Episode 121:
We decided to set this one up out on the patio – hope it’s not too distracting. Also, I apologize for the lack of show notes as of late. There are two reasons for that: 1) I’m really really busy. 2) I’m working on a new show notes template that will be much easier to read and more organized; less messy. With that, enjoy this show. Gamble is back!
Visit us on iTunes:
Click the Audio Icon below to listen in:
Below the fold are the very limited Show Notes…
Closing bumper music provided by Buckcherry (iTunes profile): “For the Movies”
Track Row Three:
RSS Feeds (paste these URLs into your favorite RSS reader):
Cinecast (Andrew and Halfyard show)
After the Credits (Marina and Co.)
Mamo! (Matt and Matt)
ALL the RowThree Podcasts on one feed
All posts and discussions from RowThree
Limited show notes this week.
Movies Discussed:
Rudo y Cursi
Win or Lose: A Summer Camp Story
Trust Us, This is All Made Up
Anvil! The Story of Anvil (Marina’s review)
G.I Joe: Resolute
Objectified (Kurt’s review)
Ascension (Kurt’s review)
District 9 trailer
iPod Wahlberg double bill: The Happening, Max Payne
ASCENSION TRAILER:
DVD Pick(s) for Tuesday, May 5th:
Andrew:
Wendy & Lucy
Dog Soldiers
.
Kurt:
Wendy & Lucy
Souvenir of Canada
Comments or questions?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com
Kurt have you seen the doc ‘For All Mankind’? What you are describing with Ascension sounds a lot like it, and I am wondering if having seen For All Mankind first, if Ascension would be as good.
For All Mankind is a Criterion film coming to blu-ray I believe and it is one of the most gorgeous films I have ever seen, all about the Moon missions, but unlike ‘In the Shadow of the Moon’ which is testimonial heavy, Reinhardt just lingers on the sheer beauty of the visuals, and syncs it with music, and I believe there are testimonials but no talking heads just voice-over.
I can’t believe how many great documentaries seem to be coming out this year… the one Gamble talks about sounds fascinating, and while I suppose Dear Zachary came out last year, I only saw it on video this year. I also caught We Live in Public at hotdocs and it is awesome.
I love these marathon shows, I just with I had more time to listen to it in one sitting. Happy to hear you enjoyed Anvil! I saw it last year when the guys were drumming up support for the film. They played a gig the night before and stuck around for a few hours after the screening to shoot the proverbial shit. It was pretty awesome.
G.I Joe: Resolute sounds awesome. I’ll have to add this to the watch list for the weekend.
@Mike – happy to hear that We Live In Public is awesome. Look forward to seeing it later this year (I hope).
Wow Kurt, I can’t believe that is your favorite BSG episode, I honestly thought it was the worst. So many tv shows do these gimmicky handheld one-off episodes. But then again you were the one who said I could bypass the opening miniseries of Battlestar Galactica because it was so bad, and honestly, I think it is probably the best of the entire run I have seen (mind you thats halfway through season 3). I say that because that opening miniseries has stakes, lots of people die, lots of ethical decisions are made, and while this does happen throughout the show its never as dire as it is in that miniseries.
Andrew you should check out BSG, as one Lost fan to another… just because so many people told me it was better than Lost, and now I can say its not better but does improve in areas that Lost is weak in. The directing, acting is better in BSG, but the mythology of Lost is so much better.
I’ve watched almost all of BSG. Haven’t watched final season. Yet. Eventually I’ll get to it.
LOST is a much, MUCH better show.
uh, I wouldn’t say much MUCH better show, but I think it is more ambitious but BSG is generally better executed.
btw I have not seen last night’s episode of Lost, is it great or shit? whats the star rating?
Out of 4? 3.5. Which means you won’t like it. Ha.
Which episode of BSG is Kurt’s favorite? Did he really say to SKIP the miniseries? Not only is the miniseries the great (I was near tears TWICE) but even if you don’t it, skippping it is still a bad idea if you’re going to watch the show. The rest of the series refers back to. That advice is just obtuse. Read this novel it’s great. But just skip the first two chapters. No one would ever do that.
I’m gonna guess his favorite episode is something totally lame, like the boxing episode. Yeah it’s probably the boxing episode.
Last nights episode of LOST was one of the best of the season.
I’m fairly certain Kurt hates the boxing episode. He’s all about the poorly executed heavy handed metaphors in BSG.
I also recommend skipping over the Tom Bombadil chapter for first time readers of LotR. 100 pages of Bombadilling isn’t exactly for most people.
@ He’s all about the poorly executed heavy handed metaphors in BSG.
So he must love the Boxing episode.
@ I also recommend skipping over the Tom Bombadil chapter for first time readers of LotR.
I recommend skipping over the LOTR books right to the movies which should also be skipped over and watch Meet The Feebles instead. Obscure trivia fact: Jackson used to make good movies.
No Kurt hates the boxing episode of BSG, and I just happened to finish watching it, and while I watched the extended version and it was a bit uneven, I thought it was pretty decent overall.
the episode he was talking about as liking the most on the cinecast was the one where the reporter goes through Galactica and makes a documentary.
Essentially when it comes to BSG, Kurt and I are polar opposites even though I guess we can agree its a good show, but for different reasons.
and I just saw the latest Lost episode: rate it 2/4. There is no breathing room in the show, just hit the plot points now, disappointing.
So he must love the Boxing episode.
Heh. No, he’s more “OMG, the terrorists are PEOPLE!”
On BSG. (*MILD SPOILERS TO FOLLOW*) I guess it is more like I’m happy that someone is making those kind of statements in the UNITED STATES at this moment in time. I dug the Jehova’s Witness blood transfusion episode, the Miners Strike episode, nearly all of the stuff when they settle on the planet for a few years. I dug the documentary episode because it shades the characters thru the civilian media when we really only see them through the military and soap opera of the characters ‘real’ lives. The miniseries is bombastic in all the wrong ways. The opening shot, the clumsy baby-killing, I remember really getting off on the wrong foot, I guess I didn’t mean skip it, I really meant for me it was almost a deal-breaker and I found it to be fairly wobbly. I found the show stabilized nicely with the adreneline shot of the first episode, then found its sea-legs more or less thru season 1 before peaking in season 2.
—
Oh, I saw the new Star Trek movie. It’s like Alien: Resurrection, The Mummy, and X3 all rolled into one. In a world, completely ludicrous, like a spastic 3 year old that just wants to shake and shake and fucking shake his pretty snow-globe. But hey it’s purdy and the cast are good. The story and style are fucking ass though. Someone should smack Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman for continuing to pen dumb, dumb, dumb stories. You could put the Enterprise, Earth and most of the milky way through the logical holes in this movie. Ech. It’s 2:43am, and I’m off to bed. Nighty-Night internets. R3View Monday Morning when the rest of you catch this at a normal hour.
@ I dug the documentary episode because it shades the characters thru the civilian media
Is the episode we’re discussing the first Lucy Lawless episode? That’s a good one.
Something about the imagery of a “clumsy baby killing” is hillarious to me. What’s your problem with the baby killing?
@ Someone should smack Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman for continuing to pen dumb, dumb, dumb stories.
I remember when I read they were doing a pass on Watchmen. Not a good sign.
@Is the episode we’re discussing the first Lucy Lawless episode? That’s a good one.
