.

      Good point about Close Encounters. I re-watched it recently. It’s great. Spielberg knows how to make something epic AND personal. This Trek film certainly feels epic, but it has absolutely no personality whatsoever.

      • cevans1982 says:

        Very true, the Director’s Edition does restore some of the cut character scenes that adds some personal elements but not on the level of Wrath of Khan. John Williams is a master film maestro also, along with Goldmsith, Hans Zimmer and John Barry he’s produced some inredible scores!

        Always enjoy reading your blog, keep up the good work!

  2. filmfunkel says:

    As I understand things. This film was a one-off, a Star Trek fan’s only chance to see what the cathode could never show them. What did Enterprise really look like? Inside & out.

    So, long meandering shots: particularly Scotty touring the ship with Kirk & Kirk ending it with ‘Thank you.’ All the visuals the show could never afford lovingly crammed into 2+ hours.

    Perhaps their aim was too narrow. Screen time dedicated to devoted fans – an only devoted fans – alienated the rest of the viewing public: general fans and first-timers alike.

  3. Mr. Fuffcans says:

    i can provide at least my reasoning why i will always take Star Trek over Star Wars. Namely i myself watch Trek in order not to just be entertained but also to be introduced or explore new ideas and concepts that Sci-Fi can be a vehicle for.

    Take this film for example it was made in 1979 and is loaded with concepts like Artificial intelligence, inorganic life, incomprehensible alien technologies, transhumanism, and nano technology. Those are still relavant and fertile ground to explore today much less in 1979 when computers were struggling to be more powerful then a pocket calculator. While i agree whole heartedly that the human element is missing in “The Motion Picture” and the film suffers, i still hold it as a remarkably imaginative film, especially considering the year it was made.

    I really think a statement like: “No-one comes to Star Trek to have a deep and meaningful experience.” misses the point of star trek fandom almost entirely. As although the standard of quality throughout the series is uneven to say the least, the series best moments (Darmok, All Good Things, Tapestry, The Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, etc) remain so due to the presence of quality ideas, presented in an accessible medium.

    BTW thanks for following my blog! i really do appreciate anyone who even stops by my dusty corner of the interwebs much less anyone who actually may read more.

    • garethrhodes says:

      Great response. Thank you for taking the time to share your insight as a Star Trek fan. I love Trek too, and I agree that the ideas and concepts are interesting enough, although they are often dealt with in a very cack-handed way, or just skimmed over in middling episodes of dated TV.

      I think Deep Space Nine is the closet Star Trek has come to achieving something that truly resonates. I disagree with you and stand by what I say. Mostly, we don’t come to it for a deep and meaningful experience. It’s adventure-of-the-week telly featuring a forehead-of the-week alien. Mostly, it’s throwaway, and light and I like it that way.

      Star Wars on the other hand, particularly the 77-83 era is playing in a whole different league. We’re talking a seminal moment in cinema, not just sci-fi. The concepts surrounding the mysticism of the force and the Jungian journey of the hero are utterly compelling and fascinating and have resonated throughout the fabric of society and popular culture. On top of the that, they are brilliantly made films that hit you like a train when you first see them projected. There is nothing in Trek to come close to it, in terms of overall quality. That said, the two can happily co-exist. I realise making a comparison is tantamount to starting a full on bar-brawl, but in my experience,, it’s the die-hard Trek fans who usually have the beef. I think deep down, they know they’re the poor relation.

      • Mr. Fuffcans says:

        i do agree that the many of the episodes are a bit malformed however i still i prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, for the reasons i have listed in my reviews (and no i don’t see them as not being able to stand up to Star Wars during their best moments). As for resonation, Star Trek inspired many scientists and astronauts to achieve their goals, and the original series introduced technological concepts like fax machines, and computers to a broad audience. That along with societal concepts like women serving alongside men on a space craft (and coloured ones at that too! who would think!?) along with russians and japanese was ground breaking stuff in its hey day. As for purely pop cultural references who can argue that the vulcan salute isnt as ingrained into society as the light saber is (actually that would make for a funny youtube video).

