Cool News
Mr. Plinkett's at it again! This time he discusses JJ Abrams' Star Trek!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with the latest from the infamous Mr. Plinkett of Red Letter Media. You probably know Mr. Plinkett from his epic, hilarious and surprisingly insightful reviews of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.
I'm a little behind the curve on this on and it's posting a little late, but it can't pass by without a mention. I'm packing for a trip to London... I leave for the airport in about 2 hours, yet I still sat down and watched all 70-ish minutes of Plinkett's review of JJ Abrams' Star Trek.
You either love the dude's random, non-PC humor or you find him grating and offensive. I'm in the former camp. And I love JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Sure, it's filled with a bucket-load of convenience, but the pacing, action, casting and character dynamics work so well that I'm for the whole enchilada.
Surprisingly, Plinkett and I are very close on our opinions when it comes to JJ's Trek. Here's the man to give you a good laugh on this lazy Sunday afternoon! Enjoy!
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 12:57 p.m. CST
Fuck this guy! Stuff like this gives Nerds a bad name!
by RedEgiraahgnal
2 hours full of the most popular sentences of every message board, read in an annoying voice that makes me wants to blow my brain out after 10 seconds, sprinkled with some lame attempts of humor about him being a wife abusing psychopath? And all the nerds go: "Yay, that's smart and hilarious!" I got news for you: It isn't! <br> Mr Plinkett and The Big Bang Theory (they laugh AT you, not with you!) are right now the sad nadir of modern geek culture.
-
go to outlawvern.com instead <br>
-
Not sure why though.
-
Oh Oh....I got my cat pregnant
-
For something a little interesting also check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmGMQbzfHAo
-
exactly what you said.
-
whats not to love? waaahh waahhhh, the reviews are too long..waaahh wahhh, his voice is annoying. waaaah waaah, i know, i'll insult this guy and everyone else on this site cuz im a frustrated writer whom no one cares about waaaah waaaah. hey red, put the pacifier back in and shut tha hell up witchur negativity. it's sunday, put ur darkside to rest.
-
I don't understand why this guy pisses people off so much. His reviews are well written, well edited and funny. It's a lot easier to type "this sucks" in 30 seconds than to actually get off your ass and make something and put it out there.
-
well put
-
Good review. I like Plinkett's stuff, but the whole misanthropic serial killer schtick gets old quick. It works better the less he relies on it.
-
Star Trek (2009) is fun, refreshing, action packed and enjoyable. It's not depressing, dull and misguided like the other TNG films. My only wish is that the next Trek film brings more of the sci-fi element back in place of the sci-fantasy, as Plinkett pointed out.
-
I meant "the TNG films" not "the other TNG films".
-
Christ, he's annoying as fuck on every level, from the put-upon voice on down. If anyone actually finds this dipshit insightful, they're just spanking themselves to having another dipshit reiterate the same points they thought themselves. Big waste of everything, thank you very much.
-
The people who actually think he's making a genuine point are mindless, droning fanboys who simply like the fact that another annoying fanboy turned around and voiced all of their opinions in a 60+ minute rant. <P>Fuck this guy. Don't be geek sheep. Think for yourself.
-
And the only "bad name" he gives nerds is the one they have given themselves, by being humorless, taking aspects over-seriously about non-hard sci-fi like Star Trek, and by reacting like stabbed rodents when their views are criticized.
-
praising shutter island, hating ANYTHIN that has the words M Night involved
-
lets make sure we understand the difference
-
would videos as smart as these get so much shit. My God some of you are pathetic/stupid/both.
-
If you do, you are seriously underachieving in life.
-
I still laugh at this when someone posted that for the SW ones.
-
The only way to go from the talking gangbangs of TNG movies was to go from one extreme to the other. Hopefully the spectrum will become more moderate later on.
-
Star Trek was a great film and a much needed kick in the pants to the franchise, but it isn't without it's faults and isn't aperfect film, great review, I hope plinkett does more of these. I like to see him critique big embarrasing nerd films like the prequels, but also seeing him critticially taking a look at the films we enjoy is also fun
-
Come on, you know you missed him!! He's see this and have an apoplectic shit-fit! I can't wait! <p> <p> Love Plinkett's stuff - the serial-killer asides start to grate after a while - but his Phantom Meance / Attack Of The Clones review are really laudable achievements in themselves. <p> <p> Right - off to watch this one. Glad to hear he seems to like it. I fucking love the flick myself.
-
The guy is hilarious when he's actually talking about a movie. But everything cones crashing to a halt when he drops the movie review and locks a girl in the basement, or whatever. Drop the filler and just talk about the film.
-
for more than 20 seconds at a time. <p> He sounds dumb and annoying. And he can't pronounce 'Spontaneously'
-
These reviews are usually an hour or so...I can't watch someone disect a movie for that long without a fucking break...plus the RedLetterMedia guys make some horror films so it's not crazy that they would have a comedic horror/suspense element in the reviews...plus Plinkett is a character all to himself not just some random voice reviewing flicks...if you don't like the style of these reviews then don't watch em...but I'll take reviews like this over the standard shit rottentomatoes compiles any day
-
WHY? I don't get it. I can't watch more than five seconds of him, and he's even more nitpicky than AsimovLives.
-
if you don't understand why he can't pronounce certain words then I think the spirit of these reviews is lost on you
-
His reviews are well thought out and written. every point he makes is a good one, I agree whole-heartedly with EVERYTHING this guys said about the two STAR WARS movies he mercilessly destroyed, and he's actually DOING SOMETHING, as opposed to sitting here bitching, like so many do on AICN.<P> To the whiners - SHUT THE FUCK UP, OR GO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, ONLY BETTER. Until then, stop wasting time fucking moaning because some other geek actually got himself noticed and you're still sitting in your Mom's basement, wanking like a depraved gibbon living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew. And yes, I am grossly generalising, but I'm aiming this at whiny geek bitches, so it's justified. Intelligent rebuttals to the above are ALWAYS welcome...
-
cause star trek has always been cheesy bullshit. if you can't love it for what it is, just shut the fuck up already you fat waste.
-
I like to know what makes this reviewer so damn good? He takes other peoples hard work and nitpicks the hell out of it? Wow, that's hard to do.
-
But his reviews are very well done...
-
and spot on observations. Keep em comming buddy.
-
cause i imagine thats what half od you fags sound like when your talking about a movie raping your childhood
-
I agree with those that know genius when they see it. This guy (my apologies to the guys on here) but THIS guy leaves everyone in the shade when it comes to reviews. If you don't get it then you don't want it, so fuck off.
-
Usually nails what's right / wrong with these films.
-
and probably does not have an original thought in his fat bloated head. Fuck him and fuck his lack of speaking properly! Fuck fuck fuckiddy fuck fuck fuck!
-
It's okay when it's a fluff movie to make no sense? If that's the case, I can't wait to see his "Cats & Dogs" review...
-
...to get around to no matter how "fun" and "engaging" it may be, the plot is completely senseless of full of more holes than swiss cheese.
-
Where's that?
-
Where is he to praise it though?
-
if he were a movie fanatic
-
It's been my experience that whenever someone suggests 'better' reading material, it's usually their own, and it's usually terrible.
-
Why get so upset because alot of people agree with Plinkett? It doesn't make them sheep. It is healthy to agree with a people and be on the same page once in a while chill the fuck out.
-
I will be using that term from now on whenever someone sexualizes something that didn't need to be sexualized.
-
Some dumb fucks on here don't understand that the VOICE is an ACT?? Oh, and he's bang on with most of his reviews. Why SHOULDN'T he nitpick the shit out of Episode I? It makes absolutely no sense as a story when you look at it logically. He's right to do that. And, you hypocrites, it's basically what we've been doing regularly since 1999 anyway.
-
Like gathering us all together and calling us drones in one quick witted statement is any different? Stop letting your hatred for abrams dissuade you from genuinely enjoying a funny, neutral and SMART take on the star trek movie. Get over yourself, by telling people how pathetic they are you aren't making them think any differently..you're just looking like a cocksucker.
-
Do I really need another review telling me TPM sucks?
-
Quint? Any possibility of your getting back on track with those delightful TWILIGHT ZONE ones? From other talkbacks people appear to be eagerly waiting the next batch.
-
Now he needs to get ROTS review done.
-
Today might be the only day your opinion might matter at all. Where are you?
-
... to the TNG, and none of them have the balls and the guts to compare to a proper TOS movie, like, say, THE WRATH OF KAHN. Or else they would risk have their delusion shattered. The illustion that Jar Jar Abrams' NO TREK is a really very bad movie.<br><br>So you want to have fun watching movies sometimes? Yeah, me too. I didn't had that when i watched this attrocity, quite the contray. The least fun movie i saw in the whole of 2009, bar none. Not so much the worst, but the least fun. Insulting, numbness and depression would far better describe my mood and feelings afterwards. Fuck it.<br><br>And a plague on the whole nonsense of pseudo-arguments people pull out of their asses to keep their delusions about this very bad movie. Whenever i see people go to great lehgts to bash a dumb movie like CLASH OF THE TITANS and yet get all cosy and nice and priotective of Jar Jar Abram's latest abomination, i know for sure the geekry is screwed up and no longer reason and intelligence is what governs their opinions and preferences, but mere randomness and devotion to the hack that over-hypes himself the most. It was true with Mickey Bay, it's true now with Jar Jar Abrams, who knows who's next. Sad, really. The geekry is a joke now. Asses for sales, and for free.
-
Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo!
-
So it's no surprise that most of the geeks look up to him. I'm loathe to endorse the scribblings of one Drew McWeeny, but he rightfully tore this guy a new asshole over at Hitfix.<p>Here's the problem with Plinkett: it's not that he's performing an evisceration of the prequels. Plenty of people have done that, in some cases justifiably (and in others not). It's that a)the issue is a dead horse, and b)this guy has basically stolen most of his criticism, in fact cherry picked the best of them, from over 10 years of said moaning. He is saying absolutely nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times over, yet passes it off a shis own. Yet the geeks seem to lap it up and praise him for it, probably because it gives them some sense of power in their otherwise meaningless little lives. Oh, yes, stick it to Lucas! It's the kind of pathetic thing that makes me ashamed to be a Star Wars fan. Get a life and let it go.<p>Also, if you actually examine this guy's criticism in depth, not only does he contradict himself constantantly, but many of his attacks are, in fact, nothing but personal preference disguised as a legit critique of the scripts. Utter subjective nonsense. One of his criticms of Menace was some tosh about how he didn't like Obi Wan going apeshit on Dart Maul. That's not any kind of 'flaw'; that's just an anal subjective thing known only to Plinkett himself. Yet he disguises it as an all-knowing knowledge of screenwriting. All of this when he ISN'T content to throw out unsubstantiated vagaries and glib remarks.<p>Of course, all of that would be annoying as shit by itself, but couple that with jokes about dead hookers and unnecessary cursing, deliverd in the unlistenable voice of Walter Matthau stricken with mumps, and you've got a first class irritating chump on your hands.
-
That pleases me.
-
"The illustion that Jar Jar Abrams' NO TREK is a really very bad movie" should read "The illustion that Jar Jar Abrams' NO TREK is nothing but a really very bad movie". I can repost my whole coment above, if anybody wishes, for better clarity.
-
About ten minutes in when he does the bit about entertainment options these days and why everything is a reboot, prequel, sequel, re-imagining. Anyone interested in media, movies, or the intersection of modern entertainment and technology should watch that bit. It was PURE GOLD.
-
The horror! The horror! Oh boy, the horror indeed!
-
or does he only review crowd pleasing blockbusters?
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 4:03 p.m. CST
That said, he's probably right about JJ Trek, by default
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
But that doesn't excuse his latest ramblings as anything other than a cynical attempt to generate web traffic by attacking every shiny new geek thing that turns.<p>Thinks he can do better? Apparently he made a film of his own, a fact which he should have kept quiet, since it is absolutely fucking awful. Those who can do, do. Those who can't...piss and moan, or show that they haven't really got the goods. Plinkett/ Red Letter Media are the latter and absolutely need to be shat out.
-
Hey, red-headed fatso, have you done what we all asked and added an edit fuction yet? No? Probably too busy watching Machete for the fourth time and stuffing your face. Why didn't you feel schweepy during Machete, Harry? Robert's 30 silver pieces jangling in your pocket keeping you awake, huh?
-
To be true about JJ Trek is to call it for what it is: a really bad movie whose populariry is only based on clever manufactured hype and nothing else.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 4:08 p.m. CST
RPLocke, if Plinkett thought he could generate traffic
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
by critiquing 2001, he would do. His reviews are cynical cash-grabs. Even geek outrage is bought and sold these days.
-
A really bad movie to Star Trek fans who only enjoy The Cage.
-
Using the guise of Mr. Plinkett is a very original take on internet reviews. It's icing on the cake. AVGN did this too, to great effect. Just think of all the sci-fi that takes itself too seriously. It dosen't end with Wars/Trek. The Matrix sequels operated under the sense that no matter what they did, people would love it. Just like the prequels. But unlike the prequels, Reloaded and Revolutions only took 5 years to suck, instead of 20. The jokes pretty much write themselves.
-
That is not the point. JJ Trek is monkey vomit indeed, but Plinkett's review is not one borne of passion, but one of tying his mast to geek outrage, which he has a history of doing. I agree with the criticism of JJ Trek as a bad movie; I do not agree with the agenda behind Plinkett's holier-than-thou rantings. His next target may be Inception, since his rants have little to do with the reality of the films' in questions qualities (or not).
-
so they made a Trekish movie. <p> Trekesque?
-
Agreed. If I want a good and funny SW "review", I'd go to rifftrax.
-
That's the weirdest thing i ever seen said about this JJ Trek subject and it's reactions. I'm not even quite sure what it's supposed to mean.
-
I'm saying that Older Trek fans seem to hate the new Trek movie, but they sure didn't like Enterprise or Voyager or DS9 either, and that was real Trek.
-
I think i understand your point, but the thing is, why a review this late in the game, anyway? It doesn't even coincide with anything related to the movie or it's players. It's not near the DVD release, it's not near the release of the new movie Jar Jar Abrams's movie, it's not near anything of interest or that has to do with the movie. Nothing. If this is a cash-in, it has a hell of a very weird sense of oportunity.
-
Not a Star Trek fan, but that was a good watch. Like the little jabs at the prequels. Think I'll go watch his reviews on those again.
-
It's called preferences. And THE CAGE is not a really proper ST episode, on account it was rejected and never aired. It's not cannon, it's a curio. Again,i still don't udnerstand your point. but let me tell you soemthing, this notion that old trekkies are agaisnt the JJ Trek crap and the fans of newer stuff aren't is not only misleading but untrue. There are some TOS fans who liked the movie, and some new fans who disliked the movie. I'm not a trekkie, and i'm very new into what you could call a fan (if such) of TOS (i don't hide my admiration for it, though), and i say, the fucking Jar Jar Abrams' movie is shit. Actually, i became a true admirer of TOs and only got to watch it throughly and in it's entirely AFTER i saw Jar Jar's abomination, and that i already disliked the movie profoundly. Myu major points against Jar Jar's pile of trash is not so much how bad a St movie it is (though volumes could be writen about that) but on an even much more important and fundamental level, in how truly bad Jar Jar's vomitorium is as a film. AS A FILM. It being a bad ST movie is the chantilly and cherry on top that puts the final touch on this big cake of shit.
-
... really dumb and inept movies and then call them good because it fills some mysterious quota made of god knows what. It's just too weird. I feel like a westerner who never heard of Japan and land there on parashoot without any warning or preparation. The puzzlement is infinite. Since when dumb became a quality?
-
How is the Cage not canon? It was included in The Menagerie. And Captain Pike was mentioned many times in the series, it sure as hell is canon.
-
Trekish? You should rather say Star-Warish. Because 75% of Jar Jar Abrams' movie is taken directly from some Star Wars movie, specially A NEW HOPE. Hell, even Jar Jar Abrams says so in the audio comentary, as if that's some badge of honour. The remaining 25% is from TOP GUN, FELICITY and THE WRATH OF KAHN, because, like, it's the only movie that maybe Jar Jar Abrams is certain that the fans like without much contorvery, so he can rip off with total abandon sop he can have his movie have acceptance by osmosis. It worked, aparently.
-
Was THE CAGE played in it's enterely in THE MENANGERIE? Or was it re-edited to fit into that two-parter? THE CAGE is not a proper canon epdisode. It's a curio. Don't mistake the whole of the episode with what it was done and how it was re-edited to be a part of another episode. Anybody knows that, even a non-fan like me.
-
...is that it's not actually about the film but an essay to justify the whole project. I don't really disagree with his points, but it's not nearly as fun. The movie is definitely fun, but it really is as dumb as a sack of bricks... and I don't say that as a person who really cares about "Sci-Fi vs. Science Fantasy". I could give a shit how the engines work, or where Vulcan is in relation to Romulus. It's the constant common-sense logic gaps, the nonsensical motivations of the villain, the bizarre "we do this because the script says so" actions of the characters. The characters themselves are all fun, yes, but there's nothing even slightly believable about what they do, or how the plot plays out. It seems very much to have been conceived as a bunch of individual scenes that were then linked together in the most haphazard manner possible. This movie is a guilty pleasure not because Star Trek used to be some kind of thoughtful franchise but because Transformers makes about as much narrative sense. But honestly, you can't go through this film and point out all of the nonsense in it and then expect people who haven't seen it to take your review as "Still, it's pretty fun" instead of "This movie is really retarded", so I can see why he avoided trying that route.
-
The Cage is included in the Trek Encylopedia and Timeline, and it's on the DVD sets. It's most defiantly canon. Even the new movie has Christopher Pike as a character.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 4:37 p.m. CST
"He takes other peoples hard work and nitpicks the hell out of i
by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS
Hahahahaha. This was said by RPLocke who does nothing else but troll these boards nitpicking the hell out of other peoples' hard work! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha! *Gasps for air* Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha!
-
But him (sort of) liking a movie just isn't as entertaining to me as the evisceration he gave those abominable prequels. I hope he does Episode 3 soon. While not as bad as the previous two, there's still a lot to work with.
-
Is people justifying the fact that it was "fun" despite being awful in every way a movie can be awful. The marketing was clever: Either you find the movie fun or you're one of those "Trekkies" who's so obsessed with Star Trek they're not willing to simply enjoy themselves. I don't care about Star Trek. I do care if a movie is terrible. This is a terrible movie. The plot isn't just "too convenient," it's completely nonsensical. The sets are awful. The engine room was a warehouse full of pipes. The corridors looked like tubes that led nowhere. The bridge was some shitty conference room. None of it looked like the interior of a spaceship. It all looked like it was made by somebody who didn't care. The acting was wooden. The special effects were all flash and noise. It's on the same level as the Transformers movies. Stuff just happens. It's noisy, it's flash, it doesn't follow from anything that happened before. The actors just mug for the camera and rush around so they can get to the next set piece. GI Joe was more coherent.
-
Don't be daft, man. THE CAGE is put in the DVDs because it's a curio, so that fans can understand the background and what was the inspiration for THE MENANGERIE. The Pike in ST is the guy from that episdoe, not THE CAGE. Rewatch THE CAGE and you will see how different it plays compared to how it was re-edited into THE MENANGERIE. How long ago you don't see both? Really, you are just arguing for arguing sake, or you have a poor memory of the two episodes by now and you are mixing it all up? I don't need to be a trekkie or a Trek fan to nkow the misguidness of your rational about this subject. Go check it out, man.
-
He's playing a character that has run on long enough. Nobody has ever cared about any movie, positive or negative, in the history of the universe as much as Asimov pretends to care about Star Trek. Seriously, I believe you didn't like the movie dude, I've seen movies I didn't like before too. Oh well, life goes on.
-
Now Locke... I've never watched/listened/whateveryoudowiththem one of thig guy's reviews, but how hard is it to do what he does? I don't know. I assume it's harder then spending all of your time posting how much everything sucks in every single talkback on AICN every single day of every single week of every single month like you do.
-
I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating a point. The Cage is defiantly canon. You might think it isn't, but every other Trek Fan in existence thinks it is. It has SPOCK and the Enterprise in it. It's canon.
-
for drawing my attention to this review. I really enjoyed it.
-
I know he's done a review for Baby's Day Out; that movie has no tie-ins to geek rage. I think he just reviews whatever he feels strongly about.
-
...that you both have remarkable powers of dedication to your particular crafts.
-
You said it as it is. specaking of bad sets, my favorite bad set from Jar Jart Abrams' movie is the extremely obvious brewry destillation facility pretending to be the engine room of the "ASS Abramsprise" (hell if i'm going to use the hallowed name of "Enterprise" in associated to this movie). I mean, they had a 160 million dollars budget and they couldn't afford to build a set for the engine room? Even the old TV show bothered to build one on a nothing budget, even the older TOS mvoies did that, and Jar Jar Abrams with a budget even superior to STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE and goes to a Budweiser brewrie to shoot the engine room scenes? What the fuck did they do with the money? What the fuck did they do with the money? Where the fuck did they over-spent on that they had to go on the cheap for the engine room set? I expect the Roger Corman movies to pull such no-budget stunts, not a fucking 160 million dollars blockbuster movie!
-
Really? Doesn't the space shuttle have pipes? GOOD GOD MAN!
-
Believe me, Vern would never pose as me. (He would also never come to a talkback, just to shit over something and then just link to his page.)
-
Boo hoo!! What are you trying to do, boy? Trying to call attention to yourself by casting aspergions on soembody else? Pulling some moral superiority shit out of your ass? for somebody who thinks i should be ignored, you are doing a terrible job doing just that. Hypocrite! Go lick Jar Jar Abrams's balls and support bad movies and get the hell out of here. Besides, who the fuck are you? You never posted here before! You come here merely to bash somebody else? Can't you be a more sanctimonious ass? Get screwed, buddy.
-
Okay, there were a lot of crappy DS9 episodes but overall it was probably the best structured of all the series. There was a connected narrative over the course of the whole thing with the Dominion. Everything led to the finale. And the final space battle lasted nearly the whole episode. That's something Voyager never got. And just a quick note on Plinkett's Star Wars commentaries. On e of his beefs was that the prequels were too clean while the originals were all scruffy etc. (actually that was his hostage but anyway...). That's kinda of the point. During the Republic everything is good and clean and then it all breaks down with the Empire. The restoration of the Republic is supposed to bring back the ideal world (granted not one done all in front of blue screens).
-
that calls Trek movies dumb, but flocks to shit like Scott Pilgrim.
-
Nice try, no cigar on both accounts. No, THE CAGE is not cannon, and the trekkies know that very well. And the A.S.S. ABRAMSPRISE is supposed to be, like, a 24th century ship, it make sno sens eofr it to copy the interior designs of a ship from today, does it? Do cars today look like carts from the late 19th century? Same point. Deal with it. Jar Jar Abrams's BAD TREK is just that, a bad movie badly though out, badly made, badly designed, badly writen, badly everything. Deal with it.
-
go to your copy of the Star Trek timeline, and try and tell me The Cage isn't in there.
-
"I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. Now I'm not a child - I know that all big scifi projects are suffused with the contempt of big money for its own target audience. But there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable." <p> I think that's as accurate a description as it gets. Abrams' Star Trek was contemptuous. It was a movie made by somebody who cared about nothing but checking off the boxes on the movie studios checklist. (I don't even mean he doesn't care about Star Trek, he clearly, in this case at least, didn't care about science fiction, or even movie making.) I think he's very similar to Bay in that respect. Of course, movies like that do well. They do especially well in the international market where movies are sold as spectacle rather than anything coherent.
-
... Jar Jar Abrams's BREWRY TREK. In hommage to the complete incompetence and ineptitude of the movie's production design crew and the idiot director that decided that was an acceptable presentation for a set of his movie. There would be a time in Holylwood that if a director pulled a stunt like Abrams did with the brewry set for asuch an expensive movie like he did, he would ad get his ass fired on the spot and would never work on A movies ever again, being put making cheap B-movies for the rest of his life, where he could then use brewries as sets for all his heart content.
-
THE MEANGERIE is, not THE CAGE. You just don't understand the difference. Which is weird like hell.
-
Um, I don't think you understand what you're talking about half the time.