*****MILD SPOILERS*****
Bingo sir. That is a nice bonus, because in the BSG series, Lawless is pretty awesome, both as a civilian and as a Cylon.
Oh, the plot of Star Trek is at least as silly and spastic as that of Transformers (or as the trailer in front of the ST movie indicated, Transformers 2). Even by Star Trek standards, this is some silly shit. I dig elements of nearly all the original cast members movies, but more and more it is looking like the best of the star trek movies was the Robert Wise directed STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE. Khan is fun, but has not aged very well.
VI is easily the best Star Trek film.
I really, really enjoy Star Trek VI, perhaps you are right. But I think i prefer the ‘science fiction’ of THE MOTION PICTURE, over the ‘internal politics’ of ST:VI
But you just can’t go wrong with that Mild-Meld Rape Scene with Kim Catrall. Or her amusingly inflected speech on sabotage.
Just not enough rape or religion in star-trek. I’ll take Alien 3 over all of ‘em.
I don’t know, the topical nature of the stories explored in BSG are the least interesting aspect to me. I am wondering if this difference, Kurt, is that unlike me and most people you do not watch a lot of television and so are not accustom to these cliches? The handheld episodes have been done so many times, and the endless addressing of topical events in television is oversaturated. Its an easy narrative move… find what is popular right now, now form an analogue to it in our story, done.
Where BSG shines is where it deviates, Starbuck is unlike any character I have seen on a show, and the love story as it unfolds in the boxing episode is unlike anything I have seen before. Around it there are some clunky things happening, but on the whole I can say I have never seen that before, whereas I have seen endless analogues to 9/11 and the Bush Administration.
Perhaps what I like about Lost (When I like Lost) is that it rarely gives into current events, its very much a new story with no analogues, except maybe the vague murmurs of religion. But like BSG it too clings to outmoded manners of storytelling at times, even though its main story is great, its execution episode to episode is uneven, sometimes downright sloppy.
**Slow Clap**
I can positively say there are no slow claps in Lost. But yeah, I have counted three so far in BSG.
I think it is the military angle of the show. All of the slow-claps (i believe) are after Edward-James Olmos speeches.
Interesting fact, their are 17 slow claps in Stand and Deliver.
@ It’s like Alien: Resurrection, The Mummy, and X3
I just saw Star Trek. I don’t know what you’re getting at here Kurt. Alien 4, The Mummy and X3 are ludicrous… more so than Alien 3, Indiana Jones and X2? The difference between those films is not versimilitude. This film didn’t seem especially ludicrous, unless you for some reason object to films about time travel, aliens and space ships.
It was a fun film. I liked it mostly for the first half but the second wasn’t awful. So if we go by the Howard Hawks ratio of quality, 3 good scenes and no bad ones, Star Trek is on the right side of that average.
I mean it’s all show and no substance. It’s an action comic book movie where perhaps a little heart has to be substituted for a brain. There is simply very little to chew on here, well except the copious amounts of popcorn in the patrons laps.
So you’re saying the problem isn’t that it’s “ludicrous” but superficial.
And please don’t use “comic book” as a synonym for dumb.
My actual phrase was ‘action comic book’ which implies (for me anyway) obvious, superficial and not even remotely adhering to reality. Which is what Star Trek is guilty of all the time. Can you relate to any of these characters? They are action heroes not people. Their conflicts and short-comings serve the plot more than flesh out the characters.
The plot, science, and overall feel of the film is LUDICROUS and SUPERFICIAL. Where in any organization does the entire crew of a ship go to class together and end up working together? What sort of military organization rewards insubordination in the way the Federation does here? At least in the previous movies, there are demotions when the crew goes renegade. But whatever, the film plants its flag that it is an action romp, not a contemplative star trek movie.
My actual phrase was ‘action comic book’ which implies (for me anyway) obvious, superficial and not even remotely adhering to reality.
That’s because you are speaking from ignorance.
Long live pre-conceived notions. Kurt is their patron saint.
Star Trek is a bad movie, made tolerable by being Star Trek.
Well said Henrik. It’s not like 5 TV shows, 10 movies, a half dozen documentaries, and a landfill of pop-cultural detritus might or might not have a few pre-conceived notions on the table.
Yea, it’s a bad science fiction film but a pop-corn munchable action film. You know, just like X-Men 3.
@Matt: I may be ignorant of the span of comic books, but I’m well enough versed with their film adaptations that I’m comfortable at calling Star Trek a comic-book-action movie.
Well, it seems your argument now is the same as it was when the film was announced. A bit redundant is all, wether it’s right or not.
It’s on par with X-Men 3 I’d say. I’m just glad it’s not on par with, say, Iron Man or something. It’s a shame, but unavoidable it seems.
If the film had had a good score, or even a decent score instead of the shit it has, and a more interesting villain (did anybody else feel like last time the villain had green shit that would blow up earth, and in this one he has red shit that will blow up earth?), it might have been on my good side.
@Matt: I may be ignorant of the span of comic books, but I’m well enough versed with their film adaptations that I’m comfortable at calling Star Trek a comic-book-action movie.
Except you drop the acrimonious title of “comic book movie” whenever it suits you. You label the action movies you don’t like as such, then gleefully ignore the label if you like the film so that you can maintain your stance that “comic book action movies” are stupid. Like for instance:
‘action comic book’ which implies (for me anyway) obvious, superficial and not even remotely adhering to reality.
Yet pretty much any movie made by Ford, Peckinpah, Cameron, craps loads fo Kurosawa and countless other action oriented directors have made films that would qualify as “action comic book” movies.
Hell, in the Alien Quadralogy discussion you rail against fanboys except you and Jay are the two clearly acting like fanboys in the discussion. How dare they challenge canon! How dare they change Ripley! How dare they use a wide angle lense! What you like is true to the series, while anything different is trash. That is a blatant fanboy reaction. You trash the film you don’t like and toss a label of it being a “comic book movie”, but all four Alien films would easily qualify as comic book films, Aliens especially. Yet you choose to only label the film you don’t like as such, as it is your safety blanket to protect you from ever examining your own near sighted and uneducated opinion.
But outside of the whole using comic books as a negative label I totally back Kurt’s opinion of the film. Or do I?
Well I welcome further debate on this when we record the Cinecast.
There are good weighty comic book flicks – The Dark Knight for instance, parts of The Watchmen, Superman Returns, The original Superman, etc.
Heck I liked Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet, albeit for different reasons.
I admit that Henrik hit the nail on the head in that I’d have far less of a problem if this weren’t called STAR TREK. There, I’ve said it. I’m not even a trekker. I just liked that in its own earnest way, the show actually was about something. Here, it clearly ain’t about much more than disposable entertainment.
@Matt: “Yet pretty much any movie made by Ford, Peckinpah, Cameron, craps loads fo Kurosawa and countless other action oriented directors have made films that would qualify as “action comic book” movies.”
Yet those movies seemed to be about something. And Peckinpah and Cameron have made their share of stinkers.
J.J Abrams seems to use short-hand, and ‘recognition of the charatcter types’ as such a crutch.
Also on the MOVIE CLUB PODCAST of Alien films that you use as an example, I don’t think it is accurate at all, because each entry has a radically different tone. I just object to the silly/pyrotechnics of the 4th one which is weightless and empty. And I prop up the 3rd one because of the ALIENS fan-boys that wanted the ‘ripley/hicks/newt’ story to continue, rather than the RIPLEY story to continue. Also, the third one happens to have the apocalyptic/christ thing going for it which at the point of Ripley’s suffering in the series, is pretty apropos.