        I approach every film i view in hopes of getting something out of, and if i’m lucky it will be deep and meaningful. So i really can’t wrap my head around your phrasing; using “we” instead of “i” is where my confusion comes from mostly. i generally always write in the first person (or at least try to) to avoid speaking for anyone that might be reading one of my reviews. That being said please don’t take me as trying to tell you how to write or anything (as thats none of my business really), i suppose it just comes down to our individual use of diction.

        While i will never argue that the original trilogy (star wars) are not land marks in cinema, and are certainly well written (IV, V), superbly edited, filled with interesting metaphor etc, etc i really don’t get very much out of them. In fact i got a much more meaningful experience watching Episode III and Episode I in the theatres for the first time then i ever did watching either IV or V. I wrote about this at length in my star wars pages, if youre curious have a look (they’re all linked in the side bar so no need to go hunting), they will certainly shed light on my experiences (as i won’t bore you by writing them out here) and point of view.

        I do apologise as they are a bit bitter though, and understand if you simply can’t read them after a while if indeed you do, my attitudes in respect to them have softened and honestly i think my writing and communication has improved since then, and one day i might revist them to tidy them up at one time or another.

      • garethrhodes says:

        The influence Star Trek has had is not in question, however, artistically, it’s very flaky. Honestly, can you say there is one thing in its entire canon that achieves the same level as The Empire Strikes Back? As much as I love it (and I really do) – there isn’t anything that comes anywhere close. That’s not just my opinion. ‘Empire’ is always listed as one of the, (recent Empire magazine poll THE greatest film of all-time) best ever.

        Look, I don’t want to get into the territory of getting personal over writing style here, Star Trek v Star Wars is fun, but it’s also a route to getting silly and we can do better. Trek is what is. Right now, as a film/TV series, it seems a little lost. It’s like they have exhausted it and no-one has a clue where to take it. Let’s turn this around – where do you see the future of Star Trek?

  4. Mr. Fuffcans says:

    i do apologise if there was any misunderstanding (in terms of our writing styles), and i don’t want to engage in any mud slinging as i don’t waste my time with it. i shall simply say i will agree to disagree with what you’ve said previously.

    What i personally see for the future of Star Trek is continuing financial success, and continuing intellectual stagnation. The last two films of the series have been almost completely devoid of the strong central ideas and thematic content that drew me into the series in the first place. In fact i have trouble seeing the new films as part of Star Trek because of the producer’s utter failure in realising what made the series distinct in the first place.

    That being said i quite like them (the reboots), and i can happily enjoy them for the brainless fireworks shows that they are, as they are not meant as replacements of the other films and function quite nicely as additions. I have hopes that the 3rd reboot will be an improvement as Into Darkness did just enough to keep me in tow. If it isn’t however i’m not going to bother with the rest of the rebooted series.

    i think the best way to answer your question about what in Star Trek’s francise measures up to Emprei Strikes Back i will have to explain my point of view (just like Obi-Wan does!). I will never try and argue that The Empire Strikes Back is a bad film or even not amoung the greatest films ever made, i just don’t get much out of it.

    I’m well aware of and appreciate the metaphors (like how Luke’s arm being chopped off represents some rather nasty growing pains), how the series lines up with the classic hero archetypes and journey (the magic weapon, the refusal of the journey at first, the loss of innocence, etc etc), and how the force is potrayed in a wonderfully spiritual manner (yoda’s speech before he pulls the xwing out of the water is quite touching). But they just aren’t as interesting to me as The Wrath of Khan’s central themes about life, death, choices, and consequences (this is my choice of film that holds up to ), or the racist underpinnings of Undiscovered Country.

    Accolades like it being on Empire’s best films, or popular opinion holding it far above anything Star Trek has done don’t mean anything to me. As i review and rate films strictly on how i feel about them (which is why i say “i” instead of “we” as i want to make it clear i’m writing from a completely subjective view point). I don’t try and be objective in my reviews, as i can’t force myself to write good things about a horribly boring film like The Conformist, or heap praise on Raging Bull just because other people call them masterpieces.

    as a result I can’t in good conscience rate The Empire Strikes Back higher than Wrath of Khan as given a choice between the two i will choose Star Trek. In fact i rated Revenge of the Sith higher than Empire Strikes Back for the same reasons. But once again that doesn’t mean that Star Wars is inferior To Star Trek, I just prefer Star Trek always and forever.