-
I've been posting here for years, I just don't make it my full time occupation as normally I can't find the energy to argue with strangers on the Internet, but even if it were my first post what would that matter? My point stands... No one has ever "actually" loved or hated a movie as much as you pretend to hate Star Trek 2009. That said though, you're right, it's no skin off my nose. At the end of the day it's posters like you who make this place what it is, for better or worse, so more power to you. <p>And Locke, while you haven't responded yet as I type this, ignore me. I know you don't hate everything, for instance, I believe you like the Pirates of the Caribbean films.
-
If you've really read everything I said you can't say I hated everything. So, shut the fuck up.
-
China Mieville words goes to the very core of the problem of Abram's Trek. And Abram's really doesn't care about Trek, not even on a superficial lever. He's not even like soembody like Nicholas Meyer or Christopher Nolan, two men who knew about St or Batman but where not deep fans of too knowledgable about the subjects but showed interest, dedication and profissionalism when they accepted their jobs as directros of those movies. Abrams hismelf has said he's not a fan of St, that he thinks it's mostly silly and boring and not of much interest save some specific episodes, and you can tell from his words that even those he found "entertaijing" he doesn't think much of it. Abram's Trek movie is a movie made by somebody who couldn't give a shit about ST, but who thinks he can do a better job at it then it's own creator or everybody who used to be involved with it. He did for STAR TREK what Bay did for TRANSFORMERS. The comparison you made is very apt.<br><br>Abram's despise and disrespect for STAR TREK (and science fiction audiences in general) is quite evident in his latest movie, it's there for anybody to see. I don't need to be a ST fan to understand this extremely obvious thing. But Abrams sure loves STAR WARS, there's no doubt about that from watching the movie. Abram's TREK mvoie is like it's taken from a scene in the FANBOYS, as if some hardcore faantic SW fan decided to punish the trekkies and confuse the SF fans by completly turning ST into SW for as laught. Only it was done for real.<br><br>Truly, China Mieville said it as it is. Maybe after all this time, and after the dust has settled a buit, people start to see Abram's movie for what it is, and became to compereend that they had been had by a monster hype machine, and now things are more trasnparent and obvious now. Here's to hoping. It happened with Bay's TRANSFORMERS.
-
Go rewatch the two episodes then. Don't take my word for it. Then you wikll understand. Both episodes, THE CAGE and THE MENANGERIE, and then notice how those two are different from editing and context. Do it.
-
I pretend to hate? What kind of nonsense is that? I HATE ABRAM'S SHIT TREK! There's no pretense in that, it's the real deal, my sentiments are true. I fuckignhate the movie. Hate, loath and despise, and i feel disgusted and insulted by it and the hack who made it. Pretend? What the hell you mean by that? What passionless cold fish are you that would presume that soembody wouldn't truly feel like i do about this shitty movie? And i'm not the only one, i'm just ONE OF THE MOST VOCAL about it. Stress on ONE OF. Got it?
-
Yes, I know the two episodes are different. They're also canon. You're just wrong.
-
No i'm not. Rewatch them both and you will see my point. and dude, who the hell is this "em_tee_em" guy, anyway? Where did this guy came from? Do you evne udnerstand what the hell is his point posting here? I believe you share my puzzlement about him as i do.
-
And by that, I mean the only one I've sat through. Still, very funny and very enlightening!
-
...Particularly in part 2, where he goes on at length about how totally rotten the plot is, the completely illiterate attempts at science and logic, and how utterly un-STAR TREK the entire movie is in general, then sighs and declares "But it's okay...it was fast-paced and fun," and tries to direct our attention to some ridiculously superficial inclusions, like the fucking hallway ladder.<p> Worse, just try to watch this review after watching his AVATAR beat-down...you'll get a migraine from all the contradictions. In particular, he praises TREK's approach to black & white heroes/villains, while condemning the same approach in AVATAR. The same goes for both films utilization of spectacle...in TREK, it's just super, but in AVATAR, it's another strike against it.<p> Still watchable, if you ignore the endless attempts to pull the "don't think, just enjoy" card. He actually points out some stupidity even AsimovLives and I missed. It's like he took Paramount's payola, but still felt the need to say *something* honest...
-
fucking worthless garbage movie. star trek for morons.
-
when he clearly understands it's NOT Star Trek. It's not the Kirk Trek he knew. It's a different take on Star Trek.
-
If Abrams gets to make the sequel and it's as bad as the first one, I think people will realise the Emperor had no clothes, fun or otherwise. But the fact that they haven't rushed a sequel out makes me think somebody at the studio was unhappy with Abrams' Trek.
-
"I'm a little behind the curve on this on and it's posting a little late"
-
"I'm a little behind the curve on this on and it's posting a little late"
-
His reviews aren't meant to be beautifully framed examinations of the art of film. Of course he contradicts himself sometimes. Of course he sounds like an idiot sometimes. He's trying to be FUNNY! What the hell is wrong with some of you? You can't tell an act when you see one? You never contradicted yourself just as a goof with friends? Jesus jumped up Christ! Relax a little!
-
J.J Abrams is more of a cliché than the Plinkett persona. He's so completely insincere. He's a work of walking fiction, designed to be one of those minor characters in films and TV shows who are designated as the young, preppy, "Wouldn't it be cool if we..", doesn't-give-a-shit salesmen of mediocrity in opposition to a protagonist's sincerity. He should walk around with his sleeves rolled up, and constantly throwing a stress ball casually from hand to hand while he hurls totally killer laser-based ideas at you.
-
Stopped at the second stripper joke. LAME.
-
But he's also very creepy and the reviews are completely inconsistent. However I find myself laughing a good amount. <p> <p> I love movies, I LOVE Star Wars, especially the Original Trilogy. I really liked the Star Trek movies as a kid (saw all of them in the theatre), the Original series and TNG. Why do people take everything so seriously here? I thought JJ's Star Trek was very entertaining. Is it a departure from the other Trek movies & shows, sure. Does it borrow heavily from Star Wars, absolutely. But it was a fun movie and I thought they were spot on with all the original characters personally. <p> <p> We hold up certain movies as gold here, knowing full well that even our favorites are flawed in some way. My favorite Trek movie is Wrath of Khan, which is of course considered to be the best one by conventional wisdom. Is it perfect?! Hell no! By the same token I have been a giant Star Wars fan since I could barely walk. I'm one of those losers who bought waaay too many SW toys as an adult. I will always love the Original Trilogy, but it is flawed as well. The prequels disappointed most of us old school Star Wars fans. I have a hard time watching them these days. Now I'm not one to say they are complete shit. They all have little moments of greatness, like say in ROTS when The Emperor/Chancellor is telling Anakin about Darth Plagus. And despite all the CGI haters, I think some of the fight scenes in the prequels are amazing, including the beginning of the Clone Wars. Overall though, they are just hugely disappointing, but they look REAL good, they just lost something the originals had, like heart or something. <p> <p> Don't think I ever weighed in on the whole JJ's Star Trek sucks, or Prequels VS Original Trilogy before on AICN, at least not in any detail. Forgive me if you disagree. We all have opinions on movies. One opinion on one movie does not tell you everything you need to know about a person's movie tastes, despite the retarded vitriol that goes on here on a daily basis. So go ahead and rip me apart if you must, just a movie lover with an opinion, no better or worse than most on AICN :p <p> <p> RP & Asimov, you guys are actually trading posts back and forth on whether that one episode of the original series that never aired but was cut up to be included in another episode is canon? It's really kinda sad. Like who cares? And BTW I am quite familiar with the episode in question, The Menagerie. I once saw 2 guys on a forum having a heated argument over the actual size and specs of a Star Destroyer... come on people, who cares?!
-
Seems to me that a lot of people are missing the point that Plinkett was making that Star Trek - whether its run by Abrams or not - is not going to be made for Trek fans any more. It will be produced to bring in the biggest audience in possible which means it will also be dumbed down for the biggest possible audience. Sad but true.
-
if he was supposed to be funny or what. I've read all the reviews on Trek 2009 I care to read. I liked the movie. It's cool if someone hates it, but to tell me to hate it just because it's cool too, well, that's just arrogant.
-
In this talkback, I mean. I can't sit through another one of those mumbling reviews. "Star Trek" is so hopelessly convoluted, so completely directionless, so indefatigably trite in so many ways, that anyone honestly claiming this film is any better or worse than any previous entry is completely skull fucked and absolutely deluded. The new "Star Trek" made "Star Trek" watchable again and I don't give a flying fuck how simple they had to make it or how much they to dumb it down, this film is better than "DS9", "TNG", "Voyager" and "Enterprise" put together. Shit, throw in the original series and the following movies too. Trekkers in general are worse than those fucking sad ass Frank Herbert fans. Too in love with their boring shit to it's flaws. "Star Trek" is a lot of things, but perfection has never been one of them. Most of the time it just fucking boring. The movie wasn't boring. For that alone, I hold it way higher than pretty much every other incarnation of this property.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 6:38 p.m. CST
A simple fact that blows the "gotta make money" argument...
by BurnHollywood
...Right out of the fucking water:<p> Both the LORD OF THE RINGS and HARRY POTTER movies *were* made with a close attention to the fans' feelings and opinions, and, despite the obligatory appearance by the "Purist Gripe Choir", they were a huge success.<p> Fuck anyone who says that a movie can't possibly be smart and have audience appeal at the same time.
-
Plinkett looks at the films as a whole, in terms of intent, conecption and effect as well as their relationship to their foreunners and peers. It IS crucial to examine the new Star Trek in terms of the modern marketplace when assessing it. Who gives a monkeys how 'original' it is? They're well put together and I'd imagine the delay is due to the editing and clip retrieval (as you say, he isn't making money off it so it's almost certainly a part-time labour of love).<p>And BurnHollywood, I don't think those properties are analogous. Harry Potter was a far bigger and more mainstream hit than any incarnation of Star Trek has ever been and so it made financial sense to take the purist approach. LOTR meanwhile had shitloads of action and was groundbreaking in terms of special effects. I doubt Jackson would have been given leeway by the studio if he hadn't been sure to include thrills and spills in most of the scenes.
-
if JJ's Trek didn't make money, I'd still like it. Harry Potter can make all the money in the world, but it doesn't make those films good.
-
OK, here is the quote ... "In hommage to the complete incompetence and ineptitude of the movie's production design crew and the idiot director that decided that was an acceptable presentation for a set of his movie. There would be a time in Holylwood that if a director pulled a stunt like Abrams did with the brewry set for asuch an expensive movie like he did, he would ad get his ass fired on the spot and would never work on A movies ever again..." I mean...are you serious? How in the world would anyone ever get fired for making a location decision which by any account was flawless and was used in the final cut of the film, no known issues, no injuries...so, what exactly would get him fired and banned from A list pictures? I mean, do you understand how film productions and studios work, at all? I know Trek geeks hate the location choice but, in what universe would anyone be fired and banned from major studio productions over a location choice that had no real negative fallout? And I don't mean internet geek whining, I mean a real negative impact? There was nothing of the sort. That statement effectively derails any and everything you may have to say in criticism of not just Star Trek, but any movie. You've just won the ass-clown comment of the week award. The mind boggles. Good lord.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 6:55 p.m. CST
ST as a whole was dead and buried after Nemesis
by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN
It was finished. Insurrection killed it and Nemesis (and Enterprise) raped the corpse. Now I'm no big fan of JJTrek. Its popcorn fluff, and it doesn't even feel like a ST movie. BUT you have to give Abrams some cred for jump starting the franchise again. Purely in terms of reinvigorating a forgotten franchise, he did for Trek what Nolan did for Batman.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 6:57 p.m. CST
JJ Abrams Star Trek Is A Horrible Film: And Here Is Why
by Media Messiah
Look, the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek has so many holes in it, even a cluster of black holes would be envious. The movie is downright sloppy, and its writers, and director, don't understand sci-fiction, or the rules of time travel in the Star Trek universe, or time travel, at all. <BR><BR>The film leaves us wth Vulcan destroyed, the surviving Vulcans forced to relocate to another planet, Spock's mom is dead, Kirk's father is dead, and who knows what other great damage has been done to the overall time continuum, because of our time traveling villain from the future, known as Nero? This would be on par with an infinite number of nuclear wars, on a infinite number of worlds, simultaneously, when you think of the damage to the timeline, that had been done, thanks to Nero and crew's intervention in the original timeline. How many people's lives were changed? How many people were never born, whom would have been born? How many people died who wouldn't have? And what damage has it done to the destiny of the Federation, the Vulcans, the Romulans, the Klingon Empire, etc.?<BR><BR>This is the problem with the story, and the poorly written script, therein. Why didn't original timeline Spock act to reverse Nero's actions, by returning to the future, and stopping Nero's theft of the time ship, and planet drill? This would have negated the timeline apocalypse. Why didn't original timeline Spock, intercept Nero n the past when he first arrived? Why didn't original timeline Spock just return to the future, and successfully complete his mission to save Romulus, thus, again, negating Nero's attacks, as they would have never occured in the first place, if he had? <BR><BR>What doesn't make sense here, is that fixing damaged timelines, and or, preserving them, was a must priority of the Enterprise crew...of the original timeline. You'll recall, "City On The Edge of Forever", and countless other original Trek episodes, and movies that dealt with the subject matter at length, and that of their sequel series, and those series' film incarnations? Again, those dealing with time travel, and the alteration of time, always stressed fixing damaged timelines, or preserving the original timeline, because of the major consequences to what had already been established. Hell, that was even the main premise of an entire Star Trek spin-off series, in the form of "Enterprise", however, JJ Abrams and his two lousy co-writers, wrote a film script, where original timeline Spock, just rolls his shoulders and said "Oh well, Vulcan is dead...and gone, and so is my mom and Kirk's father, oops. No matter, we'll just relocate the suvivors of Vulcan to another planet and continue on--fuck the damage to the timeline and whatever unforeseen major consequences it may have for the future survival of the known universe, whatever they may be"? Hello, what about the many times original timeline Kirk and crew saved the universe from impending threats? What about the declaration of Non-Interference, which is at the center of Federation policy when it comes to other worlds, and their development? But I digress. Let's go back to the endless number of threats to the known universe that original timeline Kirk, and crew, saved us from. If you wipe-out the past and currently established history, of original timeline Kirk, and the Enterprise crew, and those threats arise as they would, with the normal passage of time, the results of new timeline Kirk, and crew, being able to save the day, have a very good chance of changing as well, including the great chance of failure--meaning the Federation, and all it stands for, is at risk of being wiped-out, too. <BR><BR>And speaking of plot-holes, why in the hell was original timeline Spock, who was stranded on Vulcan's moon just hanging around doing nothing but waiting, even though he knew that Vulcan would be destroyed by Nero, still, he failed to warn Star Fleet, while knowing, full well, that a star base was within a day's walking distance from his position--and yet, he did nothing? No, he instead, waited for new timeline Kirk to arrive on the moon, after being stranded by new timeline Spock? But here is the catch, he didn't know it was going to happen? He didn't know new timeline Kirk was coming? No, he was just waiting around...in a cave, for no reason, as Vulcan was about to be attacked, and just happened to run into new timeline Kirk, within feet of where he, original timeline Spock, was waiting around? Face, it, this was just a poorly written film, and poorly executed, directorially.<BR><BR>As for its look, it looked like a cheap TV movie. We are actually to believe that this film had, at least, half the budget of Avatar? Well, show me where the money went, because I didn't see it on the movie screen?
-
How is he actually "doing something" when others are not? Isn't he just posting his opinions about movies on the internet, like every other aicn talkbacker?
-
..."Science-Fiction", sorry for the typo.
-
"It IS crucial to examine the new Star Trek in terms of the modern marketplace when assessing it."<p> In that case, the "dumber is better" argument fails...the LOTR films averaged a global take of $970 million apiece. The POTTER movies have averaged $900 million apiece (to date). STAR TREK's $385 million looks pretty measly in comparison.<p> You're probably going to try to point out the paltry average of previous TREK movies, but you'd be missing my point...it's when the studios successfully blend action, plotting and fan fidelity that they achieve that sort of dependable return business. TREK only had the one (action), so not only is it stuck on a lower tier, box office-wise, but expect a diminishing returns effect to kick in with its sequel as embittered fans don't return to theater seats and rent the DVD instead (or even Torrent...TREK is the most pirated movie of all time...how's that for saying "fuck you" to the studios?).
-
as a great movie. Can't say that about any of the Potters.
-
Spock didn't need to warn Starfleet because when the Federation fleet arrived to Vulcan, they were all wiped out anyway save for one ship.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:08 p.m. CST
Why didn't original timeline Spock, intercept Nero n the past wh
by RPLocke
Because he arrived after Nero did and Nero captured him.
-
Also, the Vulcans have a fleet of war ships. Obviously, all of their ships weren't just docked on Vulcan, waiting to be hit. Those vessels, in bulk, would have been in patrolling range of Vulcan.
-
we come to AICN to see references to other internet geek reviews. Is AICN that content dirt poor?
-
And Nemesis didn't have plot holes? And Insurrection made perfect sense? Dude, by all means rip JJTrek a new asshole, I will not stand in your way. But it is your duty to also say the Nemesis and Insurrection were utter, utter shit that killed the franchise in the first place. They killed it and JJ was allowed to pick over the bones and build his own Trek.
-
Say Spock warns the Federation a Romulan will be attacking Vulcan. Would Starfleet even believe Spock's story until it was too late?
-
How is this going to help him realize his fantasy to become a grandmother?
-
Spock and the Enterprise crew have time traveled in the past to save timelines during previous missions, that is an established fact. Original timeline Spock, facing the aftermath of Nero's attacks, could have simply traveled into the past, using another starship--knowing full well when Nero first appeared in the timeline; and that was the date in which he attacked the ship that was carrying Kirk's father. Original timeline Spock could have arrived ahead of Nero, and waited for his, Nero's, arrival, and simply ambushed his ship when it first appeared in the original timeline. Boom, the time ship is destroyed, Nero and crew are dead, timeline repaired. Nero's actions never would have occured.
-
"you have to give Abrams some cred for jump starting the franchise again"<p> This is another latter day myth that needs to be slain...<p> The primary reason the ST:TNG movies foundered (as Plinkett himself exposes in his extensive reviews) is out of a lack of purpose: there's no compelling reason for them to exist at all. TNG was a fairly cerebral, talky show, and the jump to the big screen was pointless. Worse, just about anything worth saying about the characters and their universe had been said already, not only on their own series, but on the ensuing ones as well (DS9 and VOY). That left a prequel as a natural choice for future exploration, but the TV approach was badly botched (a prototype Enterprise that never existed in canon, in a smaller, less interesting version of the TREK universe).<p> That left a reboot the final option, but so fucking what...ANY action director could probably concoct a reboot to TOS and generate some respectable box office, if only from curiosity.<p> As I said earlier, the key was to achieve a blend of action, plot and canon, and Abrams fucked up badly on the latter two.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:24 p.m. CST
RPLocke: They Would Have At Least Been Alerted To Check It Out
by Media Messiah
They obviously know of time incursions, as they have dealt with them before, and know the threat is real. Logically, they would check-out the warning. And logically, original timeline Spock would stop at nothing to repair the original time-line.
-
How would Spock know there was a Starbase on this timeline's Delta Vega? It's a big planet.
-
When Nero arrives he doesn't even know where he is. How would Spock know he would run into Nero in this new timeline?
-
Hah! Virgins are hilarious!
-
LMAO...what, have you got a fucking TARDIS in your garage? HOW THE FUCK would *anyone* presume to know what's going to be relevant in twenty years?<p> What a load of shit, in any case...people are already taking a second look at FAUX TREK *now* and seeing what a turd it was in retrospect. Meanwhile, the final two POTTER movies are practically money in the bank. Paramount can only dream of saying the same about the next TREK movie, which is why we get their nervous "hints" about Khan or the Klingons being dragged out of mothballs.
-
And the first Next Generation movie was also very bad. I am not defending those movies, but, though terrible, their stories didn't have plot-holes in them, to boot. They were just bad, all around. Yes, overall, those films suffered from being poorly made, period. <BR><BR>Long-time Trek producer Harve Bennett (spelling?) had a better Star Trek script that Abrams and friends pilfered from. It was Star Fleet Academy, and was smart, energetic, and fresh--at least, from the story outline that I read. Abrams cannibalized it, and added the time-travel bit and called it Star Trek, but it is clearly a rip-off of Harve Bennett's work. That is the script that should have been made into a movie, not Abrams' bastardization of it.
-
Since the blip.tv site optionally lets you select the format, and many people prefer it.... <BR><BR> http://tinyurl.com/2e96sde <BR><BR> http://tinyurl.com/283vheb <BR><BR>
-
Much as I find it boring to talk about comparisons of Box Office takings, Star Trek was still a big hit. Having just looked it up, it was no.7 on domestic take that year. Of the films that beat it, 3 were sequels to existing franchises, one was the big Pixar release of the year and one was Avatar. That's not bad in anyone's laanguage and the idea that $250m is somehow disappointing is insane.<p>What's more, your notion that the sequel will do diminshing returns is just silly, as one look at the Transformers 2 (which had a far more linear audience) takings will show. The goal of this film business-wise was to establish the franchise. Now it's set up, there'll be a ready made audience for the next one and Abrams will be taking more risks too.
-
...post arrival of Nero. Once original timeline Spock is informed, along with the other characters, of when, and where, Nero first arrived--details which they did learn in post. They, thus, knew when, and where, Nero and crew...would appear in the past, approximately so, and could have countered him. The fixed date and time was the attack on Kirk's father's ship.
-
I've been waiting for that one because it pissed me off the most. Out of all the prequels it was the BIGGEST missed opportunity of them all. It could have been the most badass episode of the whole series if it had been handled with respect. I think what haunts fans like me the most about the prequels is the thought of what COULD HAVE BEEN. It's a Geek Tragedy.
-
Good thing you biased your analysis to "domestic takes" because TREK's global take was also problematic...both AVATAR and POTTER's HALF-BLOOD PRINCE made the brunt of their profits overseas. TREK was the opposite, implying that it's just not "taking" with international audiences, which is crucial to genre success. Little wonder...if you remove the nostalgic buzz your average American viewer might bring to the theater, all you're left with is a ho-hum SF/actioner with plot holes galore.<p> And diminishing returns are the rule, not the exception, so citing TRANSFORMERS is bullshit.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 7:54 p.m. CST
Old Spock Did Not "Correct" The Timeline Because...
by Lesbianna_Winterlude
Viiacom is a for-profit corporation.
-
Just completely random and hilarious. He definitely has a shtick and you either love it or hate it.
-
...not canon. At least not the scenes that weren't in The Menagerie. Lines and events in The Cage contradict some canon stuff. I'm not a Trekkie, so I can't really tell you what they are. I'd imagine Spock grinning like a jackass when he touched that plant is non-canon, too.
-
I was expecting a better argument with that long ass post. Spock can't go back to the future and change anything, he's stuck in the past. He can't find the Nero of the past because he's stuck on a fucking ice planet. He doesn't alert the federation, because he can't...he's stuck on a fucking ice planet. And as for your criticism that the film was shot like a TV movie? Whatever morsel of credibility you had just went out the window with that statement. That only reveals the blind hate you have for the film, or just JJ Abrams in general.
-
Batman, Twilight, X-Men, LOTR, The Matrix, Transformers - that's not a 100% rate but unless it's a true box office phenomenon, more often than not a film will be outperformed by its sequels. And seeing as how the Abrams Star Trek is still sitting pretty in the IMDB top 250, there's every indication this'll be the case.<p>And I would have used international takes but boxofficemojo only provides domestic positions so there was hardly any bias there. I'm just pointing out that your theory: Another Star Trek film won't make money because a few nitpicking nerds didn't like it (no offence there, Asimov) is plainly bollocks. You don't feature on the map when it comes to the grand scheme of things anymore than Firefly fans do.
-
Speaking of "nitpicking nerds", you're trying to get into a dissuasive argument about "diminishing returns" because you can't confront my larger contention, which is that all this rationalization about mass appeal is bullshit...smarter, canon-based movies have done better at the box office.<p> And we *have* to talk about box office, because FAUX TREK doesn't have shit else going for it. It pissed in the fans' faces, it was riddled with plot holes and failures of logic, and if you're hung up on fast pacing, noise and perky actors, than there's probably a TRANSFORMERS 3 update coming along in a short while.<p> And if the majority of its take is going to be domestic on the sequel as well, than yeah, the studio sure as shit better worry about fans and word of mouth.