Except the only film you label a comic book movie is the one you trash. That is my point. Aliens is clearly in the same style of film, and while Alien and Alien 3 are horror films, horror comics were the most popular selling comics of all time. Those are as much comic book movies as the other more action oriented entries in the franchise.
But instead of actually critiquing the film you label it a comic book movie, as if that label clearly implies all of the flaws that are inherent in this fabricated sub-genre of films. You’ve created a totally arbitrary construct that you apply only when you see fit to reinforce your negative stereotyping.
And Fincher wanted to kill Ripley to lead of Alien 3 as well, which means he would have fallen under the fanboy wrath of Kurt and Jay for daring to stray from what they liked about the series. In fact almost every single version of the 6 or so screenplays that were written wanted to either kill Ripley or eliminate her from the film in the opening scenes. Hell, even the guy who wrote the novelization wanted to keep Newt alive, and we know what Jay thinks of novelizations.
You two knock that the 4th strays from what you like, yet then you turn around and rip on those who wanted to stray at an earlier point in the series. It is completely hypocritical. You and Jay are clearly acting like Ripley fanboys in the podcast, yet at the same time ripping on fanboys. It would be comical if it weasn’t so ridiculous.
Yet those movies seemed to be about something.
Got it. “Action comic book movies” can not be about anything. You know, like Oldboy.
Should we now change the label to “American action comic book movies”? Then when I toss out Sin City or The Matirx, or fucking Superman or Superman II what are you going to adjust the derogatory label too?
No, I don’t have any attachment to RIPLEY, but as the film Alien3 was delivered it was pretty darn good. The 4th film
OLDBOY is hardly an action comic book, it’s chalk to the brim with ideas (although from a personal standpoint, it is my least favourite of the three, (Lady, Mr., Old)…they’re all quite good.
When I say action comic, I mean heroes and villains bashing each other in the highest possible spectacle, with not too much thought put behind things. This is what Alien 4 is. Clearly this is not what Alien 3 is. As for Aliens. I have issues with all the ‘pop up alien, shoot alien’ stuff, but I fully acknowledge how good the tension is built and I really dig on the maternal face-off, family angle that the story has. More than just ooomph. ooommph. action.
Can someone actually tell me what STAR TREK the new movie is ‘about’ is there anything beyond a simple origin story? Hell the starwars prequels at least tried to put in the ‘death of democracy’/freedom-for-security angle with the Emperor and galactic senate. Not that I think any of the star wars prequels are better constructed films than Star Trek, but hopefully you see my point.
And Matt. Nothing is black and white. there is merely short hand and allusion and reference. You are making me writing something off as “WORD OF GOD” I’m flattered you think so, but really all we have is short-hand. I’ve got no problem with my short-hand of ‘action comic movie’ because it is how I feel. We differ on this, surely, and there are exceptions, definitely. We just can’t have 10,000 word comments referring to every bit of minutae on things. Sometimes you have to take a little bit of perspective and opinion (and yes, bias) that goes with the author.
When I say action comic, I mean heroes and villains bashing each other in the highest possible spectacle, with not too much thought put behind things
Once again I am highlighting these caveats you keep throwing in to create a sub-genre that does not exist, or as Rusty more succinctly put it, as a synonym for dumb. You do it so you can separate the good action comic book movies you like (Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Ninja Scroll, Lone Wolf and Cub, Superman, Superman II, Spiderman 2, Ang Lee’s Hulk, Sky High, and I can go on) from those you don’t like.
And Matt. Nothing is black and white.
Except you’re the one using the lazy reference to infer a black and white stereotype. Its no different then Campea proclaiming certain films are “REAL filmmaking” while others are not. It is an arbitrary and completely fabricated definition that makes absolutely no sense when applying even the slightest amount of thought and you do it time and again when it comes to comic related films.
I hate comic book movies.
Well Oldboy is a comic book movie.
No I meant super hero movies.
Well Iron Giant is a super hero movie.
No I meant super hero action comic book movies that I don’t like.
For the record Kurt and I have had that exact conversation, though I have changed it somewhat to make him look even more ridiculous.
In general I’m not a fan of melodrama, but I’ve never tried to create a sub set of melodramatic films that contains every melodramatic film I hate so that way I can claim every melodramatic film I do like really isn’t a melodramatic film. The very notion is absurd, yet here you are trying to rationalize this concept when it comes to comic based fare.
In summation, you’re an idiot.
“the show actually was about something. Here, it clearly ain’t about much more than disposable entertainment.”
The moralizing or lessons was maybe the only thing I expected to carry over into this new version. its sadly missing. Its actually a lot more of a regular Star Trek movie than I expected, it even carries a lot of the same look and feel of the latter Star Trek movies, but the way characters are done know has a douchey Joss Whedon-y aftertaste that didn’t exactly work for me.
I’m kind of shocked that I didnt like it, simply because I’m pretty open minded to blockbusters and messing with canon, and as flawed as the RottenTomatoes model is, when you see something you’re already interested in getting a 96%, you dont expect to be in that 4%.
I also think its interesting that the good reviews are praising the character development, yet the movie skips over so much of their schooling that would indicate how they acheived their rank. As it is, when Pike gives Kirk that 1st Officer tag, its just ridiculous, what the hell was that all about? And all the secondary characters dont really do much at all.
If this was Star Wars everyone would bitch about every little thing going on and be treated as right, but if you do it about Trek I guess you’re treated as just a laughable nerd. There’s no happy medium apparently. I’d say flat out that all 3, yes even Phantom Menace, of those Star Wars prequels, are better films, both visually and in story, than this Star Trek movie that is being considered the second coming.
I didnt out and out hate this movie. I’m open to rewatching it someday, preferably just before or just after whatever comes next. But this particular film as a standalone is not up to the hype.
I dig Eberts nitpicking:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997
kurt the problem is that when you use the term comic book you’re actually refering to movies. That’s cleary what you mean by “action comic book”, which “action comic books” have you read? What about Star Trek reminded you of them? Your idea of this genre of comics is informed entirely by a genre of film. If you change “action comic book movie” to “action movie” immeadiately clarity and accuracy are improved.
Split some ridiculous hair all you want, it’s your own clarity of thought that suffers.
I wrote ACTION COMIC BOOK MOVIES, I think it is your issue with me, rather than what I typed in this case. Fair enough, both you and Matt’s criticisms have more than a little validity! I’ve never argued that I’m clear, merely that I can talk people to sleep! ha.
The ‘action comic book movies’ generally mean big SFX, and the action movie is more like the ’80s beefcake stuff. Or something like that. You are right in that I’m not clear in that. Blogging (and commenting) medium that it is, tragically clarity is often sacrificed for in the moment. That’s why we have arguments like this, to try to shed some light on the subject. I don’t know how well we’ve done, but there you have it.
Kurt is having his consciousness about comic books raised for the zillionth time. Stop blaming the blog. Either stick to your guns, or change your behavior.