    If that answer doesn’t satisfy, i can offer a purely objective view point and say that Wrath of Khan and Empire Strikes Back are both equally good films. Both are well structured stories, both are influential, both contain effective use of metaphor, and both have a lot of die hard fans.

    as a side note, i was looking around for your review of Empire Strikes Back as i’m curious about what you see in it. i always like reading other peoples view points, as how we experience art is as varied as the amount of stars in the sky and is almost always illuminating.

  5. garethrhodes says:

    Thanks for the long response. The Empire Strikes Back is recognised as one of the greatest films ever made. You can’t say that for anything in the Star Trek canon. That’s all I’m saying. Don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek. I wouldn’t be without it. I’m just realistic about what it has achieved artistically, over the years. It’s often hugely flawed, but I love it warts n’ all. As for your preference of the Star Wars prequels over the original trilogy…I don’t mean to be rude to you, but I think you’ve dug your own hole there. The prequels were often very poor films made by a man surrounded by too many people afraid to say “no” to him. I can’t imagine looking at a film like The Empire Strikes Back, with its beautifully rich cinematography, its vast and varied themes and thinking those soulless efforts were better. It’s a crazy world.

    • Mr. Fuffcans says:

      hey its great just talking to someone and i’m glad that we’ve kept this civil, as these types of conversations have a habit of devolving into the type of arguing that gives fandom a bad name.

      you know, us chatting back and forth got me to dust out my copy of empire strikes back and watch it again, and i’m glad to say that i still quite like it. I think i lashed out in bitterness at the fandom for slinging bile and ridiculous accusations at George Lucas (who deserves absolutely none of it). I’m not going to get into my reasons about liking the prequels here (and by that meaning III and I. Go ahead and throw whatever you want at II as it is a mediocre film at its best), i wrote about them at length on my star wars pages in “My Star Wars Experience”. Just know its not that i think that they are better made films, i just like them more. Episode III is the movie i pop in most often when i want to watch Star Wars so naturally it gets a higher rating (in fact i think i might watch some scenes before i’m off to bed!). Is it flawed? yup. But that doesn’t stop me from loving it, and rating it highly along with my other favorite films.

      It is indeed a strange world and i wouldn’t have it another way.

      • garethrhodes says:

        It is good to discuss things. We’re talking about two properties that mean so much to so many, and comparisons (however pointless) will always be made. Here’s some insight – Star Wars has been a lifeblood to me. In my world, there’s nothing that can compare. Star Trek is just a lively little TV show that I enjoy from time-to-time when I’m channel hopping. Star Wars (original trilogy) is a seminal master-work that has inspired me in ways that I cannot begin to explain. Therein lies the difference.

        I’m glad to hear you liked Sith, although I find it deeply troublesome as an overall film. The Vader “Noooooooooo”, the constant over-reliance on CGI, the awful dialogue, the wooden performances, the lack of any levity, the lack of any real world heft with the visuals and action. It’s all so stock and filler. Empire feels organic. The universe feels lived-in, the characters are fresh, alive and have great depth. The witty relationship between Han and Leia (written by Leigh Brackett) is inspired by film-noir banter between couples like Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer. It has a stamp of reassuring authenticity – its beautifully lit. Really, the list goes on and on and on and on as to why Empire is infinitely better than Sith. Sith is a childs plastic toy of a film. Empire is a cast iron classic that will live forever – but I think you know this already.

  6. Mr. Fuffcans says:

    indeed you’re right Star Wars is not as important to me as it is to you. While i can understand and appreciate how it can be very important to others, it will never be anything more than how you describe Star Trek.

    As for Sith, yes the Vader’s no is genuinely cringe inducing, there is some truly awful dialog, but i find that the actors are far more relaxed in III than in I or II and aren’t uniformly awful. Also while the CGI is arguably over done, III’s over all aesthetic i find is a marked improvement over II (which looks plasticy and horrible), and i have to say it has plenty of heft in visuals and action, and are the very reason i like it so much. As for characters I quite like Anakin in III, as he finally drops the whiny teenager act that made him so insufferable in II. As for over all substance i find that it has enough for me to read into and is competently handled to function as the big summer block buster it is (not every movie has to be a work of art after all).

    no it isn’t Empire Strikes Back, but its not trying to be (and i’m quite fine with that), and i quite like it warts and all.