-
TNG movies did indeed have plot holes. A lot of them. (Watch Plinkett's reviews of those movies, he points them out.)<br> That's why JJ's movie was so disappointing to me-- the writing was just as bad as TNG films. My brother was so fed up with JJ Trek he almost shut it off when Spock banished Kirk to Hoth. Is there no brig on the new Enterprise?
-
Is The Dark Knight 'canon-based'? Is Transformers? Are Sherlock Holmes and Alice In Wonderland? You've cherry-picked two film series over the last ten years, both exceptional examples, and tried to build some kind of rationalization around them. Unless you actually think people were clamouring to see Iron Man because it was faithful to the comic book rather than because it had a billionaire in a robotic suit that blew shit up.<p>What people want from a summer film is well delivered excitement, which is apparently what most people got from Star Trek. What this review nailed down was the fact that the vast majority couldn't give a shit about whether an engine room set resembles the one in the other films or whether or not it would be a realistic design element in a real starship. They want simple enjoyment and Abrams delivered. And as for 'plot holes', 'failure of logic', 'fast pacing' and 'noise', none of those things seemed to do Inception any harm and that's been the event film of the summer.
-
absolutely brilliant.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 8:55 p.m. CST
Inception almost at $700m global
by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN
Wow, just wow. I knew it would do well (its a great film) but its certainly performed beyond anyone's expectations. Its made almost DOUBLE what JJtrek managed. If it ends up beating Transformers 2, Nolan will stick it to both Abrams and Bay. Worth celebrating.
-
Heck, at least I made it through the whole thing... I look forward to Plinkett picking apart Inception. Should be easy pickin's...
-
I expect we'll see it within the next month. JJ trek was actually a surprise since no one was expecting it (You guys should follow his youtube channel it's worth it for updates alone) I really hope he does indy 4 after ROTS
-
It's explained in the movie. Nero comes back from the future, destroys the Kelvin, and then waits for Spock. He deposits Spock on the ice planet and goes and destroys Vulcan. Spock had no way of contacting Starfleet that quickly.
-
Nero, Romulas would still be gone in the original timeline.
-
would probably be the most scathing review he does...very similar to Phantom Menace...just pure Plinkett rage
-
actually after his ship is damaged by the Kelvin crashing into it his crew gets taken prisoner by the Klingons which is where they stay for 25 years...it's in the deleted scenes
-
Even tho Indy 4 is a pretty easy target at this point. I mean we at least we had Shia Labeouuuf coming out and taking responsibility for it sucking that kinda added some closure for me. And at least Indy 4 wasn't a movie that was highly anticipated. With star wars people were eagerly waiting for those prequels for decades...many didn't live to see them (not that it matters now). But there was ALOT more build up in anticipation for those movies which is why I refer to them as a being a Geek Tragedy. Plinket soothes the pain, his reviews are like Geek Vicodin.
-
Say the people who defend the movie are losers. I will not state what I am, all I will say is that the extremists in both groups....the defenders and the haters...are all fucking losers. <P>I cannot believe that this stupid fucking debate is still going on. Do you losers have nothing better to do with your life than argue about this fucking movie? Do you really think that your constant barrage of hate/defense is going to change anyone's minds? Its the same arguments made by the same people saying the same bullshit that has been said for over a fucking year.<P>Grow a brain and move on
-
Yep, exactly.
-
I mean truly, no truer prick has there ever been. He believes that anybody who enjoyed a movie he did not must have been brainwashed in some way, what an egomaniac. I happen to be an intelligent individual with a mind of my own my narrow minded friend, and yes I enjoyed Star Trek 2009 (YES, it was 2009, think about time you got over it maybe?). Fuck, no point even acknowledging you, your just a fucking idiot who likes to think he knows about movies when he doesn't know rat shit.
-
...that original timeline Spock was standed on. Original timeline Spock knew all about that star base being there, on the moon, but he did not contact it, and thus star fleet, nor did he travel to the star base, until, and only when, new timeline Kirk showed-up. Further still, nor did he use the star base to warn Vulcan's military, or fleet to the threat? That doesn't make any sense, and is wholly illogical. In regard to Romulas, original timeline Spock could have returned to the future, just before Romulas blew-up, and successfully saved the planet, by repeating his failed mission to save the planet, this time, getting it right, and stopped any loop of Nero repeating the action of going back in time again, or stealing the planet drill. If Romulas was saved, Nero would have no need to attempt to destroy star fleet. That fact, serves to negate the climatic events of the movie, entirely--and undermines the whole integrity of the film, and its premise. Also, why wasn't Romulas evacuated until the threat of the star collapsing was over. Most of Nero's anger was over losing his family, and wife? Well, regardless of original timeline Spock's promises, they knew there was a risk, if he failed, so why didn't they evacuate the planet until they were certain that he had succeeded? Yet, another ridiculous nonsensical part of this movie, and its bad writing. One more complaint, the casting of Captain Christopher Pike and Sulu, was just very poor. Neither actor looked like their counterparts from the original series--not even close? Ray Liotta would have made a good Pike, thought he would have needed to lower his voice, and Sulu, well, they just could have looked harder for someone that more closely resembled George Takei. The better new Star Trek film, is called...Serenity. Hands down, it is a far better film, with about 1/4th the budget. Now, I know that Joss Whedon, the director of Serenity, claims that he is a fan of the new Trek film, but he is just practicing industry politics, and hence, is lying his ass off.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 9:51 p.m. CST
Chief Joseph: If There Are Plot Hole In The Next Generation Film
by Media Messiah
...I didn't see any, perhaps because I hate those films....so much, save for First Contact, that I wasn't paying much attention? First Contact just looked cheap. Notice the dark footage in all of the Next Generation films, especially First Contact? It is designed to hide bad special effects. Serenity pulled that trick too, and it is a shame.
-
Yes, but Spock had short time to traverse the planet and try and contact Starfleet. Maybe he was on his way to the Starbase when the planet went up?
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 9:54 p.m. CST
Why doesn't anyone from the planet shoot at the mining ship?
by Yellow_Like_A_Banana
Haven't seem this plot hole mentioned... but a giant ship parks itself over a planet with a giant laser drill hanging down a chain boring a hole to the center of your planet and no one notices???? How about scrambling space ships or launching weapons to maybe - I don't know... shoot the thing down???
-
This guy is a good voice for geekdom by general principle. He sort of does material for that subgenre of pissed offed geekdom. Similar to what the AVGN or Hey Ash Whatcha Playin does for the video game geeks. I just enjoy anyone with some thoughtful insight to a piece of material who has a unique shtick sewing it all together. The whole serial killer kidnapper thing is fucking hilarious. I'll admit though some people love it and some people hate it. No different from anything really.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 9:58 p.m. CST
Curse all you want, he's right about JJ's Star Trek.
by CeejayNightwing
It was a movie made for people who never understood what ST was about and simply wanted to see space battles and fist fights. The film was made to pander to the masses, it made no sense what so ever and threw out all the hard work Gene Roddenberry had done on shredding the compromise he had to make with TOS to finally get the vision right with TNG. JJ simply made Star Trek by using a Star Wars template!
-
The point is you have no way of knowing whether Spock did try to reach the snow base. In fact he may have been on his way over there when he came across Kirk, we don't know that. And again, Spock cannot return to the future to save Romulus. How could he travel to the future? And why was the planet not evacuated in time? Well they may have put too much faith in Spock, or maybe Nero's wife was in the process of leaving the point is we do not know, and it's simply left open. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 10:10 p.m. CST
CGIh8r: Original Timeline Spock Is Not Stuck In the Past
by Media Messiah
The Enterprise crew, on a past episodes traveled back in time using the Enterprise, and on another episode, they used a time gate to travel to the past. Further, they also used a Klingon war ship to do the same, in Star Trek 4, so why didn't original timeline Spock use the Enterprise in the new timeline, or another star ship, again, in the same timeline, even if he had to steal one, to go back to the past, to stop Nero--or to travel to the future, and save Romulas, where he once failed? Again, this fact defeats the entire premse of the film. You can't get around it. Time travel is a reality in the Star Trek universe, past or present, it is their rule of physics, and a ship can be used to circle the sun...multiple times, in order to induce the time travel effect upon it, the ship, and its crew, hence, Spock could have time traveled to the past, and or, the future, if he chose to, at any time. The failure in him not doing so, is found in JJ Abrams and his writers not bothering to read-up on the rules of the Star Trek universe, and failing to ask experts on the Trek universe, about those rules. It is like writing a Star Wars film, and not knowing key details about the Force--nor bothering to ask someone who does have that information--it is just sloppiness???
-
..."The Enterprise crew, on past episodes traveled back in time using the Enterprise, and on another episode, they used a time gate to travel to the past."
-
I don't know if he's pulling all his content from other reviews, but his reviews are far more detailed and insightful than what you usually get here or anywhere else for that matter. His Phantom Menace review is pure gold.
-
Let me also ask how Spock could have traveled into the future to warn them? The time traveling in this story was accidental for everyone. And the second you decide to start casting simply on resemblances, you're screwed. You base it on talent AND looking for a certain type of actor.<p>I will say that in a sequel, I do hope for more quiet scenes. Some conversations to show the friendship between Spock, Kirk and McCoy. They needed to take a breather amongst the action and comedy. Remember, McCoy wasn't always being a cranky old man. That was one aspect of his personality, but he was also thoughtful and funny. Give us a little more of that next time.
-
As always.
-
It is operated by an ancient alien force far superior to Earth's forces, and original timeline Spock is well aware of it. The Time Gate was featured in the episode, "City on The Edge of Forever." Original timeline Spock could have used the Time Gate to travel back in time, or to the future, to repair the timeline, but, again, he did not??? That doesn't make any sense.
-
I remember reading somewhere where the writers wanted to include it.
-
People gauge how witty and clever you are by how well you can critically rip something apart. I liked the movie for what it was. Many of the characters captured the spirit of the originals, but it was turned up a bit toward the obnoxious side of things. But there's a point where you move from a critique to nitpicking. I know there were people going into this movie thinking, "I bet I won't like this. I'm sure I'm gonna fine lots of mistakes and changes and plot holes. I will now spend the next two hours suspiciously analyzing this movie."
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 10:30 p.m. CST
I don't think indy 4 would be as easy to tear into critically
by RedBull_Werewolf
Yes it was nowhere near the magic of the first 3, but plinkett has proven that he doesn't just nerd rage on film, he breaks them down and point out their flaws as films, not as nerd obsessions. Indy 4 wasn't anywhere near as flawed as the prequels in terms of characters, plot, story, motivation. Sure you can still critique it (and i hope he does) but I can't see indy 4 being ripped into as much as the phantom menace. I think his indy 4 review would be similar to his star trek review
-
He is just annoying, that is it. I tried to make it through his TPM review, but I just couldn't take it anymore. Just flat out annoying. I am not saying what he says is wrong.
-
RLM is what's wrong with critics these days. Has RLM ever liked anything? He just slams stuff because it's cool at the time. He's just an asshole.
-
He's become known, or at least "internet famous", for his series of negative reviews of movies.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 10:45 p.m. CST
Seriously, don't you think Mr. Plinkett could do a review for A
by moorE12
You seriously don't think he could make a 70-minute review of ANH ripping that movie apart? Or is is completely flawless?
-
Or is it easier to just make bad reviews?
-
C'mon, now that's just funny!
-
...was going to be used, but Harlan Ellison threw one of his characteristic temper tantrum and threatened to sue, so it was written out.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 11:14 p.m. CST
MEDIA MESSIAH and Everybody: DocBrown explains it well in Back2t
by George Newman
Nero altered the timeline when he first arrived in the past and destroyed a federation ship. He then altered it some more by destroying Vulcan. If Original Spock, after all the events of the film are over then decides to travel to the future (as you posted at 9:44 and again at 10:10) he would be traveling to the future of this New Timeline! The future that has been a progression of the alterations. <p>The Only way to undo the damage would be to go back to the point when Nero first arrived in the past and prevent him from destroying the Kelvin and giving Biff that Sports Almanac. Maybe, just maybe that would restore order. That would however require an extremely well-thought out plan of attack, as well as an extremely well-armed boarding party. Which would further mean Spock would have to bring with him a crew (can't be the central crew cuz they'd be undoing what brought them together prematurely in the first place) from the new timeline back into the past to alter something that might negate their life choices. Now lets say that Spock and crew are successful; does Spock take the crew a little bit forward in time to deposit them in their altered 'present' they won't recognize, and then he proceeds even further into the future back to his own time? Is that your idea for how the script should have progressed? A 7-act, 4-hour Star Trek film, that would pretty much be Back to the Future: Part 2: In Space?? Really?? <p> Previous time travel stories in Star Trek have generally involved PERIL of alteration to the Space-Time Continuum. This new film was bold enough to tell a story that was the Consequence of IRREPARABLE damage to the timeline. As in, "Whoops! A bad guy went back in time and really screwed stuff up. Well let's just see how the heroes deal with it."
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 11:15 p.m. CST
The-editing-room.com is also good for ripping movies
by RedBull_Werewolf
It posts "abridged scripts" but they are really funny in pointing out films flaws, they even do generally liked stuff like the dark knight or inception. It's a funny site where the dude running it just hates movies in general
-
to fix the time line, but suppose something else bad happens to the Kelvin in the past, like the Klingons attack? The ship was near Klingon space.
-
I think that element has always been there in professional critics. We all loved it when Siskel and Ebert would team up and totally trash an awful movie. They'd even have a worst of the year special, IIRC. The Golden Raspberries does this, too.
-
"RLM is what's wrong with critics these days. Has RLM ever liked anything? He just slams stuff because it's cool at the time. He's just an asshole." <p> Dude, this talkback is about an RLM review in which he explains at length why he enjoyed the movie in question. Not in an uncritical manner - there are caveats - but overall he thinks it's a really fun movie. So your complaint is a bit of a strange one. <p> Did you watch the review? <p> I think RLM's stuff is generally terrific. Some parts of his analysis are really fucking good - sharp, insightful, something I hadn't noticed previously - and are NOT the usual whining you'll find on a thousand other sites on the net.
-
"blah blah blah"...what a fucking retarded thing to say on a thing called a "Talkback". If you can't maintain your focus, see a shrink. Attempting to repeatedly digress doesn't help your point of view.<p> My argument was no more complicated than this: It's repeatedly asserted that Abrams had no choice in ditching canon in order to bring in box office. This is bullshit...LOTR and POTTER stayed true to their source material and reaped huge profits. No all movies hew to their source, but who gives a fuck...all I'm trying to establish is that the "you must dumb it down for $$$" is horseshit in two notable cases, which is sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of that notion.<p> Learn some basic argumentation techniques, for Chrissakes...
-
They just abuse it.
-
Sept. 5, 2010, 11:41 p.m. CST
SGU beats the shit out of star trek fundamentals
by DioxholsterReturns
star trek was about the 60s 'barbarella' vision of the future. its 21st century you cant possible buy into that shit now.
-
"This is the problem with the story, and the poorly written script, therein. Why didn't original timeline Spock act to reverse Nero's actions, by returning to the future, and stopping Nero's theft of the time ship, and planet drill?" <p> I think you misunderstand the nature of branching timelines. The standard way they work is as follows: <p> Every act of (branching) time travel creates a new parallel universe. The old one from which you came is left untouched. You travel back down it, hit your contact point at time T, then immediately create a new universe, which is (old universe at state T + minor change). The branch of history from which you came is no longer accessible. You cannot influence it. You will never see the people you left behind again, although you may meet replicas of them at some point in the newly-created branch. <p> It should be noted that at different times, Star Trek (the franchise) has used the three major models of time travel (single timeline with causal loop; branching; rewriting over original timeline). These are essentially incompatible, although one might argue that different time travel tech causes different outcomes. Probably one should just regard it as a shaggy mess with dozens of different writers applying different models at different times without trying to be consistent. <p> JJ Trek does not suggest the alteration of the original timeline. Or, at least, that is not necessitated by what we see. <p> One minor point of debate is whether there is a single act of time travel, or two. If there are two, then really Nero and Spock should each have caused separate new timelines, and should never have met in the same new timeline.
-
review....JJ's Trek, despite all the flaws he points out, and despite how dumbed down it is (all of which he points out), its still good because...wait for it...its exactly what it needed to be??!!...Then why pray do tell cant we say the same of TPM, or any other film he has ripped to shreds? What a load of complete horseshit. What an amazing spectacle of brazen hypocrisy.....well done good sir, you have effectively made your "reviews" worthless....
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 12:35 a.m. CST
Jesus Christ are these boards BORING!
by ohsostupidlongassfuckingscreennames
The same 15 or 20 asslickers spouting the same repuganant bullshit over and over and over anon...
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 12:35 a.m. CST
Jesus Christ are these boards BORING!
by ohsostupidlongassfuckingscreennames
The same 15 or 20 asslickers spouting the same repuganant bullshit over and over and over anon...
-
Maybe I'm off my rocker, but when he compares it to Phantom Menace he loses me. In my opinion TPM had 100 times the imagination of the new trek. It didn't just retread the old SW films and add some flashy lens flares.
-
this retards defense of....its exactly what it needed to be....well thank God for that, then I guess TF2 was perfect...who cares that it had no story, no characterization, badly filmed action, hyper annoying performances and toilet humour....because it was exactly what it needed to be...
-
it needed to have ridiculous conveniances and coincidences, and it needed an engine room that looks like a brewery...etc....Give..me...a...fucking...break....ok, ok rant over. Im good....But seriously, I thought his PM review was clever,but he has gotten progressivly worse each new review...
-
you guys think a Trek that took itself seriously wouldve gone mainstream? no way. the masses dont want the stuff we want and there is very few of us. so we really dont matter.
-
you get the sense that it was directed by michael bay in some areas i shit you not.
-
So RLM is above criticism? This guy can slander and hate every movie out there, but people can't critique him?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 1:16 a.m. CST
Ha ha! He said "Star Trek...the Star Trek"
by david_boreanez_cunt_hairz
thats good stuff
-
Hasn't bothered to actually watch his reviews. The tired arguments for Phantom Menace: Jar-Jar is annoying (he mentions Jar-Jar only twice, in passing); Jake Lloyd can't act (also mentioned only in passing); it's boring (he actually examines WHY instead of just stating it). You know what arguments I did NOT hear around message boards for the past ten years? The fact that there's no identifiable protagonist. The fact that all of Palpatine's actions are exactly the opposite of the ones he ought to be taking according to his apparent plan. The ways in which the good guys ALSO do exactly the opposite of what would actually be useful for their cause. The people saying "It's been ten years, get over it" are the same assholes who will spend days masturbating over 2001 or BLADE RUNNER and exulting over them scene by scene. It's just as valid a form of film analysis to look at what a film did WRONG as what it did RIGHT, especially when it's a big landmark film and especially when it manages to go so, so wrong. Plinkett actually makes a constructive, coherent, and intelligent critique of the prequels, and they've been so embraced by geek culture not because they're the same things people have been saying all along, but because he's managed to articulate the nagging problems that they HADN'T managed to put their finger on. He brought the same insight and intelligence to his TNG movie reviews, long before anyone even noticed he was doing them. I could do without the Buffalo Bill interludes, but the voice has grown on me.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 1:26 a.m. CST
Plinkett is smarter than the movies he reviews
by ThisGuyIsMyNewFavoriteCritic
I love Plinkett! Amazing. Huffington Post needs to put this guy on payroll. Or AICN...hint. First critic in a long while that I felt educated by. Wonder what he'd do with a decent film by an A-list film-maker -- Scorsese, Lynch, Winding Refn?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 1:31 a.m. CST
new Star Trek was made by people who arent fans of old Trek
by DioxholsterReturns
they loved star wars more hence this movie. they also had r2d2 in the movie as an easter egg.
-
you know, the ones that made a billion dollars already and we've seen them all a million times before.
-
Stick to your reruns of Enterprise and Dr. Who. You think the reason people liked this movie was because we're mindless sheep who don't know real sci fi. you could say the same thing about the original Star Wars when that came out. There's always going to be 5% of the crowd that's going to hate something despite the fact that everyone else liked it... and they all happen to be here in this cesspool. J.J. Abrams made a superior Trek movie to anything that came out within the last 10 years and Nimoy was right in calling you all douchebags... and doesn't he of all people have the proper authority in doing that? How can Spock be wrong? By the way, go check out Machete.
-
obviously are mad about his critique of the prequels. Admit it... you LOVED Phantom Menace you desperate Star Wars geeks. And deep down, you know he's right. Stories are awesome, that's why none of those turds were awesome at all... I still want my money back.
-
Plinkett made observations I couldn't even pinpoint when watching those pieces of shit. But when a movie is boring, it's boring.. no more discussion is needed.
-
...they all did something that hasnt been done before. which is why they have flaws.
-
...yes, I do
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:02 a.m. CST
Good Lord the timeline is changed, deal the fuck with it
by The Founder
I can't believe the same people are saying the same damn thing over and over. For gods sake Aabrams did a damn good job. It was to much convolution in trek to try just remake old films and tv episodes. Paramount did the right damn thing by letting them alter the timeline. They can make new adventures and trek nerds and fans can't bitch and moan and scream this isn't right, Spock would never do that. Vulcan is gone, Kirk's father is dead, Spock's mother is dead. Who cares. They had the guts to make a Trek where a perfect ending or the hero restores everything just right didn't happen.
-
I've been trying to figure out WHY the Phantom Menace was so awful for years -- I knew it sucked, but I couldn't figure out why it sucked SO BAD. It was a revelation to find out that there are reasons, identifiable reasons, that things SUCK. I kinda love his "Baby's Day Out" review as a brilliant illustration of how "the rules of sucking" aren't genre-specific. You can't just say "it's junk for kids." There are good movies for kids, and horrible ones, and there are reasons the horrible ones are bad. Plinkett's a critic that kind of teaches the viewer to actually think critically. You can take the rules behind his critique of Phantom Menace, and use them to figure out why the movies you like are good. Or why, if you're a nostalgic, infantile nerd stuck on the totems of your childhood, the movies you like are probably BAD.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:11 a.m. CST
this is the first remake that is disguised as a reboot
by DioxholsterReturns
haha. while i have admiration for the old timeless trek, the new stuff aint bad but it will never capture this generation in any way again. for this i say "au revoir" to star trek. hello AVATAR! oh wait, what have we done...
-
We can debate this forever but the truth is Abrams Trek is more believable in it's outcome dealing with time travel then any other Trek dealing with Time travel. It wasn't a perfect happy ending where the hero saves the day and restores the balance. In reality I believe that what happened in Abrams trek is the realist because no way can u clean up an altered timeline perfectly. The rule has always been that any alteration in the time line no matter how small changes something. Picard and Kirk and the rest of the crew always managed to neatly clean up the past and nothing is changed. Now that is something I can't believe. Human error is just to great and things never go as planned despite getting the outcome you want.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:15 a.m. CST
The Founder --- but time travel here was used to start the new t
by DioxholsterReturns
not as a normal adventure. BIG difference where i come from.
-
It's a new timeline, like Back to the Future has timelines all over the place. It's like BTTF II.
-
That is truth friends. If u hated the direction Abrams went them I suggest u get the old films on DVD as well as the tv shows and wash your hands of all future Trek. It's not going to be restored. Trek 09 was a success and it was watchable by the none fans. I shit u not when I tell u that Trek films of the past I went alone to see. No one wanted to see Trek that I hang with. Everyone I knew liked the trailers and saw the movie that Abrams made. Yeah I can acknowledge that it was made for the masses and not the fans. Transformers raked in bank and that was a Paramount flick. The execs jumped at the chance to relaunch Trek and put the writers of TF on Trek. Money talks people.