@ it even carries a lot of the same look and feel of the latter Star Trek movies
Oooooh. I’m pleased to say I don’t agree. If nothing else the visual ingenuity is what I’d praise about the film. I love how they used modern film technology to realize the classic designs of the original rather than inflicting modern design sensibilities on OG Star Trek. That ship in the opening, both the interior and exterior design was fantastic. I loved how the viliains had a mining ship which looked both more advanced and more primitive than the Enterprise. Those missils that “hatched” glowing warheads. The way the phaser barrels flipped from stun to kill. By keeping one foot in original Star Trek the film really stands apart from other big budget summer action movies.
@ Where in any organization does the entire crew of a ship go to class together and end up working together? What sort of military organization rewards insubordination in the way the Federation does here?
Kurt, I believe that you don’t like the film but I don’t you’re doing a very good job of articulating why. You would’ve enjoyed the film more if Kirk recieved a more appropriate punishment?! No you wouldn’t! Like I said the difference between a good Summer movie and a bad one is not versimilitude. You admit as much when you say you like Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet. Whatever this films flaws, “realism” is not one of them.
To reiterate my point above. If you’ve got some reason for thinking this film is anymore “ludicrous” than Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Terminator then I’ll hear you out.
I can’t argue that the film’s thematically light, maybe even more so than Terminator but probably not more than Star Wars. Thematically it’s better than all TNG movies but is probably worse than most Kirk / Spock movies. By the way, the central theme is hardly the mystery you’ve made it out to be. The film is about friendship and finding a place you belong. The whole universe is bent askew but still this crew find each other and come together. I don’t think it’s deep I’m just answering the question for you because apparently you didn’t watch the film correctly.
It’s superficial, but people go see these films for superficial reasons. When it comes to what drives a film like this they get it right and do a good job. That first half is a well oiled machine. It’s hits the ground at break neck speed, creates some ingenious set pieces, builds steadily escallating suspense and even finds time for effective characterization (Some of the critics seem to be in denial about this. If you care to challenge me I’ll easily win the debate. It’s simply a matter of fact).
The characters work really well, the cast is quite good. Didn’t care much for Zach Quinto. But Karl Urban, Pine, Bruce Greenwood, Kal Penn, Simon Pegg all do good work. Your complaints about the characters just fail. You didn’t believe them?! Apparently you believed in Indiana Jones, John McClaine, Peter Parker, Han Solo etc… None work as “real characters”, none of them could carry a drama. They work because screen writers find ways to endear them to us through quick moments of characterization. I can think of several of those moments in Star Trek. Kirk saying good bye to his wife. McCoy on the shuttle. Spock accusing Kirk in cadet school. Vulcan imploding before Spock’s eyes. Point to me the characterization in Raiders of the Lost Ark that’s better. For that matter how are Kirk and Spock from the original show / movies any deeper? What makes those characters successful is not depth.
They don’t do a very good job with Eric Bana’s villain. For me there was enough else going on that I didn’t miss him particularly. At least not while watching the film. I actually think Bana brings physical intensity to the role. But yeah, basically he’s wasted. They could’ve cast a soap opera star.
@ I wrote ACTION COMIC BOOK MOVIES
and I wrote
@ Split some ridiculous hair all you want
@ The ‘action comic book movies’ generally mean big SFX, and the action movie is more like the ’80s beefcake stuff.
And curiously enough it excludes actual action comics.
There’s more character development in Indy shooting that one guy than there is in anything in the new Star Trek film.
it doesnt look that different from Nemesis , and what does look new is more Serenity/Firefly-ish, and I dont care for how that looks at all.
@ There’s more character development in Indy shooting that one guy than there is in anything in the new Star Trek film.
You might like that scene better than anything in ST but it’s not of a different kind than what’s in ST, it’s exactly as “superficial” as what Kurt’s complaining about. Also that scene isn’t “character development” it’s characterization.
@ it doesnt look that different from Nemesis
Oh my god. You’re just wrong.
Okay Rusty, lets put this into a couple questions
1. What is Star Trek about?
2. Name two great scenes in Star Trek, and explain why.
I can’t answer either.
“Oh my god. You’re just wrong.”
I guess you’re right. Nemesis didnt drown every shot in fucking lens flare.
@ 1. What is Star Trek about?
This film or in general? If you’re asking about the movie I answer the question above. In your defense it’s buried in a tome of text.
@ 2. Name two great scenes in Star Trek, and explain why.
The opening scene and the sky diving / fight on the plat form. If you’d like to know why it’s all above.
@ I guess you’re right. Nemesis didnt drown every shot in fucking lens flare.
Lens flare (which I don’t even think is the correct term for over lighting the shot the way they do) is poor evidence to support your claim that “it doesnt look that different from Nemesis”.
Youtube still exists, the way space and anomolies/events/etc are handled in Star Trek is consistent and has that ‘Star Trek look’ and its continued here. The way the dark elements in Nemesis were handled is a lot like how stuff on the Romulan ship were portrayed.
How come they can beam people falling from mid air but couldnt beam them to the platform? Because that would mean they couldnt skydive? I think Mr. Red Shirt wants to know.
The opening scene is a correct answer which is why I asked for two. The platform is not correct, it was shot with too much overhead panning and jumping around. i couldnt stand it and was bored after about a minute. Try again
Is it me, or are most of these complaints rather glib and superficial. I take the time to describe five or six elements of the film that I found appealing and well done. Goon’s response is “lens flare”. Apparently Goon’s visual analysis begins and ends with “lens flare”.
And then you complain that it’s too superficial. Maybe the film seems more superficial than usual because your approach to it was superficial.
“The film is about friendship and finding a place you belong.”
I can maybe see the latter, but the former – no way. Anything with friendship was tacked on and not really developed whatsoever. I watched the whole thing and still dont feel like Kirk and Spock are friends.
“Apparently Goon’s visual analysis begins and ends with “lens flare”.”
Or maybe I just dont want to cut and paste the longer comments I left on Film Junk.
But even so, I couldnt give an extremely detailed analysis…because theres simply not much to analyse.
Star Trek 2009 = “pew pew pew”
(I loved the Lens Flares and the overall look of the Bridge. Too bad they spent so little time on the ship. The old shows used to fetishize the ship, now it is merely vessel to get from point A to B. The new Enterprise is the Hyundai of Starfleet!
Rusty: @Kurt- The ‘action comic book movies’ generally mean big SFX, and the action movie is more like the ’80s beefcake stuff.
And curiously enough it excludes actual action comics.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the semantics Rusty. I can’t articulate myself any better to you. I surrender.
Let me put it this way – theres a lot of nostalgia carrying people liking these characters. Thats not unique to this film whatsoever, it happens with me frequently. You hand a filmmaker the ball with X amount of characters and for some they will run with it.
I’m not very familiar with Spock and Kirk beyond a few Star Trek movies and their limited involvement with the canon involving TNG. I like Star Trek well enough but I dont know the original series well at all and dont really care that I’m not familiar with it either. But this film didnt give me any reason to give a shit about these people, especially people like Scotty and Sulu. I had no investment in anything whatsoever and instead just got a mediocre action movie written by the guy behind the Island and Transformers.
The people who wrote those movies were more apparent for me on screen than the characters I’m supposed to love here, and its a roadblock to enjoying anything.
@Rot (just getting around to this): “Kurt have you seen the doc ‘For All Mankind’? What you are describing with Ascension sounds a lot like it, and I am wondering if having seen For All Mankind first, if Ascension would be as good.”