    BTW the new Storm Trooper helmets look awesome.

    • garethrhodes says:

      I see no real world heft in Revenge of the Sith. I see a convoluted video game gone awry. It’s only salvation, which I’m surprised you failed to mention, is Ian McDiarmid’s performance at Palpatine. He belongs in a much better film. I suspect with the dawn of the impressive looking The Force Awakens, Star Wars will reclaim its much deserved credibility.

      As for Trek, I really do not see its life continuing as a film series for much longer. It belongs on TV. The sooner that happens, the happier I will be. Right now, with Abrams abandoning ship to pursue his true love of Star Wars, it feels a little lost.

      • Mr. Fuffcans says:

        again thats where we differ, i see plenty of heft and plenty of relevance to the film. I didn’t think i needed to mention Ian McDiarmid’s wonderfully cackling performance, as you had mentioned that you liked it in your review for Episode III.

        As for The Force Awakens only time will tell, as there’s only so much you can tell from a trailer as the trailers for episode one and the hype and excitement they generated prove. I have a feeling a lot of people may be disappointed when the new film comes out as it may fail to live up to the enormous expectations placed on it. In fact i’m really surprised at the total lack of skepticism from everyone i talk to (actually i’m not really when i think about it).

        Star Trek may indeed vanish after this 3rd film comes out, but i have to say i don’t agree at all that it belongs on TV alone, as its best moments have been on the big screen. I have to say thanks for keeping up this thread up for so long with me, i hope it hasn’t annoyed you or anything.

      • garethrhodes says:

        Completely disagree. I think the reverse is true. After the awful prequels (most people feel they were disastrous, artistically) the level of expectation from the general movie goer is low. People anticipate an orgy of digital effects, with very little in the way of practical showmanship and narrative ingenuity. We live in a world in which these ‘tent-pole’ releases are put out there as “battering ram” entertainment. From the creative pool of talent assembled for The Force Awakens, I very much get the sense that the tide has turned. I suspect we’re in for a treat.

        As far as your leaky defence for the ” real-world heft” of the prequels goes, I’m spent. The bottom line is, they look like a video game crossed with a cartoon. They are filled with terrible acting, mis-timed humour and exist as the most disappointing time a LOT of people have ever had inside of a cinema.

        By the way, Star Trek does belong on TV. It originated there and that is its natural home. If asked, “what is the best representation of Star Trek?” – I’d say Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and for nostalgic giggles, the Original Series.

        You haven’t annoyed me at all, the contrary, I’m grateful for the conversation. We just see these things from completely different perspectives.

  7. Mr. Fuffcans says:

    we do indeed see things from a completely different perspective, and know that i’m not out to change your mind about anything you’ve said, as you’re set in your opinions as i am in mine. Frankly i wouldn’t have it any other way. It keeps conversation interesting, and i’m more than willing to agree to disagree.

    What i’m getting at is the fact that there is very little caution being taken by the general public about how this film will turn out. Everyone i’ve talked to in regards to The Force Awakens is gushing about it, this goes for general movie goers and filmies like you and i. If what you say is true (about lowered expectations) why are people shedding tears at a teaser trailer that shows absolutely nothing but fantastic imagery powered by computer generated SFX? Again this goes for both regular viewers, people who expect more from their movies, and die hard Star Wars fans.

    That strikes me as incredibly odd given the failure of the prequels to many of those same fans. You say that the creative pool of jj abrams gives you hope that the movie will be a treat, and that’s exactly how fans felt about Episode One given that it was directed by George Lucas himself and visually looked very interesting.

    Look, i’m not trying to say you shouldn’t get excited for a new Star Wars movie. Hell even i despite my reservations about the series can’t deny that it looks very slick and i will admit that at the very least it looks to be an entertaining light show. jj abrams and co at the very least have shown that they can craft a good if shallow experience from what i’ve seen in their work for the rebooted Star Trek films. But i’m not getting my hopes up, and i’m preparing for a backlash against it by disappointed fans.