-
That Jar Jar Abrams' movie takes so much from STAR WARS should be an indication of why the movie is wrong. STAR TREK has it's own universe and style, there's no need to take it and turn it into a visualization of another different SF saga. It's one thing to turn Batman grittier (if you will) because there has been precedent to that and even harks back to it's origins. It's another to turn an already established franchise and try to veer it into something it's not. Abrams himself admited that his movie was about nothing, it had no theme whatsoever. The hero jorney of Kirk and Spock, that's not a theme (contrary to what many who enjoyed the movie claimed) but a plot structure. The move had no theme, which goes deliberatly agaisnt the very spirit of Star Trek which can be found in all the movies and TV shows. The comparisons that can be found to ST is superficial are best. And frankly, i don't think it's a good or smart idea to try to make a franchise look like another, it causes a monotony, with two major franchises now looking alike one another. What would make one specfial in relation with the other then? Abrams stole ST identity. I don't need to be a fan to see the wrong in that. If oneis to compare Abram's moie with BATMAN BEGINS as the fans of the movei want, then the only comparison is that Abrams's movie does everything rong what BB did right. They shouldn't be so much compared as contrasted.
-
You only get to the conclusion it's a reboot because the filmmakers said so in interviews. From watching the movie you woudn't get such understanding. The movie itself sends mixed messages, it wants to be a continuation, to be a reboot, to be set in a paralel universe but not really but obvious it wants to also be it's own version... the movie doesn't know what it wants to be. So the filmmakers said the thing they though would hit closer to the audience's expectations and desires. The movie lacks the strengh of it's own convictions. The "it's set in the same universe but in a breached paralel universe" is self-contradicted with the presence of brands like Nokia and Budweiser. Remember thatthe very fisrt sloga for the movie was "This is not your daddy's Star Trek", a very direct nod to the very young, teen crowd. That was the original idea, that the mvoie would be a totaly completly new Star Trek reinvented. but then we get time travels with Nimoy playing the original spock, we get paralel universes, we get the new movie eing a result of a branchingof the universe, whatever they get their hand son it it's a justification to their movie. There's no one answer to what this movie is to the original TOS Star Trek because the filmmakers themselves didn't came with one.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:33 a.m. CST
actually i know people who hate sci-fi so much ...
by DioxholsterReturns
..that they refused to see the new trek. they have such illogical disdain for sci-fi. but if you show them ghost whisperer they dont mind. i dont understand why.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:33 a.m. CST
Abrams Trek bitching is pointless. Paramount couldn't give a...
by The Founder
FLYING FUCK that a handful of fans is bitching about Abrams Trek. It made more cash then the entire TNGfilms combined. How fucking sad was it when Jennifer Lopez's film beat Trek Nemesis or Insurection as the number one film on opening weekend. I dont even remember which Trek it was cause they were bad films with a lot of Trek nonsense. I knew Star Trek was dead then. Abrams Trek was good for me. I loved it. It had faults like being classified as a scifi/fantasy but their was little science actually in it. Abrams and company Just threw a bunch of folks on a space ship to fight and chase a bad guy. Their was no fantasy to Abrams Trek. Maybe one day we'll get a talented writer who has imagination and can craft both good action and science and fantasy and blend them together but for now Abrams Trek worked for me and I loved it.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:35 a.m. CST
Kaitain: I Didn't Misunderstand Anything. Abrams Messed-Up!!!
by Media Messiah
The Star Trek Universe, as we have been shown, in the past, has always stated that if the timeline is changed, that it affects the normal timeline, and the future, hence, the reason Kirk, and the Enterprise crew, from the original series and movies, would regularly fix broken timelines, that is the whole entire point of multiple time travel episodes of the original series, and even one of the movies staring the original crew, this would include the classic 60s episode...City On The Edge of Forever; remember Spock's own words..."Edith Keller...must die", or Hitler will win World War II...and something about a Third World War wll occur, if she did not die? She was the love of James T. Kirk's life, and yet, they allowed her to die because if she did not, it would destroy their timeline, that is the point of the episode--Kirk is forced to sacrifice the woman that he loved, to save millions, perhaps, billions of lives? The same was true of the plot of another classic Trek episode in which fighter pilot from our time, came in contact with the Enterprise, after the Enterprise accidentally went back in time, and they, its crew, had to send the pilot back to his fighter, and erase his memory, at the point that he first made eye contact with the Enterprise, or it would destroy the timeline, and the pilot's son would not become a famous astronaut, or something akin to that. They never discussed, creating alternate timelines in Star Trek mythos, at least, those that they would care about.<BR><BR>Let's say that you are correct, that this new Trek is based in an alternate timeline? If that is true, how does Nero's revenge plot count? It doesn't, because the people whom he is killing, or trying to kill, are not the same people, but rather, they are their aternate timeline selves; so much for revenge! And when he destroys Vulcan, he really isn't destroying Vulcan, as it is an alternate timeline Vulcan--and the same with anything else, or anyone else, that he destroys. That being the case, why should original timeline Spock care about any of this? Logic, being his main mode of operations, would inform him that it is not logical to try and save a people, or worlds, that are perfectly fine elsewhere, in another timeline, that being, the original timeline. And since the new timeline should not exist in the first place, it is perfectly fine to allow it to be destroyed, as there are no consequences to the real timeline. Essentually, the new timeline is filled with pseudo versions of our world, and our universe, thus, it is like a video game, if it, or the people populating it, are destroyed, there is...no harm, and no foul--as non of it counts to us, or our timeline, period. Still, original timeline Spock is upset by the unfolding events n the new timeline, including the death of his mother and Vulcan? He also risks his life to stop a villain who is, again, killing people, and desroying things, in what amounts to a non-consequentual world, and universe? If none of this matters, and our original timeline is safe, why would original timeline Spock even waste his time trying to save new timeline Spock, Kirk, and crew...and the Federation, etc.? Here's the damning truth: JJ Abrams and his writing team, just plain screwed-up!!! They didn't understand the subject matter, and were collectively all out to get a big paycheck--to hell with smart writing. Stargate did a straight to DVD movie which carried a similar subject--that being time travel altering time, and creating an alternate world, and universe. The Stargate writers, and producers, really kicked major ass with that project. It is called Stargate Continuum, if I recall correctly? They really blew JJ's new Star Trek off the screen, and with the budget of a TV syndicated series episode.
-
It's a rebootinuation!!!
-
FATE, DESTINY, COLLECTIVE SALVATION, FEAR OF THE FUTURE, AND SHORT SKIRTS...Mmmmm.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:44 a.m. CST
hallelujah, stargate continuum being praised over trek
by DioxholsterReturns
i fully support such arguments
-
What say what??? How was Trek anything like SW? Abrams did not copy SW. I guess if u wanna say it was like SW cause it had action in it then I guess it was like SW. Both are of the same genre so if u look for them u can point out similarities. I can point out similarities I saw in Sw that was ripped from Trek.
-
What say what??? How was Trek anything like SW? Abrams did not copy SW. I guess if u wanna say it was like SW cause it had action in it then I guess it was like SW. Both are of the same genre so if u look for them u can point out similarities. I can point out similarities I saw in Sw that was ripped from Trek.
-
DL 'tweeted' Plinkett's previous reviews. I would imagine this is going to be watched over at Paramount at least once, along with a read through of the talkbacks<p> His review of TPM was unique and original not only in his style, but because he went into why the movie was bad beyond the surface complaints many people had. He had 70 minutes of discussing why the movie made no sense, and how things should be. A lot of what he says could be very constructive for future filmmakers who do care what people like him think of their movie (even if their studio might not)
-
and as such to him he wants revenge of any sort no matter what timeline it is. if you think about it more, he might actually want the ULTIMATE revenge of changing the timeline and create horrible consequences for the people he hated. i think i found that part intriguing in the new trek, how their emotions are ignoring the absurdity of the situation.
-
...to make the new Star Trek feel like Star Wars, and with the heroes journey stuff they added, the first half of the movie's archetype was lifted from Star Wars, when you think of the script outline--and Joseph Campbell's examination of story archetypes being one of the main inspirations for Lucas' work. Let's see: Directionless farm boy, looking for adventure, and a place in the world, stumbles into a star spanning adventure? Hhhhhmmm? Where have we heard that before? And he is mentored by a great star warrior, but must first prove himself amid the brewing of a great star battle? Luke Skywalker and Old Ben=Kirk and Christopher Pike. Throw in the alien bar at Mos Isley, and the Ice Planet Hoth, etc., and there you go. JJ and company stole as much as they could without retitling the movie Star Wars.
-
New Trek had Planeticide as well. and Spock clearly did a Jedi mind trick on that linguist Nyota Uhura whatever.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 3:06 a.m. CST
its been like over 30 years and still trying to copy star wars
by DioxholsterReturns
when is sci fi gonna be original again?
-
...but were the members of his crew insane, or was original timeline Spock, insane...also? Answer: No! Spock is ruled by logic. He would have just simply come to the conclusion that Nero was insane, and dismissed him as being just that, before returning home to his original timeline, leaving those in the new timeline to deal with Nero. Again, if we are to believe that the new timeline does not affect the original timeline, then logic would demand that original timeline Spock ignore it, and that which was happening in it, and return home--that, and Star Fleet's Prime Directive, which is their rule of non-interference in the affairs of other developing beings or their cultures, governments, and societies.
-
Out-Of-Context quote of the week.
-
one of the themes of the movie was that there should be a balance between emotion and logic. i guess original spock felt it was his responsibility.
-
The planet drill weapon and Nero's ship are The Deathstar, and Nero and his men killed Vulcan...like the Empire killed Leia's home planet. One exploded, and the other imploded, but the same result. And then there is Sulu's version of the light saber/the unfolding sword that he had?<BR><BR>I agree with you, it is time for something new in science fiction. Star Wars is over 33 years old, and as you said, people are still stealing from it? Enough already!!! Move on, and do something new, and fresh.
-
He's a stupid idiot who gives movie fans a bad name, he has nothing better to do with his sad, pathetic existence. <P> He should just fuck off under the rock he was spawned under.
-
If you are dealing with that theory, the parallel universe theory, then parallel universes can multiply...forever, infinitely so. All possibilities, of all actions, can occur, and will occur, or have occured, or are occuring...simultaneously, thus, nothing is impossible. Kennedy was never assasinated in one universe, and Hilter won World War II in another, etc. This could go, on and on, for infinity, that being the different combinations of possibilities for all realities, hence, original timeline Spock, even being half-human, would have to say to himself, that there is no logic in him attemtping to save one of the many alternate universes, because that would only create another one, where Nero wins, as it has to exist, or will, according to theory, that all possibilities, and combinations of existence, become possible, and real. It would then become an endless chase, with no resolve, no resolution, only endless new beginnings. Once more, how can original timeline Spock feel emotional over something where those whom he is trying to save, are doing just fine, elsewhere in the original timeline, and will not be affected by his actions. He can't save every universe/timeline--that would be illogical, even for a person who is 100 percent human, let alone, half, or full, Vulcan.
-
There are no closer to reality scenarios about time travel, specially if by that you mean travel bakc in time. It's impossible to happen. all the time travel there can be is toward the future, and you are doing just that right now. To try to justify Abram's Strek, the most scientific illiterate of the whole ST movies (and Tv shows) ever made is reaching at straws. Even the filmmakers themselves don't make such claims. That's a case of the fans being more papist then the pope.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 3:48 a.m. CST
but then why would Spock save people in his own timeline?
by DioxholsterReturns
when other timelines are doing just fine?
-
and didnt even get PAID!!! eh Harry..eh..
-
"Paramount couldn't give a FLYING FUCK that a handful of fans is bitching about Abrams Trek."<p> A very much doubt Paramount feels the same way. After all, no sooner were they congratulating themselves on rejuvenating the franchise and even looking forward to major Oscar nominations when AVATAR came along and completely stole the SF thunder for the year, with DISTRICT 9 crowding it out of the Best Picture category.<p> As I said earlier, a lot of its success can be chalked up to curiosity, hype and nostalgia, but it's going to take more than that to sustain a franchise.
-
and not reboot anything. there are plenty of ideas out there, look at all the books and comics, there is plenty of stuff. why cant that stuff be made into movies or have someone come up with something that has new themes.
-
... (and it's an hypothesis and not a theory becaus eit hasn0't been demonstrated) is that it contradicts the whole laws of thermodynamics, specialyl those about the conservation of energy. Basically, nothing can be made out of nothing. The only scenario where APARENTLY things pop into existence is in the macroscopic level of quantum physics, which s the realm of the very small. how small? So small it has no effect on the macroscopic level where we inhabit on, except for very exotic phenomena, like the radiation emited by black holes, which happens in very extreme circunstances. So, for another universe to pop up just because one day you decided to wake up five minutes later that day is absurd. It means that a whole universe as big as the one exists will come to existence just because you got lazy ass that day? Nonsense! You can make a whole universe turn into existence just because of such a small action, and with the whole same mass as this one we live in. You can't turn a whole universe from nothing, you can't duplicate things just for wishing them so. Nothing in nature is made or destroyed, everything is transformed.<br><br>If the notion is to TRAVEL to another different universe, as in, to make a bridge to another diferent universe which was created and exists in the neighbourhood of ours, that also is silly if one to see it at some realistic level, as the Abram's Trek fan want. Because the universe as we know it was made due to the subtle changes and happenings that occured the imediate seconds after the so-called BIG BANG. How, for example, matter is the dominant mass object in our universe instead of anti-matter because there was a difference of one atom between the two, as in, there was one billion and one atoms of matter for each one billion atoms of anti-matter. Every mass that exists today in the universe isfrom the one atom more that made the difference. But our universe is particular to the initial circunstances when it's earlier seconds of existence. All the laws of physiscs that exist are direct consequences of those. Different universes, IF THEY EXIST, would had different circunstances and effects happening at it's first seconds of existence with would make them have totally different physical lwas we have here. And this is all taking into account that paralel universes CAN exist, which is not a given at all.<br><br>There is no problem in a Sf story to create stories in paralel universes. well used, like in MIRROR MIRROR, they cna be fuel for great drama. The problem with Abram's Trek is that the filmmakers didn't even decided what they wanted to do with their own idea, and all they have said after the movie have been released it retconning to try to fill in the plot hole gaps. And failing at that, i might add.
-
no one ever gave an explanation. i know its about the acting, but some sci-fi movies got good acting too.
-
Hey bro, was just wondering..TOS or TNG?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 4:05 a.m. CST
M-theory says there are different types of parallel universe
by DioxholsterReturns
one that resemble our own and others that have the same events and people and ones that came out of a tim burton movie.
-
...lives in our timeline, his original timeline, or that which is native to his conscious mind. If his loved ones die here, well, they will continue to exist elsewhere, yes, in some form, but their existence will be partitioned from our own, and invisible to our own eyes, and senses, and his (Spock's). That is a version of death, and one might wish to fight to keep their loved ones in their reality as long as they can, thus, the reason he would fight to save them, and risk all. In addition, they, our parallel selves, those living in a parallel dimension, will not be the same versions of the people he knows, and loves, that being, those who exist in other timelines/universes, like the reality in the Star Trek Mirror Universe, where everyone is evil--they are the same people he knows, but not the same. You'll recall on Next Generation, there is a parallel universe where Worf is married to Deanna Troi, and they have two kids, but in this universe, they are not a couple, and he has a son by a Klingon woman. He cares about Troi, even loves her, and she feels something for him, intuitively sensing their alt universe relatonship, but she is not the same Troi from the other universe/timeline.
-
http://youtu.be/bP_0dDjoW_o <p> i very much agree to that
-
Very close to the same, but certain things are off. There are those who often remember a celebrity dying. Hell, it has even happened to me, and then, bam, as if by magic, you learn that said individual is alive, and well? I have even experienced this with word spellings, or discussing certain events that I experienced while growing up with others. I have one version of it, an event, and they have another? And in regard to the correct spellings of specific words, every once in a while, I will stumble upon a word, that I am certain I had previously been spelling properly, and learn that the spelling is slightly different than I knew it to be?<BR><BR>Is it the case of a faulty memory, or is there an issue of a dimensional glitching, or a dimensional shift, or time alteration, between two or more dimensions???
-
I will go and check it out now!!!
-
I have a better explanation for the universe.<BR><BR>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWYXIuuI-Rg
-
"It's a rebootinuation!!!"<br><br>Yeah, you are right, one needs to invent a new word to describethe nonsense bullshit that Abrams and friends pulled out with his Trek movie.
-
I have to say TOS because it's the one i really know. I'm quite ignorant of TNG, i have only seen a dozen or less of TNG and episodes which were spreaded out from different seasons. However, i love Picard, i consider him one of the best characters ever created for TV and with a great actor, one of the best, to play him too.
-
If you don't like what i say, talk to the hand. And for your information, i know next to nothing of ST Enterprise other then Scott Bakula plays the captain and a babe plays a vulcan. As for Doctor Who, i'm portuguese, and it has been very sporadically shown here, and that's the new series started with Christopher Eccleston. Again, you ar eone of those fools that you think that one can only dislike Jar Jar Abrams's BREWRY TREK if oneos some kind of hardcore trekkie or whatever the fuck that crosses you JarJarHead fanboys minds. Epic fail that, man.
-
If you hate me, do like our Sicuv Uyall and talk to the hand. Then go shove shit, i mean, watch Jar Jar Abrams's BREWRY TREK. You know, for "fun"!
-
"But the fact that they haven't rushed a sequel out makes me think somebody at the studio was unhappy with Abrams' Trek."<br><br>Here's to hoping. Abram's Trek movie should be treated as a curio, as a failed experience, as a stand alone movie which with no follow up. and then they couldhire somebody who actually knows what he's doing, and show some respect for the franchise he's making a movie about, and effectively reboot it or make a new whole ST series with original characters. Ronald D. Moore would be the right guy for the job, on account he actually worked on ST once, be knows the thing and he's truly talented and surrounds himself with talented people, specially writers and directors.
-
Is that they want to get it right and not rush in like most people do, actually planning out what they are doing unlike most big budget sequels that start filming without a finished script because they have been rushed into production. <P>
-
if you're such a big fan of TOS, you should really give Enterprise a chance. <P> Just watch season four. Almost every episode is a homaage to TOS, In A Mirror Darkly is up there with the best Trek ever. In fact just watch those 2 episodes, they tie directly into " The Tholian Web"
-
and fuck JJ THE HACK Abrams too.
-
I found Plinketts review of that actually insightful and clever. But after that? He comes across like an idiot. As others have pointed out very well, he has contradicted himself a lot. Many of the issues he had with Avatar, he just dismisses with the new Trek by saying, "its what it needed to be"...Again, its double standard bullshit. He goes on about how dumb the new trek is, bit it comes across as a review written by someone that was paid to make it favourable. He constantly excuses Trek's "flaws" when he used same said "flaws" to condemn other films. So which is it? Sorry, but you cant have it both ways, the "rules" either apply always, or they apply never....
-
im ceretainly not blind to its problems (not least of all a very dumb script). But Plinkett is more and more showing himself to be no better/insightful than any other bitter, over obsessed fanboy lurking around internet forums. Fuck him for this contrary, hypocritical, and idiotic "review"
-
Spock did had a way to cojntact the Federation after he was deposited in ice moon by Nero. He knew there was a federation outpost nearby (it's him to points that out to Nu Kirk in the cave). So, all he needed to do, as the logic beaing he is, was to immediatly haul ass toward it, instead of staying behind sight-seeing his own planet getting destroyed. Spock is like that, he can block out emotions that would paralize any normal human being and go about his business. It would be even more so with such an important subject as such a treat. This is just bad writing, to have Spock just sitting around in a cave that Nu Kirk finds under impossible coincidental circunstances so that he can be convinient to Nu Kirk, pull a deux ex machina and advance the plot in a very artificial and blunt way.<br><br>The problems about Jar Jar Trek are enourmous and numerous. Each minute of that movie's screentime presents a problem and a mistake that is just mindboggling it even mananged to pass the scriptwriting stage and was actually filmed and/or turned into a SFX. You the fans of the movie all you do is to pull some minor element from the movieand expand it beyond proportion in the chance to obfuscate the critics and detractors. Turning small things into big things to try to make the movie look better by sublimation. Meanwhile, the movie has small AND BIG problems. Big problems which, in other movies, have united the geekry agaisnt them, like, say, the CLASH OF THE TITANS remake, TRANSFORMERS 2 or WOLVERINE to name a few. But what was problems in those movies magically became no problem whatsoever for JJ Trek. Weird thinking that.
-
Ther eis no extremist in dealing with an extreme subject. There ar eno extremist critics of TRANSFORMERS 2 because that movie is an extreme example of a bad movie. to point all all the numerous problems in the movie is not being an extremist, you ar ejust telling it as it is. Same with JJ Trek. It is an extreme example of a bad movie filled to the teeth and beyond with problems and mistakes and bad calls and mind-boggling dramatic decisions. In fact, if there is one thing about the critics about JJ TREK is that they havne't even said the whole thing about the movie's problems, we have been focused exclusively on the problems whihc was the more obvious and visible, in our assuption that by pointing them out, other would understand. Which has only half-suceed, because many of the fans are not even acepting and understanding the deal about the movie's more obvious problems. Or turning a blind eye to them, depending of the attitude they came with that better suits them.
-
I don't claim to be a big fan of TOS. I'd look like an amateur if i dared claiming that. I like TOS, i think i evne love it, and i have an enourmous amount of admiration for it. I think more accuratly is to say i admire the show. Not as a fanboy in that i don't put it as the best Sf i ever liked, becaue that wouldn't be true. Blade Runner and 2001 are ahead, those are my favority type of SF. But i admire and respect what Roddenberry pulled out, what he created, and the ideals he put into it and how he presented them in the form of a TV show and movies. Specially the level of intelligent that went to them, most notably the scripts for the TOS show. When TOS is good, it's suberb. As for ENTERPRISE, let me just say this, i have a lot of problem pass the terrible opening credits song. What the fuck was that shit, anyway? Soft-rock power ballad? Who was the retard who though that shit was acceptable? The song even fucking sucks!
-
I don't think anyone liked the Enterprise theme tune, it had a wicked end scredits theme they should have used instead. But it's a good show and it was wrongly cancelled. <P> If you like the original series, there is a lot in Enterprise to like also.
-
Tuimew traveling in the St universe never created paralel, universes. That's an exclusive to Abram's movie. The paralel universe that Kirk and Co. arrived at in the episode MIRROR MIRROR was due to a transforter malfuicntioning on a specific phenomena that happened in a planet that had a specific goobligook proprieties to some exotic unique mineral native to that place. When the crew of ST travelled in time, they always went to their own timeline, and always their major concern was no not do anything which could cause a change and a disruption of events that would happen later. Nero and his timetraveling and the consequences of his actions would fit right in in what Spock would think of "things to remedy and repair and prevent" as done so many times before in the TOS show. Spock's resignation to his fate and what Nero did is very atypical to what spock would had done in the TOS shows. Atypical to the point of a complete character reversal.
-
It does whatever is convinient to the plot. One moment it makes black holes, in another it creates wormholes, depending on what is needed for the plot and how to advance the plot. It's silly beyond belief. How such bad writing can get away with it nowdays is beyond belief.
-
Shouldn't he be a great filmmaker by now? Instead, we are stuck with JJ Abrams trying to pretend to be Steven Spielberg's son, by default?
-
I hated every second of it. No movie even comes close to filling me with rage and disgust than this. I will NEVER watch it again.
-
For those of you who don't 'get' Plinkett's reviews, they're funny, irreverent, and shocking analytical. What he says is smart. If you can't stand his voice then you naturally don't see his reviews for more than a minute at most. There's someone in this talkback complaining he mispronounces words when it's on fucking purpose. Some people are too dense. Plinkett's Star Trek review is another brilliant addition to his other reviews.
-
A single drop of red matter created a black hole. Using up the entire supply of, which there is gallons of, would have unpredictable consequences. And who's to say a black hole wasn't a worm hole too?