I’ve not seen this documentary yet, although have heard much about it and I’ll be getting a copy of the Criterion regular DVD at some point, I do love moonlanding stuff, and this is a major hole for me!
@ How come they can beam people falling from mid air but couldnt beam them to the platform?
This is further evidence in favor of your superficial viewing. It’s like you paid exactly enough attention to nitpick every plot hole. But stopped paying attention when they were conscientiously and even ingeniously laying out the piping for how and why that scene works. It sets up a dynamic action set piece, required only one or two lines of exposition and from a plot mechanics stand point was quite well done.
From boarding the enterprise to (spoiler) Winona Ryder’s death the movie fucking cooks. It’s 20 sustained minutes of brilliant pacing that take us up to the midpoint of the film. Unfortunately the second half never regains the momentum.
I loved seeing Nimoy but… I think those scenes could’ve been better. I can still appreciate them from a purely nostalgic standpoint.
I think the moral is that you can sit there and complain that space anomolies don’t look right. Or you can engage with the film (as all films ask you to do) and be rewarded with a fun adventure film.
….I’m wondering how to import all of this STAR TREK talk into the R3view that Andrew is posting up on Monday. Perhaps everyone will be too exhausted debating ST minutiae come next week. Despite the intensity in the above comments, I do think this one will be forgotten by June.
The other great scene (I don’t agree that the opening is that great though, had it had a decent score, it could have been amazing, but falls flat and is of course cliché’d, borderline roll-my-eyes cliché), is McCoys first introduction. That was the moment that stands out to me in this movie as blowing me away.
I think the visual side of this movie reaked of BSG (and Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars). Shaky zooms and all.
I think Kirk and McCoys friendship was beliveable enough for me. I mean you like Iron Man Goon, did you think the friendship with the black guy in that was believeable?
The main problem with Star Trek for me, is for a movie which seemingly has an action scene every 3 minutes (It would definitely be my candidate for most action ever), few of them are memorable, and there are no moments of grandeur because the score fails on every level. The two most important aspects of an action-adventure film are music and visual effects. The effects work, the music doesn’t, and it hurts the movie immensely. And they should have had a villain that was interesting, in order to make the film work on its own, instead of as part of a franchise. The lack of an interesting and engrossing conflict, makes the film feel more like a pilot – which is to be expected coming from a TV guy, but a very bad thing nonetheless.
“It’s like you paid exactly enough attention to nitpick every plot hole.”
its been said on this site a million times, if a movie loses you, its very easy to nitpick everything to death.
I’m all for a meaningless fun film, so long as its fun. but Star Trek stops being fun once they step foot on the Enterprise and it turns into an ADD confusing mess.
“I had no investment in anything whatsoever and instead just got a mediocre action movie written by the guy behind the Island and Transformers.
The people who wrote those movies were more apparent for me on screen than the characters I’m supposed to love here, and its a roadblock to enjoying anything.”
I agree 100% with this, but what lifts the film for me is the emotional engagement I feel when McCoy and Kirk are on screen. If you don’t have that, it’s not even mediocre in my opinion, I think it’s mediocre WITH it. Without it, it’s bad.
I can’t help but keep thinking of Iron Man though and how you liked it. I guess it’s just a matter of what you find ‘cool’.
Rusty: Do you like THE MUMMY franchise? X3? Tomb Raider? Sahara?
They are all Fun and empty adventure flicks.
Just curious.
(Personally, I want a little more from Star Trek than action-adventure. I want a little brain activity. Not all adrenaline and emotion – and honestly, the film fucks up emotion, despite several fine performances. They are acting against the empty green-screen that is the screenplay)
“The effects work, the music doesn’t, and it hurts the movie immensely.”
I agree to a point, it was okay in parts. Giacciano has done much better work. His Speed Racer score was top notch, and does great work on Lost on a consistent basis.
“I can’t help but keep thinking of Iron Man though and how you liked it. I guess it’s just a matter of what you find ‘cool’.”
If Iron Man was as much ‘pew pew pew’ as Star Trek became, I might not have liked it. As it is a good chunk of Iron Man is him building a suit and fucking up with a sassy house talking back to him , RDJ wisecracking and a funny robot arm. When I think of Iron Man, this is what I think of. I do actually like the action in it, but I appreciate in a ‘This is the dumb fun I hoped Transformers would be like” way. But again, I had just the right amount of action. Iron Man 2 may be too much for me. I wont know until I see it.
I think people on R3 think I love Iron Man way more than I do. I do indeed like it though, and the only time I saw it since I was actually just LISTENING to it as I made a halloween costume, and I still enjoyed it, because again, wisecracking carries quite a bit of it. I think its a case of me being the one that liked it on here and having to defend.
@ I can maybe see the latter, but the former – no way
Neither do I. They’ve earned each others respect. Why do they have to be friends at the end? I said the film was “about friendship” as in thematically, not “their friendship was great”. Kirk bonds with future Spock not Zach Quinto Spock.
@ I can’t articulate myself any better to you.
Is “articulate” really the right word for what you were trying to do. Because it’s seemed that you were arguing that “comic book” (oh sorry, “action comic book”) should mean whatever you happen to decide it means at any given moment, based on your complete ignorance on the subject.
And if anyone else has a problem with it based on their actual reading of an actual comic book (rather than just a movie based on a comic book) then the problem is that they’re being too specific.
@ @ I can’t [babble inanely] any better right now.
Fixed it for you.
Rusty: ““comic book” (oh sorry, “action comic book”) “
…er…actually ACTION COMIC BOOK MOVIE. But yea, I’m no expert. Dunno why you are so passionately against me on this. You clearly know more than I do. And no worries to that.
“THE MUMMY franchise? X3? Tomb Raider? Sahara?”
I despise those movies. I love Iron Man and enjoyed the hell out of Star Trek though. What does that say about me?
I think some of these arguments are silly and this particular thread of comments is reeking of smugness. For those movies you listed Kurt, the complaints are endless, from the terrible dialogue, to boring and uninteresting characters, to sloppy and unorganized scripts, to just being hokey in general.
Did anyone find the dialogue in Iron Man or Star Trek to be cringe-worthy? I can’t see an argument for it.
“The lack of an interesting and engrossing conflict, makes the film feel more like a pilot”
I can buy this from Henrik, for sure and I think he makes some real valid points (especially the unmemorable music – it’s a shame they couldn’t use the trailer music – Two Steps from Hell’s ‘Freedom Fighters’). It does feel like a set up for something more. Which is fine by me. As far as I’m concerned, it wasn’t enough to damage the movie much for me. The same can be said about Iron Man. The final conflict? Embarrassingly boring, but I still gave the movie 4 stars, for all its other strengths.
*shrugs*
I’m not going to continue in this conversation. I don’t see much worth arguing over here. For some of us, it was enough to capture our imaginations, for others, it wasn’t. I go back to that time I commented how I spent my childhood daydreaming about being whisked away into space to other worlds by aliens, and something in this movie brought some of those childhood feelings back. That’s good enough for me.
Isn’t it clear that comic book movies aim to take complicated issues and boil them down to clear heroes and villains and simplify the human condition to easily parsable components?
It ain’t Bergman or Antonionni (or heck, even Linklater..) We agree on this much? I’ll take any of the above over just about any Comic book movie out there these days. Yes there are exceptions to both rules, but you get the gist.