    Do the prequels look like video games gone awry? i will always say that Episode II went overboard and looks horrible, but at the same time to me Episode III looks 100% better. Yes it is shocking to see Natalie Portman do her best impersonation of a block of wood with eyes glued on it, and everyone looks clueless in Episode II as i can imagine they were just standing around in empty green pits looking at hanging tennis balls with Lucas screaming “faster and more intense” and probably making laser sounds as well. But he finally listened to critisism (a bit) and read a damn book or asked his buddies Coppola and Spielburg to give him some pointers on how to make actors relax and talk better performances in Episode III. Also i agree that some of the humour and dialog in I, II, and III is absolutely wretched, but C3PO’s frantic complaining in Empire Strikes Back is irritating to me as well.

    There is plenty of real world heft in the prequels. Where would ILM be (who is doing the SFX for The Force Awakens) if it weren’t for their successes and failures within those previous films? As the amount of improvement from the fully CGI Yoda in Episode II to III is an incredible feat, and by the looks of it the level of integration of CGI mattes and space ships has improved once again. Also John William’s score’s for all of the prequel films are incredibly dense and detailed works. there is subtlety in the cinematography, and set design (in episode III). And you cannot tell me with any certainty that some child somewhere wasn’t enthralled, or amazed, or inspired by their viewing experiences of the prequel trilogy the same way you were for the originals. Because the bottom line is i certainly was, and i’m not going to lie to myself and say that i didn’t like them nor don’t find any meaning in them just because a lot of other people don’t.

    And no, i don’t think Star Trek belongs on TV alone. It doesn’t matter that it originated from television as both TV and Cinema use the same medium (moving visuals and sound) to communicate their ideas. Both can tell self contained and serialised stories laced with metaphor, and both use the language of cinema to communicate their respective ideas. As for the best moments my picks remain Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact and with the large budgets that can in theory pay for more talent the big screen is as good a place as any for it to be shown and viewed.

    • garethrhodes says:

      Again, I disagree wholeheartedly. The people who are crying at the Star Wars trailer are ‘die-hard’ fans. Ask your average guy on the street how he feels about it and you’ll receive a VERY different response. I’d suggest you are looking at it from a very narrow perspective. If you find C3P0 irritating in Empire, then I suggest that the gag is flying over your head as fast as the Falcon in light-speed. The point is, he’s supposed to be. It’s like complaining about Alan Partridge being annoying. He’s there to piss Han off – which he does. We feel Han’s pain and he treats 3P0 like shit. It’s great to watch and yet another of the many reasons why Empire is such a fascinating, complex film; cram-packed with elements that make it sing.

      I can’t see Trek as anything other than a TV show. It has some good films in canon, but not a single unified GREAT film. Wrath of Khan is good, but my goodness – between Ricardo Montalban’s fake chest, new Romantic wig and the overacting – it’s hard to take seriously. I did love the ending, though.

      There is next to zero “real-world heft” in the prequels. It’s all green-screen backdrops and digital nonsense. The scene with Obi-Wan riding that massive creature while careering down some crazy landscape. all the while fighting Grevious. So overcooked. The endless lightsaber battle that feels longer than the Godfather trilogy – in which they leap around little platforms over a lake of lava (video games are MORE convincing). Sith is jam-packed with ridiculously over-the-top imagery that makes it an embarrassment next to a great piece of cinema like Empire.

      I think we should probably leave it there, we’ve both said out pieces and I think we’re starting to repeat ourselves. Thanks for the contribution, though. Nice to have your input.

      • Mr. Fuffcans says:

        ya i figured you and i were just going to go around in circles after this point, still nice to chat. couple of last things though

        – no i’m not looking at things at a narrow perspective. the people i have talked to would be “off the street” guys and not die hard star wars fans.
        – the supposed humour doesn’t fly over my head as Han’s abuse of C3PO is not something i like (at all) and contributes to how much i dislike him as a character.
        – thanks for clarifying what you mean by real world heft i thought you meant metaphor, or out side lasting effects. if by what you mean is real sets and models and how you appreciate and prefer those more than digital effects i can understand where you come from.
        – lol about the new romantic wig, i’ll never be able to get that outta my head now.


      • garethrhodes says:

        You dislike Han Solo!!!? He’s the man I always wanted to be…

        Yes, I think that’s a good place for us to sign off.

      • Mr. Fuffcans says:

        lol well i’m afraid theres no helping you then!

      • garethrhodes says:

        Haha…right back atcha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s