-
Honorable mentions go out to "DorkmanScott" and "ThisGuyIsMyNewFavoriteCritic". Nail on the fucking head guys... <P> What it all really comes down to is this: Mr. Plinkett, much like myself, OBJECTIVELY CRITIQUES, ANALYZES, EXAMINES, DECONSTRUCTS art (in this case, FILM). Generally, more intelligent folk have a habit of doing this. We don't simply "watch movies", like the simple-minded masses do... we treat film seriously (as we do with all types of art...) and we critically judge and analyze it. Mr. Plinkett is brilliantly insightful, clever, articulate, and above all else... THOROUGH. He is obviously an intelligent, cultured, well-read fellow. <P> It's this simple. If you don't like or appreciate this genuis, than you obviously lack the ability to critically judge or analyze art. You couldn't, in a million years, examine/dissect a film the way Mr. Plinkett does. No fucking chance. You all just react with hostility. <P> People that don't like Plinkett most likely have this inner monologue going on: "I hate people that clearly demonstrate a higher level of thought and insight than i do... I just absolutely loathe people who are more creative than i could ever dream of being... I detest people that actually spend time making something clever, witty, intelligent, and insightful..." <P> Fuck you, you jealous douchenozzles. And i too loved that idiot up above who "mocked" Mr. Plinkett for mispronouncing words... lmao Gee bud, missed the point much? <P> It's obvious that the people talking shit about Plinkett have never actually watched the reviews... "his voice is annoying! Waaaaaah!!" <P> Fuckin' mouth-breathers lol
-
J.J. Abrams Star Trek film was overrated, shallow, FLUFF. Mediocre at best... <P> The opening scene, Zoe Saldana's hot ass, and Giacchino's score were the only decent things about that boring, cliched mess of a movie.
-
Another aspect of Bones personality is that he's a hopeless romantic and he always had a weak spot for the ladies, to whihc he acts very charming and gentlemanly but also shy and timid. Which always made him quite endearing.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 7:33 a.m. CST
I actually think Mr. Plinkett was a little too kind...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
with his "Star Track" review. However, i can't fucking wait for his Episode III deconstruction... C'mon man, GET TO IT!
-
Dude... GET OVER IT ALREADY. <P> Star Trek (J.J. Abrams or otherwise...) is absolutely NOT worth the time and effort you spend hating/defending it... <P> You really need a new fucking hobby lol
-
I truly feel sorry for you suckers. You probably would never appreciate other brilliant, hilarious people that brought us such things like: <P> RealUltimatePower.net <P> Maddox X-Mission <P> PointlessWasteOfTime (and other David Wong/John Cheese offshoots...) <P> TheGuyWithTheGlasses (most known for his "Movies in 5 Seconds") <P> You poor, sad little people...
-
but AVGN and Mr. Plinkett are hilarious. Just look at the likes vs dislikes and comments on Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews. Obviously the guy is doing something right.<p>Can't wait for his Episodee 3 review.
-
Media Messiah and AsmiovLives are "experts" in something that... is just theoretical at best. You guys know that time travel isn't possible, right? And spaceships don't make sounds in space? Must be nice to not have jobs and bang away at a keyboard in your mother's attic... Lots of people liked the movie. Get over it.
-
Sorry, but time travel is theoretically possible, there is quite a lot of documented stuff from the like of Hawking and numerous other physicists on the subject.
-
This guy is a moron, he's not funny, if you don't like films that's fine but to take it to such an extreme to be so negative. <P> Mr Plinkett, you obviously have a lot of passion, why not try channeling it into something creative for a change.
-
both movies had a ridiculous mcguffin device which was used conveniently each time the story needed to move on.at least D9 had a better story which made sense and not that POS garbage that it was ST.but from the writers of XENA and HERCULES,what more can someone expect?
-
Look a butt-hurt Star Wars fan. The prequels deserve the extreme negativity. What a colossal piece of shit they are.
-
...or some production company. They are too comprehensive and insightful to be made just by some fanboy.They even edited well and shot lots of footage for it. There is some serious analizing and writing work going on here. There is money in this. And if it is money, than it is a studio behind it.
-
Mr. Plinkett is creating: he (or he and his team) is making money with these vids. And it is entertaining. so why dont you just shut the fuck up you whiny ass nerd.
-
A 70 minutes of review is a bit too much. 20 minutes would be acceptable, around 10 minutes would be preferable.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Nero's ship is now the Death Star? I didn't see that and I say that only because it's sci-fi and outlandish weapons and magical hi technology has always been present in the genre. A weapon or dangerous substance that can wipe out a planet isnt anything new or original. Lucas didn't make some original that hasn't been thought of or put in a story. Red Matter to me was a plot device or some magical substance no different then the same magical substance in Trek's Generations that went even further and imploded a Sun thus wiping out an entire Solar System. SW and Trek are of the same genre, at some point they are both bound to have similarities. I remember people at this very site bitching about the SW prequels having Trek shit in them.
-
Thats very ture. What sets Red Matter apart from Soran's trilithium rockets in Generations, they were capable of destroying stars.
-
if all you need is a drop, why risk bringing that huge ball of it? assuming it's even contained well, what happens if spock's ship actually got shot down (oh no, that would never happen, hes spock!) but if that much red matter 'ignited' or whatever, wouldn't that entire region of space be fucked? way to go. also stupid: one star going supernova destroying an entire GALAXY made of billions of stars. don't know how i missed that in the theater, i admit i was hypnotized by lens flares and action and the words were all just mumbles by that point .
-
Not only is TPM a hundred times more imaginative, but where have we seen a movie about a space farmboy who has ends up going into space and blowing up a planet destroying super weapon?!
-
The biggest problem I had with the movie is that we are TOLD we are watching alternate versions of the characters. It's like if they decided to make the TNG films set in the reality were Worf and Troi are married. WTF? Give us a movie with the characters that we know and love. Even a reboot would've been preferably thna this time-travel-alternate-reality-universe-parallel bollocks.
-
As a fan of the Indiana Jones saga, the 4th movie felt like a stab to the heart. Since i was never a fan of the SW saga (enjoying the movies is the most that can be said about how i feel for them), the prequels never hurted me or made me feel disapointed or betrayed... well, THE PHAMTOM MENACE does indeed has many of the flaws most say it has... except for the fight between Obi Wan, Neeson and Darth Maul, that kicked ass!
-
"A single drop of red matter created a black hole. Using up the entire supply of, which there is gallons of, would have unpredictable consequences."<br><br>That's a coup out. The point was that it was not supposed to have unpredictable consequences. and worst, why they would still have any of the stuff anyway, since it was to be used for the romula Sun? It should had been used all up, instead of what it looks like it's still a full capacity. And another thing, since the red matter is stuff that Spock and a few other scientists came up themselves and is very new tech to save from a very recent threath, how the fuck some bumpkin miners are so expect in using it? Are miners experts in the use of the most recent nucelar accelerator tech, for instance?Again, the movie fucking fails. It was another desperate atemp from Jar Jar and Co to imitate THE WRATH OF KAHN. Badly, i might add.<br><br>"And who's to say a black hole wasn't a worm hole too?">br><br>Physics, both real and in the ST universe. In ST, a black hole and a wormhole are two different things, which both coincide with what is understood about them in real world physics.
-
Oh jezz, god forbid people people actually be interested and curious about science stuff, hem? god forbid people take an interest about what's known about such subjects, hem? Only scientists are privvy to such knowledge, hem? Scientists don't share their knowledge to the word through Tv shows and internet boletims, hem? God forbid people know anything other then just what's to do about their job and nothing else, hem? DON'T BE DAFT, MAN! Jar Jar Abram's BREWRY TREK is a dumb movie, you don't need to be one too. Get a grip.
-
The Red Matter was created to aborb the explosion of the star. instead it sent dudes back in time. If it had worked, would it have just sent the explosion back in time? Did Vulcan go back in time?
-
During the Next Generation run..... One of the writers on that show apparently was into the "Doc Brown" theory on time travel. Every other episode the time line skewed into another timeline, which made absolutely no since at all. That's pretty much why I was able to accept the action packed lens flared atrocity that was STAR TREK 2009. Hopefully by the time the new one is released the time line will skew again to feature a crew of one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters in THREEEEEEE-DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
-
Well, if we're going by the Doc Brown theory, the time line split when Nero arrived. And then split again when Spock arrived. So we're watching an alternate alternate reality.
-
I never waste time with movies. Whenever i talk, think or watch them, it's never wasted time. This is because they are my favorite hobby. You don't lose time with the stuff you love, which you have apassion for. The subject of good or bad movies is par de course about all this movie hobby business. i never get tired of discussing about movies, the good and the bad. The only movies i don't bother to talk about are the banal beige milquetoast ones, for obvious reasons. Thr shitty ones, i talk about them as much i would the good ones. If you can't understand why, ask yourself how much you truly are into movie geekdom.
-
thats what this movie is.If it didnt have the name star trek and was directed by Bay,it wouldnt have gather the same amount of positivity and acceptance by the dork fanboys.<br /> <p>Its all about double standards and hypocrisy because at the end its about personal taste and what the the psychology of the mainstream opinion.<br /> <p>I remember io9.com kept trashing Avatar for being a derivative product from other original stories,every week they were posting new articles from various sources to point out this thing.BUT when Inception came out,which was equally a derivative product of original stories,well guess what: not only they didnt say anything about its derivativeness but they proclaimed it as the movie which changed the way we look at movies.<br /> <p>the same thing with ST.people defend it by saying that its stupid fun,that JJ brought back the fun in ST.But when the same arguments is brought up when Bay and his TF are concernced,well again guess what: stupid fun is bad,it isnt a valid criteria for the value of a movie.yeah right.<br /> <p>not that i want to defend TF2 or something,both TF2 and ST are pure garbages.But as i said i love the hypocrisy and the double standards of the dumb fanboys.I love it when these people give value to reviewers like Plinkett because through him they find a voice to express and support their opinions,but in reality its one more doucheback who like them,hasnt seen anything else apart from what is mainstream and pop.<br /> <p>fuck him and fuck all the rest of them.fuck them.
-
So that means there's some ST Abramsverse where Nero won, probably. I think i would rather have that, sinc ei found the heros of Abrams' TREK irritating and anpoying beyond belief, specially Nu Kirk. I would had rather root fo the villain, if it wasn't for the fact he was so fucking boring creature made of nothingness.
-
But INCEPTION did well by itself, it has it's own identity, it's an original work in itself and not base don an already comodity, and it uses the tropes in it's own fashion and way. AVATAR, on a more limited way, does it too, though in a more unelegant and blunt way. Jar Jar Abram's BREWRY TREK doens't even bother to disguise the cliches it's made of. But worst it's the open contempt it has for the very franchise it took it's name from. I tell you, the ST fandom is a notoriously opne minded and accepting bunch. If what Abrams did to Trek he had done to Star Wars, there would be burning of effigies still going on right now to the point that the geeks would had forgiven everything Lucas did in the prequels.
-
He "OBJECTIVELY CRITIQUES, ANALYZES, EXAMINES, DECONSTRUCTS". Except that he demonstrably does not do this, as any close study of his 'reviews' will reveal. They are overly-nitpicky, and often contradictory, statements that mean nothing in the grand scheme of what constitutes a good film, and completely subjective likes and dislikes couched in the guise of 'legit' analysis. You have had the wool pulled over your eyes and been taken in, hook, line and sinker. Still, since Plinkett's audience seems to be even less intelligent than he is, then it is easy to explain how they can so readily be fooled. You are simply praising him because he regurgitates exactly what you want to hear, and can thus feel better about having your fanboy rage about certain movies 'confirmed' in a sort of mass communion.<p>And yes, the voice and persona is an act. It doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks that kind of mysogynistic humor and persona is funny to begin with is a very creepy individual to begin with. Mr. Plinkett is a weirdo with too much time on his hands.
-
And it unfortunately will fuel his lunatic rantings even further.
-
Nero travels back in time but instead of going to save his beloved family and planet,he goes to destroy Vulcan for something that it will happen in the future? what the fuck is this shit? who the fuck writes this shit? and who the fuck directs this shit? <br /> <p>and Asimov fuck you Zoe Saldana did a great job as Neytiri,she was giving a live performance which was essential for transforming a cgi character into a soulful one.her acting was the heart of the movie and since you are clueless about the mo-cap technology of Avatar,you should stfu and talk only about ST.comprende amigo?
-
I thought he only trashed movies. STUFF IT ASIMOVLIVES!
-
And time travel is not theoretical possible. Not time travel to the past, anyway. To the future, it's happening all the time, you are doing it just now merely by existing. If you wanted to go faster you would need either to travel very close to light speed (nigh on impossible) or to use the relativistic effects near a black hole event horizont (nigh on impossible as well). As for time travel to the past, can't happen. I know it ruins a lot of romantic notions, but that's cold reality. Any scientist who claims it can be done, even theoretically, is telling pork lies. Stephen Hawkins demonstrated quite well why it can be done, even with the use of the wormholes, and it all has to do with feedback.<br><br>It's the same effect as feedback happens with sound systems, when the sound form the speakers is captured by the microphone and returns to the speakers, making a constant loop. for each lop it make,s it increases in frequency because it goes faster and thus, means it increases energy to the point that it can bust and ruin the sound system. Same thing happens with wormhole,s but instead of sound what's lopped is radiation. What kind of radiation? Background radiation, which exists everywhere in the universe. You are surrounded by it right now. that radiation is the remains of the Big Bang, it's the smoke that resulted from it, so to speak. Two wormholes an entry points to two different timelines would create the same effect for background radiation as a microphoine and a speaker would in the case of sound feedback. Radiation caught by the wormhole would go into it and came out to the other end, which in turn would be captured and thrown into to other end, due to time travel. This constant feed in to both enties would make make a feedback effect, and for each loop the radiation would amplify becaus eit would cross faster and faster 8thus gaining mroe enrgy) until the radiation would be so hot and energetic it would destroy the wormholes themselves. And how fast it would happen? So fast that the wormholes would collapse pratically imediatly when they were opened. it would happen so fast, light itself wouldn't had time to cross them and thus, render them useless. It's npot me saying so, it's Stephen Hawkins, and the man does know a thing or two about the subject. Besides, he's a cyborg, which makes him one of the coolest man alive.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:13 a.m. CST
Plinkett is a nit picky douchebag
by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN
Saw his AOTC review, and he spent 10mins talking about how nothing the Jedis did to protect Amidala made sense. He even said that R2D2's scanner should have been aimed at the WINDOW of Amidala's room, and it was OUT OF CHARACTER for Obi Wan to jump out of the window and grab the probe droid! can you believe this guy? And that tied up woman thing just ain't funny. Not at all.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:18 a.m. CST
Mr. Plinkett is only misogynistic towards prostitutes
by Jehovahs_Witness
And his cat.
-
Stuff yourself. You can start by renting Jar Jar Abrams's latest abomination of a movie. Aren't you the fool who thinks that CASH OF THE TITANS is a really good movie?
-
<a href=http://trig.com/howtramadolworks/biography>acetaminophen per tramadol hcl</a> <a href=http://trig.com/compareprice/biography>online us pharmacies propecia</a> <a href=http://trig.com/finasteridep/biography>cheap drug prescription propecia renova</a> <a href=http://trig.com/tramadolanddiphenhydramine/biography>overnight tramadol</a>
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:28 a.m. CST
"OUT OF CHARACTER for Obi Wan to jump out of the window"
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How the fuck is it out of character for Obi Wan to do this? Because he's a cautious, reserved character? Err....yes, but he's hardly going to stand like a limp prick when his charge is in danger, is he, or let an important lead get away? Obi Wan is a straight forward hero, a man of action. Plinkett lacks all sorts of basic common sense. And artoo should be facing the window? bwaa haha ha!!! What next, the major 'fault' that Lando's chest band keeps reversing sides in the hangar scene of Jedi?? <p>But wait - that's the sacred OT! If Plinkett had any balls he would do videos on those, as he could surely find just as much to fault in the originals if he applied the same anam retentiveness. They are not perfect movies, either, and just as 'flawed' in many ways as the prequels. But he won't do that because the dribbling fanboys don't want to hear it - no money and traffic for Plinkett, and risking the ire of alienating his audience. It takes no balls to critique loathed films such as the SW prequels; that's a safe position.<p> What a calculated fraud this guy is.
-
ANAL retentiveness. And that's exactly where Plinkett should unlodge his head from.
-
It was meant to have so much canon that even not-so-bright people would be able to lose themselves in it, and evade the reality of their lives and their health problems due to complications from obesity. Now it will take years to build up enough new canon for the real life avoiders to be happy. This movie was a vicious, seething attack on persons with no life and must never be forgiven!
-
And I said Clash was a FUN movie....which it is.
-
There were so many elements wrong with the prequels, that I just couldn't register them all. All I knew, apart from the obvious flawed elements, was that I hated the films. He dissected them like a vulture, and regurgitated them for our amusement, because as Terry Gilliam said, "The prequels were dead things."
-
Saldana wasplaying an ALIEN who acted like a Cumpston princess. That's not good acting, in my book. If she is a good actress and she has it in her to do a good acting job, AVATAR wasn't it. Nor Jar Jar Abrams's BREWRY TREK, for that matter. Yeah, you like her, she is nice on the eyes, sure indeed, but frankly, her Cumpton princess stitch is anoying me to no end. Otherwise, all you said about BREWRY TREK is spot on.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:48 a.m. CST
Plinkett's defense made me watch Star Trek again
by The Bicycle Sharer
I made it through five minutes before I turned the motherfucker off again out of disgust. Star Trek '09 kept me in my seat when it was released and once on DVD. But it's failures of logic and shortcomings of character, consistency, and plot have kept me from enjoying it ever since.<p>Even my wife, no big Trek fan or hater, asked when we discussing it last night, "So, if Spock was stranded on "ice planet" by Nero, why did he hang out in a fucking cave instead of just hoofing it over to Scotty's insulated building?" My answer? 'Cause this movie, "fun" as it may be, Plinkett and Quint, is fucking retarded.<p>The same motherfuckers who decry Sarah Palin as an appeal to idiocy are the ones defending this shit - a blatant appeal to idiocy if ever there was one. Star Trek '09 is the Sarah Palin of Star Trek films.<p>You can talk about box office and mass appeal and all that all that you want. I completely understand the need to reject twenty minute explanations of the necessity of enhancing dilithium crystals in a quantum magnetic resonance chamber. Fuck, man, stick with the action!<p>But I thoroughly reject the notion that you gotta jettison all of Star Trek lore and oonsistency, all logic and intelligence, for a "fun" adventure film. That's a load of shit! To coin a Democrat phrase of late, "we can do better than that."
-
Yeah,you would own SHIT TREK in blu-ray, it figures. And yeah, lyou liked an dhad fun with CASH OF THE TITANS, whihc is all kinds of wrong. And no, man, you can't fool me, i was ther ein that talkback, you deliberatly and went to great lenghts to try to justify why that fucking movie is good. D.Vader owned your ass through and through. Your "fun" argument came later when you noticed you had been owned by all your arguments, one by one. The fun argument, the last resort of the argumentless. You should know.
-
And no, Zoe's performance was a standout - vibrant, regal and amazonian, an archetype straight out of many classic adventure tales. And also warm and compassionate. Nothing to do with bitchy ghetto queens. That seems like a bizarre criticism to me. "Yo better git yo ass off ma planet, whitebread. What have yo ever done fo me lately, boy?" No, Asi, just no.<p> NWA - Straight Outta Neil Cumpston.
-
Your Sarah Palin comparison is quite apt, in that Jar Jar Abrams's BREWRY TREK is pretty looking in a very generic, superficial and banal way and is made of dumb and stupidity from start to finish. The Sarah Palin of Star Trek, too true!
-
When Nick Naylor questions the logic or intelligence of cigarettes in space, Jeff Megall says, "It's an easy fix. One line of dialogue. 'Thank God we invented the... you know, whatever device.'"<p>Only Trek '09 doesn't even bother with the one line of dialogue. 'Cause they know some fucking apologist like Plinkett or Quint will spend bandwidth defending the indefensible. I mean, seriously, what do Jar Jar Abrams and crew need to give a shit for? They got the mouth-breathing fucktards from today's Idiocracy in the seats and they got the apologists insisting that logic and intelligence and consistency are exclusive of a good action film. They got the best jobs in the world - writing illogical, inconsistent, mindless movement that looks pretty and makes money! Yay, them.
-
I would give some consideration to Saldana's acting in AVATAR if she was palying a human. she would still be a hell of a very anoying human, but at least, a human. As an alien, her acting is absurd to the point of disbelief. A wholesome alien who is form a totally different world and should had no human-like characteristics whatsoever and she acts like an anoying spoiled brat compton princess? Screw that shit, that's not good acting. It's pyrotecnics, it's flamboyant, it's chewing scenery, but good acting it's not.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST
J.J. Abram's reboot of the STAR TREK franchise has...
by Mr. Nice Gaius
...taught me at least one thing about the internet:<P>When it comes to hating this movie, some people need to<P>GET<P>A<P> FUCKING<P>LIFE.<P> There is a reason why the rest of the planet makes fun of ST nerds and this TB is a prime example behind their reasoning.
-
That just occurred to me in the middle of writing my diatribe. Like Palin, Trek '09 is pretty, easy to look it, loud, and omnipresent, but it has no intelligence, no logic, and makes no fucking sense at all. And I say all that as a card-carrying Libertarian Conservative.<p>Personally, I'm lovin' your BREWRY TREK! Think I'm gonna start using that. You mibnd?
-
It is out of character. Isn't Anakin supposed to be the reckless one? I thought the whole point of him being easily succumbed to the dark side was because of his reckless behavior.
-
I give you that. Uhura being unprofessional and arguing her way onto the Enterprise was some new feminism crap indeed, and the out of character romance with the 'repressed' Spock was like something out of the OC, or Beverly Hills 90210, or one of these dumb Warner Bros. teen shows; I'm sure deliberately, since JJ cynically wanted to exploit that audience. Show me your feelings, Spock!<p>But that cannot be said of Avatar, which is drawing off a differnet pool of influence, many of them literary, like Last of the Mohicans and Kipling. JJ was just reconfiguring Trek through an MTV, teen aesthetic.
-
You guys remember in the movie IDIOCRACY when the biggest hit of the year is a movie called ASS: THE MOVIE? The story was set in 200 years from now, or somehting like that. Well, the thing is, the movie failed the prediction because ASS: THE MOVIE is happening right now. Or rather, already happened, and not just once, but at least 3 times last year with BREWRY TREK, TRASHFORMERS 2 and 2012. And they left spawns, like TRASH OF THE TITANS well testifies.
-
They've to a lot to answer for, judging by the previews of "Hawaii-Bozo."
-
NOT out of character! so what, he's more reserved than Anakin, but he has a reckless side that he took from his master Qui Gon. Not only that, but remember in the holy ESB, when Obi's ghost tells yoda that he was once reckless the same as Luke? So it makes perfect sense why he'd jump onto a droid.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST
What human-like characteristics did she have, Asi?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Or rather, since the background of the story was that the Na'vi had been taught English and earth culture at Grace's school, such inflections would have been picked up from there. Other than that, it's not dramatically plausible to have the hero interacting with a completely unfathomable robot.
-
I don't have a problem with the Ruyhart Kippling adventure style of AVATAR. In fac,t that's one of the thing si find endearing about the movie, and i have used that argument IN SUPPORT of the movie. But there's little to no argument you can use that will make me like the fucking Na'vi, and of them all, worst is Saldana's character, and for which most of the blame i put on Saldana's own acting. It's quite well known that Cameron is very hands off when regard to actors. He lets them do their thing. You cna tell that Saldana's compton princess stitch is all her doing. She repeated the same with BREWRY TREK. she played the same character, with different names and with a different paintjob in AVATAR. that is the major difference between the Na'vi and Uhura, one is blue and the other looks mor elike her real self. Saldana doesn't act, she projects herself onscreen as she is.
-
and thats what i am pointing out to you.you are wrong.she was superb in her role as Neytiri,the soul of the movie.and that's a fact.
-
Use BREWRY TREK to your heart content, friend. You and everybody else who wants to. It's on me.
-
Put Saldana's AVATAR character in any other movie and make her look liek a human, and there would be nothing particulary strange or alien about her at all. Take out the name of some weird animals, and all you would have is a common human speaking well known tribal stuff. She wouldn't look diffirent form any human at all. Her alieness is merely cosmetic. There's nothing truly alien about herself or as she acts, think or emotes. She plays a human, through and through. The blue paintjob is not enough to disguise it. There's nothing, nothing alien about her at all. Leonard Nimoy with a pair of pointed eyes and pointed eyebrows far better mannaged to play an alien because he, you know, ACTED LIKE ONE. Which Saldana couldn't be bothered with.