@Jonathan – I don’t find the dialogue in IRONMAN to be cringeworthy, in fact, much of RDJ’s stuff is pretty solid “That’s the way God did it….”
But as a film, (and I’m stealing this phrase from GOON), Ironman is “Blazingly Mediocre”; a tag I’ll happily apply (smug or no -> I know what I like and don’t like!) to Star Trek, Ironman, and all of those ‘even worse’ films mentioned above.
If I were 12, I’d have shit my pants with Star Trek. But well, I’ve evolved a bit since then, and now a lot of things I’d have not been critical over are deal-breakers for me.
2001, Solaris (both versions), Alien, heck, even Sunshine, The Terminator, and The Fountain can instill a sense of wonder for me. But the new Trek, not so much. And as for action sci-fi pictures, 28 Weeks Later… hits the sweet spot, even with a lot of plot flaws, at least it is saying something amongst its own bombast and logic irregularities…
@ I think the visual side of this movie reaked of BSG
The Fuck? All you people are out of you fucking minds! What do you do, write “ST looks exactly like _____”
And then pick a name out of your ass? Have you ever even seen BSG?
@ Rusty: Do you like THE MUMMY franchise? X3? Tomb Raider? Sahara?
I’ve only seen X-3. I liked it ok.
Don’t pretend that those examples were meant as some neutral description. You could’ve just as easily cited Spider-man 2, Incredibles, X2, Raiders, Empire Strikes Back… you picked those particular films for their derisive conotation.
How are any of those films less or more ludicrious than others? Perhaps some are thematically stronger than others but none of them have theme as their main strength anyways. That’s why I think your criticism fails.
Neither you, goon, or henrik have any idea why you don’t like this film.
@ Personally, I want a little more from Star Trek than action-adventure.
At least that sentence is the begining of an honest analysis of your disappointment with the film.
I don’t think anyone here would argue against 2001, Solaris, and Sunshine being far better, far more daring, far more interesting, thought-provoking, and complex pictures.
That isn’t what the conversation is about. It’s fine that you don’t feel the same way about it, I definitely don’t expect everyone to feel the same way. I just find some of the arguments over it silly and muddled.
@ Isn’t it clear that comic book movies aim to take complicated issues and boil them down to clear heroes and villains and simplify the human condition to easily parsable components?
That’s not clear at all. Does American Splendor do that? Does (shudder) Ghost World do that? Persopolis? All “comic book movies”.
@Jonathan. Fair enough. Just stating where I’m coming from.
@ I don’t think anyone here would argue against 2001, Solaris, and Sunshine being far better
Honestly, you may as well complain that Indiana Jones isn’t an accurate depiction of archeology.
@Rusty. Fair enough. I think X2, Raiders, Empire and Spidey 2 do a heck-of-a-lot more in the character and story department than Star Trek. Hope that clarifies things. I’m not against big spectacle action films, but I like to have something to chew on as well. I think those counter examples above have wit and depth in their screenplays and stories compared to the new Star Trek.
Indiana Jones was clearly designed to be a big budget cliff hanger flick, the construction of its own internal logic is pretty rock-solid. Is Star Trek supposed to be that? Well Star Trek has a lot of other parts lying around that make it hard to evalate the new one in a vaccuum, like say Raiders.
I’m not looking for realism all the time, merely that the film do something other than run at breakneck speed from on set piece to the next. Raiders actually does allow for a fair bit of breathing room that isn’t stacked with gags…
@ Fair enough. Just stating where I’m coming from.
The problem Kurt is where you’re coming is a position of ignorance. Why are we having this debate?
Why don’t you just admit that the term “comic book movie” as you use it unspecific, derisive and for all purposes meaningless. The only people who “know what you mean” are other people who don’t read comics. The term promotes ignorance. It’s silly that you’re spending 20-30 posts defending it. It’s the type of stunt I’ve come to expect from Andrew. I typically hold you in higher regard.
(And @Rusty, I’m not sure at this point if you are just taking the piss out of me, or where this debate is going…If you are looking for a high degree of consistency and iron-clad logic in my reviews and opinions, well it simply isn’t there. I react to a lot of things in subtly different ways. Ways that are not always easy to articulate (well, I’m doing my best here, even if that doesn’t pass muster with everyone), these things are tough beasts to wrangle in. Even if you do not 100% understand where I’m coming from, I sincerely hope you still enjoy reading.
“Honestly, you may as well complain that Indiana Jones isn’t an accurate depiction of archeology.”
W-w-what do you mean?
And c’mon, Kurt… comparing Star Trek to the greatest movie of all time? Of course it isn’t going to hold a candle to it.
Hah. We are now getting to the same page (and the above two repsonses were posted simultanously).
I don’t disagree that I use the term COMIC BOOK MOVIE in a derisive way, think about quality ratio of these things over the past 15-20 years. I know that any genre has way more crap entries than quality, but I think the COMIC BOOK MOVIE (and I mean this as SFX style spectacles, men in tights, sort of movies, not the GHOST WORLDs, AMERICAN SPLENDORs, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCEs or even FROM HELLs (albeit that last one is pretty weak) is worse than even Sci Fi, Horror (well maybe not), ROM-Com, etc. Or maybe it is because these things are so pervasive in the culture and cost a bajillion dollars. I’m not entirely sure, but I kinda dig on the pre-SUMMER-season age when there were a lot more ‘widely advertised’ movies that were of many different genres and types. I tend to get my back up about all of these movies boiling down superheroes and origins into 120 minute thrill-a-minute rides.
…And Star Trek has finally succumbed to this…Despite that most previous incarnations of the show and whatnot at least tried to ask interesting questions….now SLAM-BANG all the way. Star Trek never tried to be cool in a conventional sense, but that has clearly changed in 2009.
@Jonathan. It wasn’t me, it was Rusty.
“Hell, in the Alien Quadralogy discussion you rail against fanboys except you and Jay are the two clearly acting like fanboys in the discussion.”
Ummm…why am I a part of this? I’m not allowed to dislike Alien 4? A little confused on this one. If you’re trying to equate me with Kurt’s hate for ‘Action Comic Book Movies’, you clearly don’t know anything about my movie watching habits. I’ve been vocally on board with lots of ‘blockbuster’ junk over the years. I had fun with both Fantastic Four movies, I was — seemingly — the only person who didn’t shit the vest about how horrible Indy 4 was, and I liked Hellboy 2 and Spider-Man 3 (to a degree). I really have no issues with comic book movies or blockbusters, so I don’t understand why I’m even included in this conversation.
@Rusty: “It’s the type of stunt I’ve come to expect from Andrew. I typically hold you in higher regard.”
Whoa. Backhanded swipe at Andrew.
Hi Jay. Welcome to The Suck.
I don’t think it matters what ST is supposed to be. I think, like Batman, the idea endures 40 years later because it can be many different things. It discards much of what I like about Star Trek (so did the last 4 star trek movies) but keeps other parts I like. I think they kept the aesthetics and the character dynamics.
I think you and Goon both overstate your case and do a poor job supporting it. To hear you guys tell it the film has no themes or characters and is just a succession of physics defying explosions.
Tomorrow I’ll try to find time to detail why I agree with many of the criticisms against Orci and (uh… the other guy) but also many of their strengths are over looked.
“Neither you, goon, or henrik have any idea why you don’t like this film.”
