Dip_79 said:

"The cost of his last Star Trek movie was $70 million."

I liked the original "Star Trek" (with William Shatner) and the first two episodes of "Star Wars" (wasn't the last one awful?). However it does pain me to think about all the money spent on BAD science fiction that could have been spent on Space Exploration. I actually wouldn't mind so much if it was spent on good science fiction. Why can't Hollywood make a "hard" science fiction movie based upon realizable technology and vaild science, e.g. no warp drives, ray guns, space aliens, etc.? The Mars movie that James Cameron keeps talking about could be really good. It always gives me tight jaws to walk through the science ficition section of Barnes and Nobles and see row after row after row of Star Wars and Star Trek knock-off novels. These are hard times for genuine science fiction.

Concerning Patrick Stewart: He is a Hollywood actor after all. What do you expect? If people want advice on getting a divorce, having an abortion or good places to score cocaine then they should go to a Hollywood actor. Here's a fun tidbit: In the basement of the San Jose Tech Museum they have this exhibit honoring astronauts. There are these plaster casts of the hands of such heros as Buzz Aldrin, John Glenn, etc. Mixed in with the hards of these true heros is the hand of Patrick Stewart. One should can definitely say that Stewart's Hollywood agent was on-the-ball. I'd like to see that plaster cast taken out of the exhibit and publicly smashed on the ground.

Gary