-
Besides, Obi Wan jumping out of the window was total badass. People might complain whatever they want about ATTACK OF THE CLONES, but Obi Wan is a total badass in that movie.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 12:23 p.m. CST
Note to plinkett: your fucking review doesn't work on iPhone.
by UltraTron
Please kill Steve jobs for me
-
A psychiatrist would have a field day analyzing some of these posts.
-
the beer kegs with computer stations in front of them. Does plinket mention the enterprise is the budweiser factory? I don't know because his fucking review doesn't play on iPhone which makes me want to kill midget with a screwdriver
-
God help me for doing this because these are some of the worst talkbacks for people standing on a soap box and decrying other people's tastes but the statement that 'Time Travel Never Creates Parallel Universes in Star Trek' is one of the most inconsequential I have ever heard.<BR><BR>If we are looking at a 'fictional universe' where parallel universes exist then there are an infinite number of them. Each decision made by each character in the show would, if following an accepted theory, create a parallel universe. You look at City on the Edge of Forever where Kirk decides to let Edith Keeler die. We can, if we want, hypothesise that another universe exists where he allowed McCoy to save her again and thus allow the Nazi's to win the second world war. However that was a story that Star Trek didn't follow but theoretically it fictionally exists...or something<BR><BR>What Abrams Star Trek did was follow a parallel universe thus, supposedly negating all of the inevitable Star Trek continuity freaks. Sure, it wasn't perfect in doing that - why was Chekov on the bridge, where was Kirk's elder brother etc etc. <BR><BR>I liked the movie, I found it fun and entertaining but fuck it, it was only a movie that effectively revitalised a moribund franchise for some people, fucked up an established franchise for other people and drove a few into a frenzy of disproportionate levels of rage and emotion.
-
Brilliant, AsimovLives, just brilliant! You are my new favorite TBer. I owe you a beer.<P>Yesterday I could hear two grown men crying. I cupped my ear and realized who it was: James Cameron and Landau crying over the paltry returns from Avatar Special Edition! No one gives a shit about Jimmy's blue niggas in space any more. Avatar 2 will STINK and BOMB. You could call it a STINKBOMB! BAAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
I think you even rival Tranny as the best troll here. Keep entertaining us, boy.<p>Not only are you a clown, but a racist to boot!<p>Avatar 2 will be the only movie that outgrosses Avatar, and the prospect of you offing yourself in despair is almost as tantalising as the wait for the movie itself.
-
The native Quicktime versions of the interviews render very nicely on the iPhone
-
That stuff you said, you just pull it out of your ass, or you actually think that shit up first?
-
The A.S.S. Abrasmprise's engine room scenes were really shot at Budweisser's brewrie. Abrams says so himself in the audio comentary. And Bud was a right choice for the movie, because it's as shitty and dispirited as that beer is. And i call Bud a beer in the most liberal definition of the term. Piss would more like it, which is also what the movie is, a whole lotta vat of piss.
-
There are no paralel universes in Star Trek through time travel. there's not a single story in the St universe where it happens. The main caution that the Enterprise crew does a time travel is to not mess with how things happened in the past, so not to disrupt history that will follow. their concern is always that. Why is this so? so that the future is not changed and by implication the death of millions of people still to born and will not due to the famously buttlefly effect. The episode CITY ON THE END OF FOREVER is a classic example to support this. Were there be the possibility of paralele universes, there wouldn't be any drama to the situation Kirk and Co finds themself in. The drama of that episdoe is that the poor girl needed to die so that a greater evil would be prevented (USA not entering WWII and thus the eventual defeat of the allies to the Nazis). Where there the possibility of paralel universes, then the crew would had no much of a worry about except to return to their own universe. but their problem was not so much their return, but TO PREVENT THE CHANGE OF HISTORY. That was their concern, not returning home. This alone defeats the notion that paralel universes in ST happens due to time travel. There is only one universe in ST, and only one timeline, and the change of history makes ofr the death of millions of people who will never be born, in effect the cause of the biggest mass murder imaginable, even unimaginable.<br><br>The only ocasion when the crew went to a paralel universe was with the transporter malfunction episode MIRROR MIRROR. you saying "We can, if we want, hypothesise that another universe exists where he allowed McCoy to save her again and thus allow the Nazi's to win the second world war. However that was a story that Star Trek didn't follow but theoretically it fictionally exists...or something". That means absolutly nothing. youar enot basing it in anythign at all but your own speculation but with has no basis onthe show. You jkust came up with it. but it's not supported in anything in the show. It's speculation, and a very free one at that. It's your own intellectual scenario for your own intellectual exercise amusement.<br><br>What Jar Jar Abrams did was to try to bend and turn ST totally to his will and fancies, without a care or interest to what had been established before. He did the whole movie as if he owned ST, as if he had created it himself. Itr's one of the wrost exercises of arrogance form a filmmaker i ever seen. It evne surpasses the misguideness decisions from Mickey Bay regarding his TRASHFORMERS movies. The movie lacks the very thing that a filmmaker should show if one is to make a movie based on an alrrady established franchise and property: respect for what others diod before. nt only did Abrams direspected, but then he did soemthing even wors,t the tried to bent it all so to make it look like another SF franchise. The very competitor Sf franchise, the only othert SF franchise as big as St is: STAR WARS. If you are going to run PEPSI and make it taste like COCA COLA, what's the point? What's the point of making both taste th same? What's the point of making ST look like SW? The difference is what made each have it's own identity. What porpose can one get from if one makes those two look and feel alike? Since when the homogenization of two different franchises is a good thing? Jar Jar Abrams doesn't understand this, or if he does, he doesn't care, which is even worst.
-
"The fact that all of Palpatine's actions are exactly the opposite of the ones he ought to be taking according to his apparent plan." <p> This was the thing that my group of friends discussed the most back in '99, and we were quite surprised that nobody else seemed to care about this. (For example, why the fuck does Palpatine send Maul to Tatooine?) But RLM's review explicated this line of interrogation in a really slick package, as one of many entirely apposite and coherent attacks on the total fucking mess that TPM was. <p> I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with RLM's reviews; I just disagree with you. I think the guy gets it right, and I think the skewering of TPM is not only constructed brilliantly, but also fucking hilarious. I have watched that thing numerous times, and it still makes me laugh.
-
No, I think you are misunderstanding my point. Parallel Universes, in theoretical science happen each time one of us makes a decision. It's not my speculation - it's the speculation of people like Stephen Hawking etc. Maybe my use of the City on the Edge of Forever made this into a time travel issue when I'm saying that it potentially happens whenever someone makes a decision. So, if you buy into the fact that parallel universes can exist in Star Trek then you should be able to buy into the fact that each juncture in Star Trek narratives creates one. What's different about Abrams is that he narratively chose to follow that parallel without negating the original series as it stands.<BR><BR>My example could stand for any episode of Star Trek - and it is, as I say, not my speculation but speculation based on existing String Theory.<BR><BR>The argument that Abrams is bending an existing science fiction to his will is a bit of an unfair criticism. Roddenberry himself bent it to whatever shape he wanted it bent to as have many, many others since. If nobody did that then there would be no progression.<BR><BR>Star Trek has been cursed by an undue reverence that built up surrounding it after it was cancelled - Roddenberry created a show that was pitched as 'Wagon Train In Space'. It was a weekly adventure show where what happened in one episode failed to resonate throughout the series. This isn't a criticism as I love TOS but it is a fact. When Edith Keeler dies Kirk is sad but it's then never mentioned again. He never wrote about a great Utopian Federation on any meaningful level, he wrote a show, which was at heart an adventure. The many people who shaped Star Trek after TOS finished in the many forms are the ones that moved it forwards.<BR><BR>You don't like the movie, that's cool but you're being blinded by that dislike to the truths behind Star Trek - it was a television version of Forbidden Planet that struck it lucky with a lot of episodes but it's not some untouchable concept.
-
<I>The main caution that the Enterprise crew does a time travel is to not mess with how things happened in the past, so not to disrupt history that will follow.</I><BR>It's fairly well documented that Roddenberry was desperate for one of the movies to be about Spock assassinating Kennedy - and that sort of negates the 'not changing time ethos'.
-
I could have done without the serial killer schtick, but that was a great review. I loved seeing Star Trek in the theater because you could both enjoy it for what it was AND make fun of it at the same time.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 2:18 p.m. CST
I don't know if you're aware, but people are allowed to like bad
by poopoohumor
You're not the boss of what I can and can't like.
-
..but some movies are so fucking stupid (see: the prequels) that I have a hard time wrapping my head around why people defend them.
-
It's okay man. If you want to hate the most popular movies of the times, go for it.
-
shit like Scott Pilgrim boggle the mind.
-
are cheap Wall-Mart plastic toy hoarders.
-
Thanks for your response. Let me try to address some of your points. <p> "They never discussed, creating alternate timelines in Star Trek mythos, at least, those that they would care about." <p> I simply don't agree with this. <p> You have suggested that the ONLY time travel mechanics utilized in Star Trek have been ones where there is a single timeline that can be altered (changing the single future) and which has always been reset again to what it once was. <p> This is probably the dominant mechanic in Star Trek. Examples would be City on the Edge of Forever and First Contact. However, it is not the only one. <p> Star Trek has at times used the "causal loop" structure whereby time travel does not change history at all, but turns out to be a causal agent of the history that always was. (This is the same structure as The Terminator, but NOT, it should be noted the same structure as The Terminator sequels; the franchise changes the rules as it goes along.) You can see this in e.g. Assignment: Earth, or in the "creation" of the new super-strong material in The Voyage Home when Scotty discloses it to its "inventor". <p> It is also clear that Star Trek has at times entertained the notion of multiple histories co-existing at the same time in parallel without interfering. But this can be seen as an interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every quantum decision splits the universe into two new parallel universes. This kind of mechanic (as seen in the TNG episode "Parallels") does not explicitly require time travel: it's something that happens as a result of everyday events, all the time. <p> So JJ Trek's time travel does appear to be a different beast from anything seen in the Trek universe before. In order to be a meaningful mechanic, this suggests that a split occurs as a RESULT of time travel, and it leaves the "source" universe untouched. <p> You can see from this interview with screenwriter Bob Orci has this is indeed the intended mechanic of JJ Trek: <p> http://tinyurl.com/5zrmgn <p> I think you are overstating the consistency of time travel in Trek, though. I don't feel that Trek has well-established rules of how time travel operates. Writers seem to pick and choose whatever suits the story they're writing. <p> "Let's say that you are correct, that this new Trek is based in an alternate timeline? If that is true, how does Nero's revenge plot count? It doesn't, because the people whom he is killing, or trying to kill, are not the same people, but rather, they are their aternate timeline selves; so much for revenge! And when he destroys Vulcan, he really isn't destroying Vulcan, as it is an alternate timeline Vulcan--and the same with anything else, or anyone else, that he destroys." <p> Yep. All this is true. And, to answer somewhat facetiously: so what? First of all, you ought to consider that Nero probably doesn't understand or know for sure what's happening. He didn't concoct a time travel plan, and he isn't an expert on time travel. He's a regular guy who finds himself in what appears to be a younger version of the universe from which he came. He hates Vulcans; he wants to kill Vulcans. That's as far as his thought process goes. It's the same with Reese, John Connor and Skynet in The Terminator: none of them knows for sure what's going on (although John Connor probably suspects that a single timeline loop is in play: despite his pep talk to Sarah that "the future is not set", he probably *suspects* - but doesn't *know* - that it is). <p> Should we care less about the destruction of Vulcan in this branch of history because we know that at least one other branch sees it surviving indefinitely? I don't personally think so. If someone were about to shoot me, or my wife, but assured me that they'd come from a branch of history in which we both lived long and happy lives, I'm not sure I'd be much reassured. I care about the universe I'm in and will take actions appropriately.
-
"If you want to hate the most popular movies of the times, go for it." <p> RLM/Plinkett really liked the recent Star Trek (Rotten Tomatoes: 94%). <p> He disliked The Phantom Menace (62%). <p> He disliked Attack of The Clones (66%). <p> I guess it depends what you mean by "popular". Are the Star Wars prequels regarded favorably by most people? I dunno. Certainly loads of people saw them, but did a majority of people like them? Slim majority, perhaps. If that qualifies as "popular" fair enough. But they are not "popular" in the same way as the OT are, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or ET, or The Godfather, or Jurassic Park.
-
Asimov, no offense meant my friend, but my belief stands.....<P>This is a stupid pointless ridiculous argument.<P>Why?<P>Because everyone's opinions are set in stone. Do all who like Trek think that you are going to change the minds of those who hate it, and vice versa? Seriously, you are all fighting a losing battle. It's a complete and utter waste of time.<P>Asimov, I know you are going to say how it is not a waste of time to talk about bad movies, and I would agree if Trek was universally believed to be bad, but much to your dismay I am sure, it is not. You think it's horrible, we all know that, and so do many others. But there are others who liked it, for their own reasons. You are wasting your time trying to convince those who like it that it sucks like you think it does. That goes to all the haters. <P>If you all get some joy out of saying the same things to the same people with the same results, go ahead.<P>Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This argument has been made over and over, with the same results....unchanged opinions. <P>You are all fucking insane....but evidently you all get some odd satisfaction out of repetitiveness, so carry on.
-
Yes, the popularity of SW proves that MOST people did enjoy the prequels. Hell, people watch them all the time on Spike TV, and the Clone Wars show is popular. Besides RT is a terrible place to judge movies Scott Pilgrim was 70 percent and that fucker bombed harder than your mom.
-
I looked up the ATTENDANCE numbers, not inflation adjusted box office numbers, but attendance, which can be used because there is no adjustment for it.<P>Trek 09 was the most successful ST movie, as it's attendance was higher than any other Trek film to date. <P>No this is NOT a statement of quality, all this is, is for those who deem the film a failure, though I am sure someone will still insist that other ST movies were more successful.<P>Why I keep doing this I don't know, it's like trying to talk to a deaf person, it's pointless cause they can't hear you.
-
People that slam the new Trek movie boggle the mind. I guess they'd rather sit through that shit Insurrection again.
-
... i would say the review is a parody of the way positive arguments work for this movie. It's notorious how the negative things about this movie are very specific and to the point, while the positives are very broad and superficial. Just like the devide there is about the critics of this movie Vs the supporters.<br><br>The reviewer got one thing wrong about one of the so-called ST referencesin Abram's movie. Abrams say so himself in the audio comentary that the apple in the Kobiashi Maru scene is a coincidence, because they didn't had deliberatly tried to make a reference to WRATH OF KAHN. By their own words, they though that Kirk eating an apple while going through his Kobiashi Maru test was just a way to amke him look more punk-ass. Yes, punk-ass, that's Abrams's own words. Don't take my word for it, look it up.<br><br>The reviewer did one funny coment that while it's pretty inoquous in the english language, as is it just reads as a comedy by typo. He once writers "Star Track". Well, thing is, in portuguese, track reads liek one of our slang word for FART! STAR FART? You bet this movie is that! Star Fart indeed!
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 3:19 p.m. CST
The SW prequels SEEM popular
by Planty_McPlant_Plants_His_Plant_At_AICN
I feel quite apathetic towards them, but outside of the nerd bubble in which we exist, they are generally liked. My 15 year old nephew (who grew up watching the prequels) considers the OT to be "boring" in comparison. He also thinks McGregor's Obi Wan makes Han Solo "look like a wuss".
-
... i could use them to damn the movie. In fac,t most of what he says and presents paint the movie in a very negatuive light. to justify for why he likes it, he goes... for generic meaningless stuff that can be dismissed and contradicted in an heartbeat. It's funny that evne this reviewer who professes to like the movie and yet most of the time he presents reasons to not like the movie.<br><br>Or maybe this review is a very subtle very clever desconstruction of the mind of the people who insist in liking this movie even though the evidence to think otherwise is beyond overwhelming.<br><br>As for the argument that we should Jar Jar Abrasm's BREWRY TREK because that movie had the primary porpose to make money and nothing else, well, D'UUUHHH to that! That's the function and objective of EVERY MOVIE MADE, to turn a profit. This is why Holywood is a business, not charity. Even though the fans of Abrams and his movie treat the movie as if it's a work of charity from Saint Abrams for the starved people of the Earth. But the "it's to make money" is no argument as well. Too many works of art were made deliberatly for the porpose to provide monetary compensation to the artist that created them. The "Mona Lisa" painting was a comission for Leonardo DaVinci, he was hired to pain a rich man's wife portait, he did it to gain money. This is true to many movies as well. The difference is that if you make a work, in whihc the basic motive is to gain money and make a profit for it, but you make A GOOD WORK out of it. Not just a cheap fast product, but a truly good dedicated work that's quality. This is what today seperates a filmmaker like, say, Christopher Nolan from uch hacks like Bay or Abrams. This is why nolan's movies not only make money but also works os moneymakers. To make a dumbed stupid simplistic movie and say you made one just because you wanted to have the audiences watch it in masses and thus turn the most profit possible is extremely cynical. And in hindsight, considering the sucess of such smart and complex movies as INCEPTION, it also makes people like Abrams look like a fool, stupid and an hypocritical disrespectful cynical fuck.
-
It's rich that you call me a lunatic when it was you who highjacked a whole talkback in your inane atempts to justify why people should mistake TRASH OF THE TITANS for a god movie. You really do not understand the concept of irony, do you? If i were you, i would be the first to shut up about calling anybody a loony. Talk about casting stones when you have a whole fucking house made of glass. Think before you write some dumb ass coment, man! Think!
-
It really does put the issue of alternate timelines in Star Trek in perspective.<p> Fuck, no wonder the Q-Continuum is so important. It takes a pan-dimensional super-race just to keep track of everything<p> Oh, and, fuck the haters. Mr. Plinkett FTW.
-
I think the guy only rags on the films people rag on the most. His reviews remind me of conversations I've had with my friends about plot inconsistencies in our favorite films. Sort of like when you here geeks at conventions arguing in the corner over whether Star Wars or Star Trek are superior and their retorts that we've all heard or personally given before. You could go on all day that he is doing it just to be cool, but aren't we all a little guilty of it? Especially posting on AICN.
-
Do I have to Repeat Myself about things I said about STAR TREK a FUCKING YEAR AGO while you whiners and haters squeal like stuck pigs with nonsensical arguments that carry even LESS weight than they did then, now that even MORE millions of people have embraced this movie on DVD?<br /><br />The Movie is SMARTER than you.<br /><br />The Movie ANSWERS your Arguments BEFORE you even Make Them.<br /><br />The movie states CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY that Spock and Nero have NOT merely Time Traveled. They've also travelled into a Parallel Universe. So they're not just in an Altered Timeline screwed up by their arrival. They're in an Altered Timeline in a Universe that would have had some Differences ANYWAY.(Such as Kirk being a Beastie Boys Fan who never serves on the Farragut, and Starfleet Cadets downing Budweisers instead of Synthahol.) And Spock and Nero's crew CAN'T GET BACK to their own Universe to fix anything. THE FUCKING MOVIE SAYS SO! <br /><br />So all of your Pissy Little Bitching about what Original Gangsta Spock would have, could have, or should have done to correct the Original Timeline in his Original Universe is FUCKING POINTLESS. It's Not HIS Universe, Monkey Boy. He has NO IDEA how things were SUPPOSED to happen HERE.(Did this Spock start banging Uhura because of Nero's arrival? Would this Spock have banged Uhura anyway?) And he can't get back THERE. And so he's logically resigned himself to existing in this new universe. Whereas Nero has been locked up in a Klingon prison for 25 years just getting angrier and crazier. OF COURSE HIS ACTIONS MAKE NO SENSE. He's a Genocidal Maniac lashing out at people who have nothing to do with the original tragedy.(Did any of you nitpick like this when Bush decided to invade Iraq?)<br /><br /> Media Messiah's continued whining that you can always just slingshot around the sun or hop into the Guardian of Forever and GO BACK and FIX THINGS doesn't just make this movie problematic. It makes EVERYTHING MEANINGFUL THAT EVER HAPPENED in STAR TREK problematic. As I already stated A FUCKING YEAR AGO.<br /><br />Why doesn't Kirk just go back in time and prevent Spock from having to sacrifice himself in THE WRATH OF KHAN? For that matter, why doesn't he just go back in time and save Khan and his wife and his people before the other planet blew up, turning him into a friend instead of an enemy?<br /><br />Why doesn't Kirk go back in time and change the events of THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK? Why does he let his son stay dead and his ship get destroyed?<br /><br />Why doesn't the Crew go back in time and prevent the Klingon Chancellor from being assassinated in THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY? Or go further back and prevent Praxis from blowing up in the first place?<br /><br />Because Star Trek has ALWAYS been INCONSISTENT in its use of Time Travel and Alternate Timelines and Parallel Universes. And Fate and Destiny. What we have the right to change or prevent or interfere with, and what we don't.<br /><br/>Who are Kirk and Spock to say Earth wasn't MEANT to be destroyed in THE VOYAGE HOME because the whales were gone? Who is Nero to say Romulus wasn't supposed to be destroyed? Who is Spock to say this universe's Kirk and Spock were meant to be friends or crewmates? Maybe they would've hated each other anyway whether Nero showed up or not?<br /><br /> And if I hear one more MORON whining about Spock not heading for the nearest Starfleet Base to warn them about Nero's plans, I'm going to puke all over my keyboard. He WAS heading to Scotty's base. He couldn't get there before Vulcan was destroyed. And he went into the cave to get out of the storm and away from the monsters. You Know? The snow and ice storm Kirk was in when the Monsters started chasing him? THE FUCKING MOVIE SHOWS ALL THIS! In dialogue and images before,during and after the mindmeld!<br /><br />I can't say it enough apparently: This Movie is SMARTER than you. It certainly pays more attention to its own story than any of you pissy little bitchers did. That's readily apparent in every stupid post you make. WE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS A YEAR AGO! Citing images and dialogue in the film itself. You're still pulling this lame shit out in 2010?<br /><br />To quote The Shat: GET A LIFE!
-
My view of Palpatine's actions is that he plays two sides against each other. And whoever wins, he wins too because he played both sides in his favous. I really like thast aspect of the prequels. Contrary to the action junkies, i do like and appreciate the political intrigue stuff in those movies.
-
You claiming the movei is smart??? THAT'S FUCKING HYSTERICAL!!!! Even most of the fans admuit the movie is less then cerebral and that smarts is not the movie's best aspect. You need to be incredibly thick and blind to even mistake the movie for anything even remotly resembling smart. But then again you were the one who copy and pasted the Paramount marketing advertizement text to praise the movie, word by word. You are unbelievable. you are a clear case of being more papist then the pope. Unreal!
-
Compared to shit like Nemeis, the new Trek is smart.
-
You make interesting points, I am interested, but kinda of already know, as to how the haters will react. Most likely the in the same manner as always.
-
"People that slam the new Trek movie boggle the mind. I guess they'd rather sit through that shit Insurrection again."<br><br>This makes my eyes roll because it's the same falalcious non-argument time and again. Always comparing BREWRY TREK with a TNG movie. And why? Why you guys never compare it to a TOS movie? Why always a TNG movie? Is BRWEQWRY TREK a TNG movie? Or is it a TOS movie? This, why the fuck you keep on always comparing to the TNG movies? And wors,t the worstof them? It's liek watching soembody bully a starved cripple to make a poitn you are the man. If you want to look like you are the man, why don't you pick up somebody of your size, or even bigger? Why don't you compare your beloved BREWRY TREK with a proper TOS movie? Why not to agood one, liek, say WRATH OF KAHN? Are you affraid to compare? Are you affraid that BREWRY TREK would look like a putz and a punk-ass by comparison? Well, you should, because it would. And let me tell you something: quality only measures up with other quality. You can't scream high in praise of your darling if you only use the worst examples as comparison. That's a basic logical fallacy only fools would fall for. It's disingenious and it's cynical. and you know what? NEMESIS, bad as it is, it has soemthing that BREWRY TREK hasn't: a theme. that movie even has a few more brain cells then BREWRY TREK, which has none. Fuck, BREWRY TREK even gets some plot stuff from NEMESIS, not just WRATH OF KAHN, but NEMESIS itself. copy of a copy. How fucking worst could BREWRY TREK be? Only if Michael Bay had directed it.<br><br>Really, if you want to play the comparison game, man up and compare the movie with the good TOS movies. I dare you!