I do know, and have articulated it. You’re points about it being on the same level as Indiana Jones or Star Wars ring true for me, I agree completely, the difference is I’m not claiming those movies are better. I think you’re getting us mixed up, we’re not on the same side.
I just can’t look at a shaky zoom-in-zoom-out shot and not think of BSG. The “look-how-serious-we-are-there-is-no-sound-in-space-except-when-we-have-to-have-our-cool-spacefights” reminded me of BSG as well.
Giacchino is a hack that belongs on TV. It seems he got lucky and made an almost-great score for Speed Racer, by far his only interesting work, but everything else has been crap and/or shit. It annoys me to no end that so many people making movies, apparently care so little about their music. But I guess if your idea of being a cool rebel is listening to BEASTIE BOYS, you’re bound to know jack shit about music.
Kurt, no matter how you twist it, you are writing on a blog. You can’t blame it on the blog that you write ignorant bullshit that confuses some and enrages others, just to make sure you keep your “Hehe, I know nothing about what the kids like these days, I’m just an old conservative guy and all this flashy zingbang I’m not even going to take my time to learn how to talk about. I will still talk about it though, on a blog, and then blame my lack of modernness and blogging skills whenever people call me out”. If writing on a blog fucks your articulation up so bad, I recommend you stop.
ooopsie, missed this comment in the onslaught above….
@Rusty “I can’t argue that the film’s thematically light, maybe even more so than Terminator but probably not more than Star Wars. Thematically it’s better than all TNG movies but is probably worse than most Kirk / Spock movies. By the way, the central theme is hardly the mystery you’ve made it out to be. The film is about friendship and finding a place you belong. The whole universe is bent askew but still this crew find each other and come together. I don’t think it’s deep I’m just answering the question for you because apparently you didn’t watch the film correctly.”
I’ve got no problem with much of this, all of the Next Generation movies STINK. I’ll take the Shatner helmed Star Trek V over any of them. I’d probably even take the new Trek over any of the Next Generation movies. I just wasn’t writing about movies on blogs when all of those turd-burgers landed in the multiplexes…
THe film is about Friendship and finding a place you belong. Snore, so is most CGI kiddie flicks. I would think the new Trek film could do better than that, or, better yet, do just that (a pretty universal theme) a lot better than it did. The plot contrived to get those characters and it contrived quite clumsily. Quinto-Spock ‘jettisoning’ Kirk off the Enterprise onto the ice planet, just like that? Crazy. That he lands about 1km from Nimoy-Spock’s ice cave. LUDICROUS. That they end up walking on over to Scottie who happens to be in exile (lame) there. THEY’VE GONE INTO FUCK’N PLAID.
@Rust “It discards much of what I like about Star Trek (so did the last 4 star trek movies) but keeps other parts I like. I think they kept the aesthetics and the character dynamics.”
Fair enough. We are in entire agreement here. But it is the script and the tone that simply go too far, not off the original dynamic, rather simply the malaise of modern blockbuster filmmaking. This is the EXACT same thing that happened with INDY IV.
But then all is balanced out by The Dark Knight, BSG and the Bond reboots…which turned out for the better.
@Henrik: “But I guess if your idea of being a cool rebel is listening to BEASTIE BOYS, you’re bound to know jack shit about music.”
I also thought the Beastie Boys track was lazy as fuck. I mean its a great little song, with a schlocky fun video, but playing a song called “SABOTAGE” while destroying a relatives car as an act of rebellion is pretty fuckin’ lazy soundtracking. You know, the kind of thing I’d expect in a Michael Bay movie.
Now if they played Lou Reed’s Perfect Day, or Radio Head’s Karma Police I’d have dug that scene more. Maybe. The whole corvette sequence should have been just the teaser trailer – it is so unbearably lame that it doesn’t even belong in even this silly film.
@ I don’t disagree that I use the term COMIC BOOK MOVIE in a derisive way, think about quality ratio of these things over the past 15-20 years.
But the problem is it is also derisive to COMIC BOOK BOOKS. You’re clearly using “comic book” to mean “stupid”.
@ I mean this as SFX style spectacles, men in tights, sort of movies, not the GHOST WORLDs, AMERICAN SPLENDORs, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCEs or even FROM HELL
first, an obligatory nod to the FACT that both GHOST WORLD and AHOV are irredeamible pieces of shit.
Now that that’s out of the way… How do you not see that this is a problem? Your definition doesn’t mean anything. It includes films that have nothing to do with comic books and excludes actual comic book properties. Whatever you think you’re refering to, “comic book” is clearly the wrong word.
Imagine if I said that I hate “foreign films” and all my examples of foreign films were Schindlers List, Blood Diamond, Munich, The Good German, Letters From Iwa Jima… etc etc. Wouldn’t that be a problem?
Imagine if every time someone corrected me I said “you all know what I mean”. It’s not just an affront to cinema, it’s an affront to accuracy in writing. We should say what we mean, not hiss at people who point out when we’re inarticulate.
@ Whoa. Backhanded swipe at Andrew.
I messed up. It was meant to be front handed.
@ I’ll take the Shatner helmed Star Trek V over any of them.
ha ha. I unironically like Star Trek 1 & 5 a lot! We’re in agreement on them
@Henrik: “Kurt, no matter how you twist it, you are writing on a blog. You can’t blame it on the blog that you write ignorant bullshit that confuses some and enrages others, just to make sure you keep your “Hehe, I know nothing about what the kids like these days, I’m just an old conservative guy and all this flashy zingbang I’m not even going to take my time to learn how to talk about. I will still talk about it though, on a blog, and then blame my lack of modernness and blogging skills whenever people call me out”. If writing on a blog fucks your articulation up so bad, I recommend you stop.”
On Blogging. Well Henrik, it ain’t perfect, and I never claim to ever come close to perfection. There are so many better writers out there than I, but I enjoy the conversations and interaction that blogging affords. So I stumble along. Hopefully we will all eventually get better. That’s the way it works. But I’m not aiming for scholarship with this here blog. But thanks.
I don’t think all of my bullshit is ignorant. Some of it is merely ill-informed.
@Rusty – For better or worse, Star Trek The Motion Picture is my favourite of the bunch (even if it is highly at odds with the tone of TOS). In favour of further ranking, 1 is probably followed by 6 & 2 (tie) then 3, 5, and finally 4 which is the goofiest and jokiest of the all the Original Cast movies, and that is certainly saying something!
The Next Generation pictures I won’t even bother ranking, I just pretend they are regular episodes of the show that happened to be shot in ‘Scope and lit better, although I recall the last couple to be extra-special dreadful. I don’t understand why people like First Contact. Fuckin’ terrible movie as I recall it.
@ You’re points about it being on the same level as Indiana Jones or Star Wars ring true for me, I agree completely, the difference is I’m not claiming those movies are better. I think you’re getting us mixed up, we’re not on the same side.
Duly noted.
I agree, I was referring specifically to this particular instance, which seems to come up constantly.
I wish I could make Star Trek instead of JJ Abrams.
@Henrik – “I just can’t look at a shaky zoom-in-zoom-out shot and not think of BSG. The “look-how-serious-we-are-there-is-no-sound-in-space-except-when-we-have-to-have-our-cool-spacefights” reminded me of BSG as well.”
This was actually FIREFLY first. I believe that show innovated the visual style. BSG borrowed the technique after the fact and pushed it to a wider audience. And the aesthetic of Star Trek ’09 took it as well.
A lot of this discussion is actually in my review of Star Trek, which I wrote earlier today. I’m sure it will not be articulated any better there (heh), when Andrew gets around to publishing it with the rest of the R3 crew (the so called R3view).
Oh, I never saw Firefly. Obviously not shown on TV here. But if BSG made it popular (who would want to copy a failure?), my point is still valid and brilliant
.
I go 6, then probably 2.
After that I’m not sure. I might even go with this new one for third, it’s tough to judge new stuff though. Maybe 1,3,5, 4 probably comes at the end.
I love the elegence of 1, Jerry Goldsmith’s awesome overture.
3 because it introduces the awesome Bird of Prey design. One of my favorite space ships.
5 for this imortal exchange:
“what use has god for a space ship?”
“Jim, you don’t ask god for ID.”
Then they shoot god in the face with lasers. The End. Awesome!
4′s got whales. So that’s cool.
I’ll agree with you about not bothering to rank TNG, except to say First Contact is the least terrible. I like the show though.
I’m hungover as shit today. But Rusty made me lol. Nice job:
5 for this imortal exchange:
“what use has god for a space ship?”
“Jim, you don’t ask god for ID.”
Then they shoot god in the face with lasers. The End. Awesome!
Generations is probably the least terrible, but it is terrible enough for these eyes. And it’s got The Shatner chopping firewood with fierce intensity (or bad gas, I’m not sure which)
(I liked TNG show very much as well. Funny that we are finding common ground on much of the previous Trek despite a wide distance on Trek ’09)
@ I also thought the Beastie Boys track was lazy as fuck. I mean its a great little song, with a schlocky fun video, but playing a song called “SABOTAGE” while destroying a relatives car as an act of rebellion is pretty fuckin’ lazy
Unfortunately the films best scene is immeadiately followed by the film’s worst scene.
How can we communicate to the audience a what rebellious badass this kirk is?
Have him steal a car when he’s 12!
That’s not bad, but we need to take it to the next level of bad-assedness.
steal a car while listening to the beastie boys!
Good, but still not bad-ass enough. We need everyone to know this aint yer dad’s cpt. kirk
Then he gets in a bar fight!
C’mon, this is pussy shit! More bad-assed.
While wearin a leather jacket…
…
in every goddamn scene!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome!
[Million high fives! Electric guitars! Explosions!]
Meanwhile, across town at Wolverine headquarters. The exact same scenario.
I’m attacking a movie I didnt like, and Rusty is attacking the person who doesnt like it. Nice.
BSG did the zoom in zoom out shakey thing best, and I believe its because the military drumbeats and score behind it fit so much better.
“Giacchino is a hack that belongs on TV.”
His Incredibles and Ratatouille scores were both roundly praised.
not to mention the song at the end of Cloverfield that everyone likes.
Anyways, I know exactly why I didnt like Star Trek as I watched it – I didn’t have any fun and was bored. I’m going back after the fact with a scalpel to figure out why, and that is mostly the writing and character development. And while picking at that I’m finding a lot of other things I didnt particularly enjoy either that don’t make a huge impact on my opinion – but is there.
“Now if they played Lou Reed’s Perfect Day, or Radio Head’s Karma Police I’d have dug that scene more.”
A kid would listen to the Beastie Boys. A kid popping on Lou Reed or Karma Police is much more blatantly forcing an authors hand.
Fair enough goon. That’s why I don’t music programme. Still thought the Beastie Boys was a lazy choice. And who knows what a 23rd century 12 year old would listen to. Sweedish Black metal infused with Gansta Rap and Monk Choirs with Chipmunk sped up lyrics? Or Chopin?
I will get into the whole Star Trek debate when the review comes up but with regards to Sabotage being a lazy choice… really?
I cannot think of another film that has used that song, maybe if it was Fight for the Right than I would agree, but sabotage was I thought a perfect choice.
and do you even know Karma Police, Kurt, that would be kind of funny actually, its so slow it would contrast with the speed of the event.
So Rusty you object to the young Kirk stuff in here for its on-the-nose character development but the same stuff in Lost you can overlook? Can we forget twitchy Jack beard listening to Nirvana?
wow I can understand Kurt disliking Star Trek but I am genuinely baffled that his is the consensus view, at least here, the rest of the world outside R3 seems to enjoy it.
Ummm…why am I a part of this?
You are being sucked in by Kurt’s idiocy wake. He calls Aliens 4 a comic book movie, then claims the changes were done to satisfy fanboys, but the person acting like the biggest fanboy on the podcast is you, whom he agrees with. I was demonstrating that not only does Kurt not know what a comic book movie is, but what a fanboy is either (unlike Kurt I don’t use comic book or fanboy as derogatory terms because they aren’t). Your feelings on comic book films are irrelevant because you’re not a moron and are capable of liking or disliking a film based on its own merits and not arbitrarily dumping every film you hate into an imaginary genre that validates your ignorant biases. Unlike, say, Kurt.
I’m not allowed to dislike Alien 4?<
Since you asked no, you are not allowed to dislike it. For any reason. Ever. Sucks for you.
In that case, I like the use of wide angle lenses on cross-eyed close ups in Alien 4.
Huh? Fanboy is a derogatory term.
From the Urban Dictionary:
’1.A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.
2. A person who is completely loyal to a game or company regardless of if they suck or not.
3. A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don’t like whatever it is they like.’
Fanboy is synonymous with fan and as such you can take whatever meaning from it you like. Many comic books fans are quite proud of being fanboys, and don’t use it in a derogatory sense at all. Though if you want to use definition 3 (the only derogatory definition listed), that means you must be a fanboy since you used it in an insulting manner. So I win either way.
Though you might want to re-read definition 3 Kurt. It is actually ripping on the attempted insult and the person issuing it, not the fanboy.
Wow, that argument is circular! It’s an infinite loop. But yea, I see your point. You fuckin’ fanboy.
@ the same stuff in Lost you can overlook?
I don’t know why you’ve chosen to thread jack this discussion. But which specific scene in LOST that I said I liked and is exactly like ST are you refering to exactly?
I’m pretty sure this is the Cinecast where you two discussed star ratings and your frustrations with them. If not, I don’t really care because I’m not going through each podcast until I find it.
Anyways, James over at my site finally posted his Netflix Ratings Rubric and I highly recommend everyone check it out. He really has outdone himself and hopefully it should spur some interesting discussion.
I have no frustrations with star ratings. And the more I think about them, the more I actually like them. The main reason being is that if I haven’t seen a movie yet, I certainly don’t want to read a review. Some people do (and that’s fine); but not me. However I do want to know if someone liked it. So I’ll check out hypothetical Brad’s review and see that he gave it 3.5 stars out of 4. Ok, so he really liked it. That’s all I need to know for now. I’ll come back later after I’ve seen the film and read why he gave it that score.
Secondly, for me – and maybe this is just ingrained in my brain for some reason – I get a gut level reaction immediately leaving the theater on a 1-5 scale (using halves, so technically a 10 point scale I guess). Then I come home and write about why I had the 2 star rating in my head or what made a film get to the coveted 5 star position. It’s all gut level reaction and it is usually spot on and I will stand by it pretty much forever in most cases.