-
If people dislike shit, you call them haters too? What you think an hater is? If somebody offer arguments why a movie is bad, is that being an hater? Is it legit to dislike something bad? Or isn't?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 3:45 p.m. CST
One day Gene Roddenberry's zombie will feast of the flesh of Abr
by Yamato
for that mindless crap that was "JJ Abrams Star Trek". There is the great "Star Trek" and the crappy "JJ Abrams Star Trek".
-
...are possibly the most depressing things one can do on the internet. Some of you are very sad, small people, criticising work that is ten times better and more impressive than anything you will ever create or be part of yourselves. There's just something about these talkbacks that have become downright worrying. Seriously, some of you need help.
-
its almost as if i've seen all these same arguments before. and i almost feel psychic in knowing they WILL return. :P
-
I didn't say the movie was Smart.<br /><br />I said it was Smarter than YOU. Which it clearly is, because most of the things you consider plot holes or problems are Answered by the Film Itself. You were so blinded by kneejerk prejudice and lens flares you didn't PAY ATTENTION to the movie! Most of you whiners didn't. That's why your arguments carry no weight. You keep referring back to OTHER versions of Star Trek instead of dealing with this one. <br /><br />Do I think Bob Orci and his buddies are the new Shakespeare? Is JJ Abrams the new Kubrick or Kurosawa? Of course not. But they created a very CLEVER revamping of a franchise that had grown stale and stagnant. And reminded us what we liked about it in the first place. The Original Series was FUN. And Funny and Sexy and Action Packed and occasionally asked us to THINK. So is this movie.<br /><br />But you Whiners care more about canon than fun. You Haters have forgotten that Star Trek can be funny and even goofy occasionally. You'd rather watch Kirk and Spock have a bromance than make out with sexy Orion girls and Uhura. And when this movie occasionally asks you to THINK, you CAN'T.<br /><br /> It's a fucking year later and half of you morons still don't know that this movie takes place in a parallel universe. And all those characters from TOS and TNG and DS9 and VOYAGER are still chugging right along in novels and comic books licensed by Paramount. This movie didn't CHANGE or ERASE any of that. If you fuckheads can't even get THAT through your thick skulls, why should we care what you think about ANYTHING?
-
but knowing him, he probably thinks it's the best Alien movie.
-
Sorry for the odd posting. The site took a shit right after I logged in. For all the haters, that just love to hate for hate's sake, these are not merely reviews that Plinkett posts. The word review here is merely shorthand. It is a discussion of the film, not unlike that of a film class or a retrospective of a genre or series of films. I love how banal some of you are and take the work "review" so literally. We are all fuckin' critics. We do it all the damn time here. Plinkett transcends that. For the subsect of haters that thinks Plinikett simply hates these movies, you are dead wrong. I have had some e-mails back and forth with him briefly some time ago to show my appreciation for what he was doing. Watch the "reviews" carefully. He loves these movies/characters/universe it is based on. That's why the movies are so damn disappointing to him. Watch any of the TNG "reviews" and you will see how much Trek knowledge this guy has. He never said Star Trek '09 was the best Star Trek or best film ever made. He pointed out almost as many flaws, but noted it was a film based upon a serious cult following, that was able to appeal to a wide audience without totally shitting on the devoted. Obviously, except for the haters. To the haters: What the fuck do you want? The half-dead case back? More TNG fuckups? A DS9 or Voyager movie? (Plinkett my have mentioned that, too). The TNG films KILLED the production of Star Trek movies. Someone took a different take on it with the timeline bullshit. Abrams and crew were trying to respect you idiot haters by letting the original story live in a parallel universe so they could put a new spin on things. And to the moron that said that these "reviews" are reiterations of shit already on the internet, stop with the sour grapes you fuckin' girl. It has never been presented quite this way before. Also, who gives a shit if the prequels came out a while ago and Plinkett just recently did a "review". Are we not allowed to discuss a movie after a certain period of time? Let me know when the Statute of Limitations runs on Star Trek '09 so you fuckin' whiners can shut the fuck up, already. Also, AsimovLives: You are the living incarnation of Comic Book Guy and that is not a compliment. I love how you attempt to give your writing this "grown up" feel and but you meander for a few words before making your point. Also, we all have been guilty of spelling errors, but holy shit, you might be dyslexic or some shit. You know the cure for you, though, it to get out of big' sis' old room and get some sunshine you verbose douche.
-
One of the things that I really appreciated about the 2009 Star Trek was the fact that it was so close in tone to TOS, in fact it was much truer to Star Trek as originally concieved that TMP was.<br><br>The only things I didn't really like were Scotty being comedy Scotty (maybe it was too broad) and Nimoy saying the 'Space, the Final Frontier...' speech (I feel it should have been the new Kirk.<BR><BR>What I find very grim about these talkbacks is when people state that Abrams screwed the legacy when what he did was create an alternative that would not impact at all on previous canon.<BR><BR>Anyway, I agree with your posts. I'm not sure that I'm down with the idea that it was a completely parallel universe that existed without the destruction at the beginning but apart from that nicely put.
-
Him and his alien friend were great. The movie was pretty dry with the Spock exposition scenes, and the Scotty moments really brightened up an otherwise dark movie by that point.
-
It's all BULLSHIT. None of it really exists. But you've been swallowing it for 40 years. So when Abrams and friends serve you HORSESHIT instead, you complain. <br /><br />As if Red Matter somehow makes less sense than a Genesis Planet bringing Spock's corpse back to life. As if one method of travelling to a Parallel Universe is more scientifically probable than another. As if Nero is any goofier or more poorly motivated of a villain than Soran or Shinzon or that guy from Insurrection who's so boring I've forgotten his name.<br /><br />If Abrams makes a shitty sequel, I'll be the first to say so. This movie wasn't Perfect. But it was Fun. And more Clever than it needed to be. And noone will ever convince me otherwise.<br /><br />I gotta go do Laundry. Feel free to Flame away Impotently at me in my absence. :)
-
I always loved Scotty and he was the only character that felt too different. Pegg played the character well enough but for me I just found the humour too broad, Scotty was funny in TOS but not as 'comedy'. If he had been playing another character in another film I'd doubtless have loved it - I realise that this is a baseless prejudice based on my own taste but there you go.
-
I have always been a Spock fan and couldn't have been happier that Quinto kind of nailed it. But damn, Pine's Kirk made me forget all that. He really pulled in the (good) Shatner. Peg was a present surprise as a comical Scotty. Scotty always had a bid of dry wit to him, and the later TOS movies kind pranked him a couple of times (Final Fronteir commercial/tv spot of him saying "I know this ship like the back of my hand" and hits the cross bar/I-beam to render himself unconscious, they spalsh "Star Trek: The Final Fronteir" over his body, end commercial. Shit I saw that commercial over twenty years ago, while I was a freshman in high school, I am old.)
-
He has a real understanding of narrative, genre and film history. That he can incorporate all of these considerations into his reviews while remaining entertaining makes him a rare bird. I also thought he was more restrained with the whole "I murdered my wife" thing in this review. Thought his diatribe about science fiction vs. science fantasy was interesting and right on the mark.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 4:31 p.m. CST
KilliK: You're Right, Why Didn't Nero Save His Own Planet?
by Media Messiah
It shows how completely stupid and ridiculous JJ Abram's Star Trek is. Nero goes back in time, but instead of saving his own planet, that being Romulas, or his wife, he says, "To hell with that", and goes on a nonsensical mission to try and assassinate the very people who were trying to save his world--instead of recruiting them to help accomplish the mission to save Romulas? Dumb, dumb, dumb!!! JJ Abrams is an idiot. If the ending of Lost didn't convince you, this fact should.
-
WTF are you talking about? Why didn't Nero save his own planet? HE WAS IN THE PAST! AG! You people are stupid. Go watch Machete.
-
I think Scotty was played more as comic relief in THIS movie because he was an Outsider. The rest of the characters had been through so much drama and trauma already that the only one who could be amusing and lighten the mood at that point was Scotty. And the film needed that breather and laughter and audiences responded positively to it.<br /><br />I hope in the next movie that they get back to the comedic bickering and banter between Kirk and Spock and McCoy and let Scotty be the miracle worker again. And Simon Pegg can play that serious side as well as he does the comedic.
-
I think Scotty was played more as comic relief in THIS movie because he was an Outsider. The rest of the characters had been through so much drama and trauma already that the only one who could be amusing and lighten the mood at that point was Scotty. And the film needed that breather and laughter and audiences responded positively to it.<br /><br />I hope in the next movie that they get back to the comedic bickering and banter between Kirk and Spock and McCoy and let Scotty be the miracle worker again. And Simon Pegg can play that serious side as well as he does the comedic.
-
Lost. He didn't even write the final screenplay. GAD, you people are dumb.
-
It's perfectly legit to dislike something that YOU think is bad. But you talk as if it is a hard established fact that the movie is bad. In your mind, from your point of view, it is bad, and that's fine, you are entitled to that opinion. But because a group of people see it as bad, it DOES NOT MEAN that it is bad and that's the end of the discussion. This applies to EVERY MOVIE, not just Trek. With any movie, there are those who like it, those who don't. There are some movies that almost everyone (critics as well as the public) hails as bad, but this is not one of them, despite the fact that you think it is. It is to you, but not to everyone, that does not make you wrong, it does not make the people who liked the movie wrong.<P>And I cannot believe I am getting sucked into this stupid bullshit discussion again. I'm done with this fucking waste of a time TB. No offense meant Asimov, I am just sick to my fucking stomach of reading and typing the same fucking bullshit, it is a complete and utter waste of my valuable time.
-
Almost every critic claimed this film was great, and if you missed it, you'd be missing-out on greatness, hence the reason why so many people went to see the film, in the first place--they were lied to. As soon as I saw the film, I knew those reviews were completely bought and paid for, thus the reason for the growing backlash among the public. They, like me, and getting the fact that they were scammed by the movie critics and the press at large.
-
That's cause it WAS great. The only backlash the movie has is from morons like you that can't understand it.
-
..."They, like me, are getting the fact that they were scammed by the movie critics, and the press at large."
-
You're probably right and Pegg played it very well, his accent was great (more West Coast than East Coast FUCK YOU JJABRAMS GURGLE). I was really pissed off when the movies turned the miracle worker into the Nigel Bruce of the Enterprise and Star Trek just brought that disappointment back by seemingly continuing the trend.<BR><BR>I genuinely hope that in any sequel we see Scotty the Engineer as much as we see the funny Scotty.
-
"But you talk as if it is a hard established fact that the movie is bad."<br><br>And how it cannot be? The flaws the movie has is not just stuff of personal preference. The story plot holes and lapses of plot logic is not just ther stuff that me or some other might have some preference over. No. The movie is bad because it's stupid, it's simplistic, and cynical. Evne people who liek it cannot help but admit that the movie is harldy bright intelelctual endevour, and that the movie has plot holes which are just puzzling and ill conceived. It's beyond a mere personla opinion. The fact the movie is badly constructed is not a personal opinion, it's a very well established fact which one only needs to have a little bit of though to see that obvious fact. Can you deny that the mvoie advances from scene to scene based on plot convineitnce? It my own personal prefenrece that makes the movie advance on impossible coincidences and the characters act as it's convinient to the plot? That has nothingto do with my perferences or what i want or wish. It is as it is in the movie. My own personal opinion, if you will, is that i'm not going to be amused by a movie that not only is dumb and badly plotted, but that it's enterely desinged with thye notion that audiences are simpleton fools who can't udnerstand nothign that is not presented simplisticly or as if talking to children. Dumb children.<br><br>You know what puzzles me? i have seen you and everybody who likes this movie have tear apart and bash to kingdom come movies with as much flaws or even less then Jar Jar Abram's BREWRY TREK. I have sene thathappen many, many times. but for BREWRYU TREK, it's time out! It's the exception. Everythignthat's bad and wrong with other movies is not cute and adorable and excusable for BREWRY TREK. Can anybody provide me an explanationwhy the hell should BREQWRY TREK shouldbe the isemption, the exception, the one that thou shall not hate but love? Can anybody present a REAL EXPLANATION for why this is so? and not just the same old "because i had fun" nonsense non-argument. Why is it that Brewry Trek, with the same problems and faults and flaws that other bad movies have, is to be prsaised and loved instead of the general rightful despise and mockery that was presented to such movies as TRRASH OF THE TITANS. Why? Can anybody present a rational explanation that actually makes sense? Can anybody?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 4:51 p.m. CST
RPLocke: You Can't Argue Down The Points That I Made...
by Media Messiah
...about the new Star Trek--not, one. I exposed so many plot holes in the new Star Trek film, that it would even shread Swiss Cheese...to nothingness. You haven't once been able to negate my detailed postings, in regard to the plot holes in the new Star Trek. I have shown that the time travel story doesn't hold-up. Then, when you argued that the events in the movie happened in an alternate universe, I easily shot that down, and now you have nothing left but insults? Do yourself a favor and watch Serenity and Stargate Continuum, as they are much better films, by leaps and bounds.
-
Do you have a certificate that proclaims that you are the ARBITER OF ENTERTAINMENT? If you do, and it's signed by the appropriate authorities, then what you say about people being scammed matters. If you don't then your opinion doesn't really matter any more than any other person.<BR><BR>And as for hyperbole about PUBLIC BACKLASH, when I see mobs throwing DVD and Bluray copies of the film onto a fire then I'll agree that there's been a backlash - otherwise it's just people on here making their opinions heard. And that isn't a backlash.
-
Yeah, but you hate everything.
-
That explains a lot.
-
...puppy dogs, and long walks in the park. Sunset on beaches, poetry, chick flicks, charity, kindness, skipping, and hard core porn.
-
...Stargate Continuum. Rent it from Netflix. It is dealing with the same story matter as the new Star Trek film, but it does it smartly, leaving no holes in the plot.
-
I cannot do this, yet again, I explained to you a long time ago why I enjoyed the film despite its flaws, and will not do it again. I know you thrive on these TB's, and it's nothing personal, but I am done with this shit, my head is going to explode. I will not be posting in this TB again. In the future, let's just cut and paste previous Trek 09 TB's to save time, because it's all THE SAME FUCKING SHIT BEING SAID. <P>Asimov my friend, enjoy, but I am not doing this anymore, not on this tired and repetitive bullshit.
-
You know what's the problem if, presented to two bad flawed nonsensical ploted movies, you like one and you dfdislike the other? You know what's the problem about that? You know what's the problem if you trash CLASH OF THE TITANS but you praise and enjoy BREWRY TREK? The problem is that it means that it's not the intrinsic nature of them that makes you like or dislike a movie. If you can hate a bad nonsense movie but you cna liek another nonsens emovie, that means you do not have a reason to like or dislike. You do not have a reason to guide your prefenrece. It means that you liking or disliking a movie is merely to chance. It'a aleatory why you would like one movie over another.<br><br>Butn the worst is that this mweans if one enjoys and defends a bad movie with little to no reason to why one acceptes them, it defeats the efforts of all filmmakers who actually make an effort to make good movies. If all it takes for somebody to enjoy a movie is just a dumbed down stupid movie with little to no narrative coherence but it's served with lots of noise and shiny images, when why shoud filmmakers try to bother to make smart well made movies based on well constructed stories? Why even bother to act well if all you need is to show off a pretty young cast? Why even the need to make an effort? Why care? If a movie acceptances is not because it's good or badly made but merely the spur of the moment of who watches them, then... why bother? Why bother? You see, if one support and defends a truly dumbed down movie which has plot holes from start to finish, which uses cheap melodramatic tricks to catch the emotions of the hearts and audiences, then aren't we slapping the faces of all other filmmakers who actually try to make legit proper movies made intelligently? i mean, one could argue that there's a market for everything. but there isn't. no industry will go and make a product the hard way if the easy way yiels fast lucrative result. Abram's latest movie acceptance is just one such incentive. The thing that brings a shiny light to all this sad subject is that the smartest movie made this year, INCEPTION, is also the most profitable. Nolan has got away with making smart movies which have also provided a big fat profit. This is heartwarming news for me. This means that people like Abrams are underestimating the audiences. In truth, i really think that had Abrams actually made the effort to make a smart AND entertaining movie out of STAR TREK, he would had had a much better box office result. Of course, Abrams is not the man to make a populist AND smart movie, he can't, he can only do populist, of the dumb shallow kind, as his movie testify to that. His movie was wrong, he was the wrong man, and they could had it so much better. No, not they, we all could had it so much better, both the studios and we the audiences.<br><br>And asnwer me this, with all honesty: if you come to your senses that Abrams's Trek is a bad movie, you think that by rejecting it you would lose something? You are reluctant to admit and reject the movie because you fear you are losing something precious? Let me ask you this: if you start to dislike Abram's BREWRY TREK, will RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK became worst movie? Will JAWS lose it's quality and entertaining value? The point is, by rejecting and dismissing BREWRY TREK for the bad mvoie that it is, and by turnign yourn back to it, you lose ABSOLUTLY NOTHING AT ALL. If you need entertaiinment, there's other truly god movies which are still good and you cna rewatch themfor your pleasure. there's good new mvoies outthere that you haven't sene yet which you will enjoy. You lose absolutly nothing in rejecting BREWRY TREK for the dumb stuipid movie that it is, one that shouldn't get any enjoyment from asmart fellow like you. Specially a smart fellow like you. You lose nothing, in fact, you only have to gain. You know what i mean? Really, if i ddin't give a fuck and i couldn't care about you, i wouldn't write this lenghty post to you, and you know that.
-
When something works despite itself, it's called: MOVIE MAGIC.<P>(The End)<P>Now, give it a rest, Carlos. Go drink some Portuguese wine and think about why you're repetitiously posting on AICN instead of making the movies that you want to see.
-
"Scott Pilgrim was 70 percent and that fucker bombed harder than your mom." <P> I assume this is supposed to be offensive, but I can't really see what it means. <p> In any case, I wasn't hoping to engage you in some kind of insult war. I don't have anything against you. I just disagree with you about the merits of RLM's reviews.
-
Which is reflected in the box office results, isn't it? Pulling shit out of your ass is not an argument. "Audiences enoyed Brewery Trek more than Inception" What a load of crap. This is where not even the prefered argument from the JarJarHeads works. You guys don't even have that.
-
You bet your ass i wished i would rather be making the movies i wanted to see. But you see, some filmmakers, some proper filmmakers are already doing just that. The lastest was INCEPTION. Now that's a movie, a proper movie. It had it all and then some.<br><br>As for movie magic, that excuse could had worked IN 1920! This is 2010, it doesn't cut it anymore.
-
Notice how a year later we're still talking about JJ Trek, but Inception talk bottomed out when that movie came out. Result - JJ Trek was more watched.
-
"The movie states CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY that Spock and Nero have NOT merely Time Traveled. They've also travelled into a Parallel Universe. So they're not just in an Altered Timeline screwed up by their arrival. They're in an Altered Timeline in a Universe that would have had some Differences ANYWAY.(Such as Kirk being a Beastie Boys Fan who never serves on the Farragut, and Starfleet Cadets downing Budweisers instead of Synthahol.) And Spock and Nero's crew CAN'T GET BACK to their own Universe to fix anything. THE FUCKING MOVIE SAYS SO!" <p> Whilst I agree that everyone is now in an alternative universe and cannot influence the universe from which Nero and Spock(1) came, I'm not sure that I agree with you about "a Universe that would have had some Differences ANYWAY". (I'm not sure because I'm not 100% certain of what you're saying.) <p> So far as I can make out, there is no reason to believe that this universe already existed prior to the arrival of Nero and Spock, and already had some differences. Rather, the Occam's Razor interpretation says that a new universe budded off from the old at the precise moment of time travel arrival. If Spock had brought back a comprehensive history book (/disc/chip) with him, and then compared it with Federation records at the end of the movie, my belief is that they would be identical up until (but not including) the moment of the arrival of Nero's ship. After that, they would diverge. It was Nero's arrival that killed James Kirk's father and led to him having a childhood different from that of the Kirk in the other universe.
-
It never was. But if a smart movie like INCEPTION makes twice the box office numbers of BREWRY TREK with the same budget, and with the major part of that profit coming from international markets (unlike BREWRY TREK, which most of the money came from american domestic box office), this has to mean something. BREWRY TREK is a movie deliberatly made with the minimum common denominator audience in mind. INCEPTION is a smart movie that treats audiences as smart people. The later is the box offcie juggernaut. I'm not goingto say that INCEPTION is a better or smarter movie because it has been proved more popular with audiences AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD. That would be absurd and nonsense. But it does mean that audiences AROUND THE WROLD have an apetite for smart mindful movies. Something that so far has been overlooked by most of Hollywood studios. I don't think studios are in a luxery to overlook this. Even a lesser smart movie like AVATAR got ahead adn became what it became in terms of box office and public acceptance because it offered, on it's own way, it's own thing which audiences took as an original work. AVATAR has many problems, and it's hardly as much a brainiac movie as INCEPTION is, but it's the work os intelligent people who wanted to make the best movie they could. My probpems with AVATAR don't blind me to the fact that it's the work of smart people which did their best to present a mvoie for the pelasure of the audiences whichdidn't treated them like morons. AAVATAR doen't treat audiences like genious, but it doesn't treat them like morons either. Both AVATAR and INCEPTION show respect for the audiences. Something which is completly absent form BREWRY TREK. And lo and behold, the box office results speak for what audiences are prefering right now. To be treated well and respectfully by the filmmakers who make movies. If this is the end of the total dumbed down blockbuster era is yet to be seen. But it would be a one hell of a start.
-
Neither are capital letters.
-
Okay, Raiders of the Lost Ark - my favourite movie ever.<BR><BR>Flaws<BR><BR>Continuity throughout - one example comes to my head - when Marion is in the market being chased she's cornered by a guy with a curved knife. It points up in one close up and down in the cutaway.<BR><BR>Plotholes Galore - thet get trapped in a pit - The Well of Souls - though when they get out after crashing the statue of Anubis they are near ground level without any climb. Don't mention the submarine thing or the fact that Belloq didn't get the hivitos to deal with Jock thus cutting off Indy's escape<BR><BR>Historical Inaccuracies - the Nazi's would not have been able to launch a dig in Egypt in 1936 as it was a British Colony. And the Flying Wing never fully existed.<BR><BR>Flaws in filming - the reflection in the glass where the cobra faces Indy, the visible shunt pole in the overturning truck to name a few.<BR><BR>However it is a great film, it succeeds because it has an engaging story, engaging performances, great design - the sum of the parts make up the whole.
-
Yeah, right! The double the box office figures of INCEPTION in relation to BREWRY TREK is just some shit i dream up them. Total illusion not at all supported by the box office numbers at all. Thank you for calling me back to reality! Yeah, that's sarcasm indeed. Really, man, DON'T BE DAFT! Don't be daft! Stop it already. Adn wy are we talking about BREWRY TREK today? Because AICN posted a late night review of it. We post and talk about every new talkback that's created here. If one year form now there will be a review of INCEPTION by this reivewer, we willbe talking about it. It proves NOTHING AT ALL! Hell, notice how in any nolan related post, even indirectly, it will make people talk about THE DARK KNIGHT, it never fails. So, by your logic, what does that mean? Really, dude, don't be daft. Just stop it.
-
and it's a better movie.
-
...and all-too-automatic given your fetish for Chris Nolan films. INCEPTION is hardly an impenetrable, flawless masterpiece. And yet it succeeds because of good ol' "movie magic".<P>Quote: ""This is 2010, it doesn't cut it anymore."<P>Really? Because it seemed to work incredibly well with AVATAR. Yet another movie that works despite it shortcomings.
-
It's not movie magic, it's just the good quality stuff far outnumbering the bad stuff. Truly, bad stuff in RAIDERS are so few and far between that it never ever distracted from the good stuff that dazzled and enthralled us. This doesn't happens with BREWRY TREK, in which it's a whole cavalgade of flaws and bad plotting which occurs every minute of it's screentime. That's the fundamental difference between some true "movie magic" like RAIDERS and true movie shit like BREWRY TREK. It's a question of balance. and a movei wish has so many flaws, which evne thoe who liked it recognize exists, should never ever be mistaken for a good or even enjoyable movie, no matter how much the studio created hype scream as us. We movie geeks should be immune to this type of shit, instead we are acting liek mndless drone slaves doing the master bidding. We should know better, or else what's the porpose, what's the point? Why even fucking care if one movie is good or not? Just open the mouth and swallow it all unquestionably and cough up the cash. This type of blind slavery bullshit should hasd been out of date since the begining of the industrial age, man! This is truly BRAVE NEW WORLD turned reality.
-
It wasn't THAT dumb Geeeze. It actually incorporated some better science. Like when ships meet they are not flying in the same level plane of space, space has no defined up and down. And when you experience space from a character's point of view there is no sound. I was happy they fixed those things. And as it was mentioned before, this is a parallel universe so it doesn't have to be the exact same past of the original series. They pay plenty of homage to the source material so let's get over it and enjoy the movie shall we???
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 5:52 p.m. CST
"For all the haters, that just love to hate for hate's sake"
by BurnHollywood
nicegoogly, you do realize that the term "hater" was probably invented by some brainless ghetto youth who, no matter how extensively or meticulously another person's argument or opinion was explained to him, would always blabber out, "You jus' hatin', man!"<p> To this day, that moronic term is used by imbeciles around the world whenever they make a failed attempt to hack their way out of a Gordian Knot composed of logic and reasoning and try to take a shortcut for the higher ground...
-
"The Masses Were Duped Into Seeing The New Star Trek. Almost every critic claimed this film was great, and if you missed it, you'd be missing-out on greatness, hence the reason why so many people went to see the film, in the first place--they were lied to. As soon as I saw the film, I knew those reviews were completely bought and paid for, thus the reason for the growing backlash among the public. They, like me, and getting the fact that they were scammed by the movie critics and the press at large."<p> I think that's the reason this turd of a movie keeps bobbing back to the surface over and over again...that ridiculous 94% rating over at Rotten Tomatoes. If this thing had a far more reasonable rating in the sixties or seventies, most of us would probably shrug and say, "Well, no accounting for taste."<p> But when the brainless or paid off critics elevated it in this ridiculous fashion (all time SF classic BLADE RUNNER scored a 92% for Chrissakes), they ensured a backlash. This thing is not just disliked by its detractors...it's actually loathed and resented, and has come to represent every crapola movie that's shouldered smarter ones aside because it's asserted to be "fun" and "fast-paced".<p> Little wonder the festering hatred.
-
THAT gets a 92 percent? Christ, at least Star Trek has a story.
-
Now, that is the one special film that should have gotten great acclaim. It is a brilliant film about something of great import, and in the end, every emotional. It is a masterpiece.
-
Amen brotha ;-) <P> And to TURD... My god man. You are completely underestimating Plinkett. What a gross, over-simplification you have of him... He clearly understand the process of film-making FAR better than you do. His wealth of clutural knowledge, i'm sure, far exceeds your own. He understands the nuances of plot, character, genre, and he is an absolutely FANTASTIC editor. Also, is comedic timing is impeccable... <P> To write him off as some "whiny fanboy" is just absurd. I think that moniker fits you much better... And the "nitpicking" argument? <P> Please... There have been ONE or TWO instances where i thought he went a little far, but 99% of the time he is SPOT FUCKING ON. If you weren't thinking the same things upon watching the horrible prequels, that he points out in his brilliant and scathing "reviews"... than you are just another one of the idiots that he is mocking in his hilarious deconstructions. <P> And his obi wan jumping out the window critique wasn't off base, you dumb twat. From what we know about Obi-Wan, he would NEVER do anything as reckless as that. Why on earth, would he jump out a fucking window (leaving the princess, who's life is in DANGER now, and Anakin, the immature little boy, all alone...), that is like THOUSANDS OF FEET OFF THE GROUND, to HOPEFULLY grab onto a quick moving probe droid (that really could have easily evaded his jump maneuver...) Not to mention the possible PHYSICAL INJURY of JUMPING OUT A FUCKING GLASS WINDOW. What exactly did he plan on doing once he grabbed onto it? Fight for dear life to stay on the damn thing, and not get hit by one of the MILLIONS of flying cars?!? Jesus christ man, that was one of the fucking stupidest things that occured in the damn prequels lol <P> You clearly have no grasp of basic logic or deductive reasoning, so i'm sure i'm wasting my fucking time here...
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST
THE_CHOPPAH: Well, Can You Explain All The Good Reviews...
by Media Messiah
...for Star Trek, other than pay-offs? It is a so-so, to bad film, at best.
-
Thanks again for your BRILLIANT INSIGHT! Oh how we would miss your keen observations and wit, if you ever left! <P> That would be a sad day indeed... <P> :-(
-
If THEY DID WHY DID GI JOE BOMB?!!
-
a 10 second scene of Obi Wan hanging off a droid in Clones? It was a good scene. Obi Wan knew the droid would fly back to the owner. Besides, Anakin ALREADY said he was using the Queen as bait.
-
You may want to check out his absolutely BRILLIANT comparison at the end of his AOTC review about the differences between the OT and PT, in terms of reliance on visual effects and on-screen "clutter". It's fucking CLASS man... The way he uses Yoda from Empire, discussing the force to Luke (with johnny-boy's beautiful force theme playing in the background...), while intercutting it with some banal, shallow, over-saturated PT fluff, like Greivous and his 12 lightsabres spinning and shit like that... Yoda begins to get visibly angry with Lucas, as you see his rage building, and building... those eyes! lmao <P> Fucking brilliant stuff. Mr. Plinkett should win a fucking editing award for that segment alone. But i'm sure you could never appreciate that hilarious and insightful gem... <P> And to your comment about the fact that the OT and PT "had the same flaws"?!?!?! What in the name of holy FUCK man? You cannot be serious... If you are, then you just lost ALL respect from me. <P> From dialogue, to character, to practical effects, to cinematography, to tone, to STORY, etc. they honestly couldn't be further apart from each other. But you clearly have no clue about anything when it comes to the finer, more subtle aspects of film-making, so really, go find a new fucking hobby, you nitwit. <P> :-)
-
He "knew" it would fly back to the owner? lol Based on what exactly? I love you prequel defenders, i really do! Your blind defense for them shows no bounds! Filling in gaps in plot-holes and stupid/illogical character behavior is 2nd to none! <P> Geesh, you might as well defend the final season of LOST while you're at it! <P> Oh, wait...
-
For your own business. BLESS YOU!
-
Yoda in ESB says Ben was reckless.
-
Can you "CHOP" me too, pretty pleeeeease?? My day just isn't complete until i've been "CHOPPED". <P> By the CHOPPUH!
-
Mr. Plinkett laughs at you. Right in your fucking face. <P> :-)
-
Yes, he does use other people's footage... Brilliantly, i might add. <P> Hell, he uses Lucas' footage better than LUCAS does. <P> Mr. Plinkett should have been hired on as chief editor of the disastrous prequels lol
-
LOl, like I care. He still can't make money off the footage. I chuckle at that. He's doing all of this FOR FREE!
-
And the thing is it was perfect for its time. People were starting to worry about the ecology, overpopulation, etc.<br> <br> And who would have thought Bruce Dern of all people could give such a "human" performacne?<br> <br> Yeah, that ending was sad but the right one I think.
-
Not FUCKING STUPID. <P> Seriously, in my scenario listed above, how on earth could you argue that that was an intelligent, well thought out move by obi (as his character is clearly shown to be)? It doesn't make sense on ANY level! It was a convenient catalyst for George's much desired CORUSCANT NIGHT SKY CHASE SEQUENCE. <P> That's the biggest flaws of the prequels... things happen because GEORGE WANTS THEM TO... because he thinks that they will "look cool"... They are not ORGANIC to the plot or characters... <P> My god people, how do you not see this??
-
It's getting him noticed by millions of people, and most likely some big-wig hollywood types... so i'm sure it will pay off financially in the very near future :-) <P> And what have you done with your miserable little pathetic life? <P> Oh, that's right... not a DAMN thing.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 6:49 p.m. CST
Dead Man Flag, I would eat Plinkett for breakfast
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
I guarantee you that. You make bullshit assumptions about what I know or don't know about film just because I don't loudly parade it for attention like Plinkett? Get the fuck outta here. Just because you and the rest of his disciples have elected to anoint this guy an 'authority' doesn't mean we all have to follow suit. Take your misguided hero worship elsewhere.<p>As someone pointed out above, your (and Plinkett's) criticism in the above example of Obi Wan jumping on the droid can be easily and quickly countered by quoting the following exchange from the OT: "He is too reckless to begin the training" "Was I any different when you taught me?" Aside from the retconning of Yoda as Obi Wan's master, Lucas made sure to back up this trait in the prequels. We see in Menace that Obi Wan is the straight arrow to Jinn's reckless master, but by the second prequel he has clearly picked up some habits from his former mentor. That's quite aside from the narrative common sense of Obi Wan immediately responding to the attack as any protector would do. What he's going to do; sit and deliberate while the lead gets away? Why would he not leave Anakin with Padme, at least temporarily, when he's certainly capable of protecting her, despite his immaturity. Risking getting cut by glass!? Is that a joke? Heaven forbid that any heroes in action/adventure films commit such impulsive derring do! I guess Indy should have elected not to pursue those trucks in Raiders in case he got his jacket dirty or broke a leg trying to climb along their sides? Weak sauce.<p>If Plinkett's criticisms are such selectively feeble nitpicking (and most of them are), then he is small potatoes indeed, just like you. Dumb bastards flock to dumb bastards. <p>As I said above, his work, the proportion of legit points pilfered from countless message boards before him aside, is largely subjective and anal nonsense dressed up as insight and 'objective' analysis, no different from any bitter fanboy whiner, just a bit more craftily put together. He sure fooled a lot of people, though, and certainly fooled you. And he's full of double standards and selective contradictions, too. What a hero!!
-
Uses his FREE TIME and own money, along with his passion and creativity, to create something that MILLIONS of people have fallen in love with. To all of the knowledgeable students of film who loathed everything about the prequels, he has become something of a GOD, the voice of reason... echoing what we all have had in our minds since we first saw these abominations of "film" back in the day. It has been very cathartic actually, watching these brilliant deconstructions lol I will always be indebted to this wonderful man. <P> You really should try WATCHING one of his "reviews", for more than 5 minutes RPLocke... you may learn a thing or 2 :-)
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST
Dead Flag Blues - Plinkett's publicist!
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Keep gulping Plinkett's semen like porridge! If he makes it in Hollywood (as you laughably seem to think) perhaps he will offer you a position as his personal assistant!
-
..but, have you seen the number of hits, likes and positive comments he's received on YouTube? Somehow I think money is the least of his concerns.
-
rather in the almighty OT, I pointed this out in a different thread a few days ago, but why would Leia take the Falcon to Yavin when she KNOWS there's a homing beacon onboard? Up until then she's been cunning and resourceful, why would she knowingly lead a super-weapon to her home base? Sorry, but any prequel plot hole is no bigger than that one!
-
How do you enjoy anything anyway?
-
I love this guy. Not as good as the Star Wars videos though. More hate = more funnier. Has anyone seen this video? It has hot chicks sword fighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PVTx2QNbuk
-
You are a fucking goober man, you truly are. So you are saying that NONE of his criticisms are valid? All you're doing is picking out 1 or 2 "minor nitpicky" things and exaggerating it, acting as if ALL of his points are as inane... <P> Wow, what a keen debator you are, sir! <P> So his large scale criticisms about lack of character, consistency, gaping plot-holes, internal logic issues, over-reliance on CGI, etc. None of those are valid points?? If that's what you're saying... than you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when it comes to film. <P> "Eat Plinkett for breakfast" lmao <P> You fucking wish, mate. <P> Prove me wrong you simpleton...
-
I feel sorry for people who let reviews by strangers dictate how they watch movies and TV shows.
-
Listen to yourself. You have confirmed EVERYTHING I suspected about some of Plinkett's followers. A "God" and a "wondeful man"?? You are a fucking embarassment. <p>If said students were so knowledgable about film they would already know what was genuinely wrong with the prequels in the first place; they wouldn't need Plinkett to voice it for them. Only the inarticulate and the weak minded need that. Most smart people recognised all these flaws a decade ago, yet they took the films for what they were, some good elements, many bad ones, and left it at that. They did not dwell on it.<p>I swear, some of you sadsacks need to experience life, real life, before you proclaim someone skewering a couple of neo-Flash Gordon movies as 'cathartic'. But then again, the extreme prequel haters feel 'raped', don't they? I guess this is their therapy.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 7:07 p.m. CST
And for the "hater" shit that keeps getting spewed here...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
He clearly doesn't HATE everything. If you actually PAYED ATTENTION, his love for great films (The OT included), comes through in his PT reviews. He has a brilliant way of comparing and contrasting the 2 trilogies, while even using examples from other films entirely that got it right... You "haters" have extremely weak arguments, especially Mr. Turd. <P> Dude, seriously, go take a course on LOGIC, and maybe a DEBATE class or 2 and then get back to me... k?
-
...is the fact, that it predicted the various eco-disasters that we are now experiencing on our planet. Moreso than being science fiction, it is speculative fiction, that proved itself correct. I really believe that Silent Running is the film which the critics claim 2001 and Blade Runner to be, but it accomplishes what those films could not, as it added great human emotion in the script, and film...overall, with a clear story that touches on, and fully explores, the state of the human condition, in depth. The film serves as a powerful cautionary tale, sadly...however, few are listening.
-
Can BREWRY TREK be rebadged as BREWERY TREK? This is simply because I prefer it when spelling isn't wrong. It's a personal eccentricity.
-
based on one example you offered up. I'm sure we could monotonously debate every single point he brought up, if I had the time or the inclination, but that one example serves as a good indication of the brain behind it. And the indication is not good.<p>I'm sure there's even a few points he makes that I WOULD agree with. TPM is a very flawed movie. However, even those points were probably stolen from someone.
-
SLURP SLURP!
-
while exposing your own contradictions. Thanks man! <P> "If said students were so knowledgable about film they would already know what was genuinely wrong with the prequels in the first place; they wouldn't need Plinkett to voice it for them. Only the inarticulate and the weak minded need that. Most smart people recognised all these flaws a decade ago, yet they took the films for what they were, some good elements, many bad ones, and left it at that." <P> lol You dumbass. You just ADMITTED that what he said was accurate, you fuckwit! So now he is correct... but his "manner" is your point of contention??? <P> What exactly is your point again? lol <P> And the "GOD" comments and such by me, were exaggerated slightly because i knew that shit would piss you little girls off ;-) <P> And yes, since i AM a knowledgeable film critiquer (not a biased fanboy, like many here...), i DID notice all these points. That's why i was so glad to see someone create a nice, entertaining, succinct, well-written, clever, hilarious deconstruction piece, to be the be-all-end-all final examination of the prequels. That's it bro. I'm truly sorry if you can't appreciate what this guy has done
-
Watched that again recently after at gap of...hmmm, I would guess fifteen years. <p> It's still pretty good. And it made me blub, again. Something about Dewey attending to the plants dutifully at the end, on his own, gets me every time. (The echoes of SR in Wall*E are very apparent.) <p> Also, Freeman Lowell makes for an odd central character. You root for him, but he is, when it comes down to it, a murderer and a thief. Is extremist action sometimes justified? The film doesn't actively explore that question, but it does ask it implicitly.
-
It's Apples and Oranges and completely Pointless.<br /><br /> INCEPTION is: the new action drama from Christopher Nolan, the Guy who directed THE DARK KNIGHT. Starring A-Lister Leonardo Dicaprio and Ellen Page,the new Hollywood "It" girl from JUNO. Did anyone think it was going to Bomb?<br /><br /> AVATAR is: one of the most successful Sci-fi/Action directors of all time James Cameron returning to science fiction and action after years of not making movies at all. It's in immersive 3-D and aimed at the whole family. Did anybody think it would Bomb either?<br /><br />Then you have STAR TREK, which despite being a reboot or reimagining, was actually the ELEVENTH film in a franchise that had grown stagnant and stale and was no longer recouping even its production costs. Directed by a guy known mainly for TV Shows and cast with Relative Unknowns. Did anyone think it would be the huge commercial and critical success that it was? Even adjusting for inflation, its the most successful Star Trek film EVER MADE.<br /><br />Anyone who thinks it would have been MORE successful and/or "better" if it had been more cerebral and science based and wrapped up in 40 years of made up on the fly bullshit "canon" and "continuity" is just an IDIOT. There's no getting around that. Catering to you Science Nerds and Canon Nazis is one of the reasons Star Trek was going down the tubes in the first fucking place.<br /><br />Is AVATAR any smarter than STAR TREK? Really? It's a "new world and a new civilization", but it sure seemed to remind everyone who watched it of a dozen other movies they've already seen.<br /><br />And INCEPTION, despite its pretensions, and labored machinations to SEEM deeper and more complex than it really is, may actually be dumber than STAR TREK on some levels. It's really just a melodramatic "guilt ridden grifter plans one last heist" movie mixed with half assed Bond tropes, pretending to be a dream film. And its "science" about dreamscapes and "kicks" is just as stupid as "Red Matter" or any of the technobabble in any Star Trek episode or movie ever made.<br /><br />I liked all three of those movies. Why do I have to elevate one and denigrate the other two? I DON'T. They're just movies. I paid my $6.50 and I had a good time. I'm not the one demanding more out of one or two of those movies than I am out of the one I claim as my favorite. You whiners and haters are. Anything you say about STAR TREK could be said about the other two. And already has been said in talkbacks for those movies. <br /><br />Cameron fully cops to "dumbing down" AVATAR's script to make it as commercial and translatable worldwide as possible. And if Ariadne, the walking Exposition Machine makes INCEPTION easier to follow for you Whiners than all the Backstory and Subtext that was imparted verbally and visually in the mind meld scene in STAR TREK, which half of you didn't FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO because you were being pissy little bitches about the convenience and coincidence of Spock and Kirk bumping into each other: Who's the real Dumbass? You're the ones confused about the movie, not us. We got it the first time. The Movie is Smarter than YOU.
-
You let your own inflated ego and inferiority complex get in the way of your admiration for something like this... <P> Don't worry though, a lot of nerds do it. Pretty typical psychological response from a socially awkward, maladjusted twat like yourself.
-
...to be a tactically brilliant strategy. The jig was up, and the rebels were against the wall. The Imperials knew that she, and others, were a part of the Alliance, and blew-up her home planet. She wasn't sure if the beacon was on the Falcon, but speculated there was one. The last hope of the Alliance was to be found in the plans for the Deathstar, and here was an opportunity to draw the Deathstar into a vulnerable position, and hopefully attack it, if they could find a weakness. Imagine if she hadn't gone to Yavin, the Imperials would have simply blown-up...world, after...world. Maybe it was a risky, and even a stupidly desperate strategy, but the Princess rolled the dice, and the rebels won. That isn't a plot hole, rather, it is desperation, out of human need, and imperfection. Remember, she just saw her home planet blown-up, and was not only desperate to stop the Deathstar, but desperate for revenge.
-
is why did they never bother to change Luke and Leia's last name?
-
And i suppose you think the latter 2 prequels were... "a step up", or an "improvement"? lmao <P> Oh man, you keep digging yourself into a bigger hole my friend. Anyone with any ounce of credibility when it comes to analyzing film, would say that the last 2 prequels were even WORSE than TPM. It's really a good barometer to judge a person's taste in film. Saying something like "TPM was awful, of course! But ROTS was fucking AWEEEESOME!" <P> That's hilarious. As poor as TPM was, it wasn't near the cinematic collapse that AOTC or ROTS were. The missed opportunities got progressively worse as the stroy went on...
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 7:25 p.m. CST
Wrong again - don't you have any reading comprehension?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
I said some of his points were valid, with the caveat that they have largely been regurgitated from countless message boards over the decade. But about 50% of what he says is complete drivel. So there is much to be criticised in his 'reviews'. I'll lay it out here because you don't seem to have all your dogs barking.<p>1. Regurgitated, dead horse criticisms.<p>Personal dislikes disguised as objectivity.<p>3. Contradictory, double standard, self serving statements between all his reviews.<p>4. Anal retentive nitpicking, completely missing the forest for the trees, and completely lacking any intuition or common sense at all. If I didn't know better, I'd assume this was parody of the kind of socially and emotionally retarded star wars uber-nerds eating this shit up. Alas, it would seem that Plinkett, like some of his most zealous fans (guess who?), probably has mild asperger's syndrome<p>5. Unfunny, unlistenable (and unneccessary) serial killer persona - both in the interminable voice and the countless mysogynistic asides and digressions from his main arguments. This last is a negative element to many who even enjoy the bulk of his reviews.<p>All these qualities are present in his critiques, and all combine to make them a complete waste. So there is much to be critical about both in his content AND his manner. Got it??
-
The Empire would follow her no matter what. The Empire held the cards- they knew where the Death Star plans were. If they got wind that she was not going to the Rebel base, that she was going to try and evade them, all they'd have to do is blow up the ship and everyone on it. <p> It was a risk for both parties involved, but beneficial for both if everyone played the part. Get it?
-
in the abhorrent prequels were qui-gon-jin and Darth Maul. Both killed at the end of the film. Liam Neeson probably gave the best performance by anybody in the prequels (pretty sad statement actually...) Hayden wasn't any better as Anakin than that annoying fucking bowl-haircutted kid... Obi-wan got progressively worse as a relatable character (i actually quite liked him in TPM, although he was under-utilized a bit). Dooku? Fucking GREIVOUS?!? Hilariously retarded villains made up the rest of the prequels. Even Sidious was much more effective in TPM than the other 2 "films"... Oh and the score was much better in TPM, than there latter 2. What else...
-
"My view of Palpatine's actions is that he plays two sides against each other. And whoever wins, he wins too because he played both sides in his favous. I really like thast aspect of the prequels. Contrary to the action junkies, i do like and appreciate the political intrigue stuff in those movies." <p> Let's reduce the issue to a single question: <p> Why does Palpatine send Maul to Tatooine? In answering, please make references to what Maul's mission is, what Palpatine hopes will happen, and how Palpatine will gain from this outcome.
-
Unless I misunderstood your point.
-
fail to acknowledge that Clones and, especially, Sith, are marked improvements over Menace. And, in fact, if you took off the rose tinted glasses, Sith is a better movie than Jedi. All in all, none of these four movies could be considered 'great': Menace and Clones are still mediocre, and Jedi and Sith merely good. Empire and A New Hope are the only truly great movies of the saga.
-
"What genius though up that dumb ass name?" <p> To reiterate: <p> http://tinyurl.com/2dybxsn <p> (Sigh.)
-
"Mom, look! I'm creating a highly memorable persona on the internets! See? I even have a tag line...'Chop chop chop!' Pretty good, right?<p> "Mom, just look, okay? It'll only take two minutes! MOM!"
-
To fight the Jedi, disrupt their plan, and allow the Trade Federation to completely take over Naboo, which would help his cause to get elected Supreme Chancellor. Either way, no matter which way it worked out- The Jedi win, the Trade Federation wins- Naboo is made to be sympathetic and Palpatine is elected Chancellor. <p>
-
"is why did they never bother to change Luke and Leia's last name?" <p> In the case of Luke, I agree completely. However, it would argue that Organa is a pretty good last name for someone being raised by Mr and Mrs Organa as their daughter.
-
"Your own inflated ego and inferiority complex get in the way."<p> "Don't worry though, a lot of nerds do it. Pretty typical psychological response from a socially awkward, maladjusted twat."<p>I could swear that you were just describing yourself right there.
-
I think Paplatine wanted to scare the Jedi by showing them the Sith was back. The Sith hadn't been seen in the galaxy for a 1,000 years by that point.
-
...as a kind of shibboleth of ignorance. <p> Maybe it was inadvisable given that the majority of the audience would not have heard of the term before and would therefore likely assume (incorrectly) that Cameron had invented a stupid word for the movie.
-
50% was "complete drivel"? Really guy? 50?? lol <P> I think you maaaaay be exaggerating a bit here, but anyway... The only somewhat valid point you've made so far, is the thing about the serial killer persona. I agree, it's a little tired... however, i can excuse it, as it's really just a minor quibble. He really only spends a couple minutes total on that character... You seem to exaggerate a couple of the minor flaws in his critiques without looking at the BIGGER PICTURE. Which, ironically, is what you accuse HIM of doing... <P> And what you call "Anal retentive nitpicking" couldn't be further from the truth. It's called KEEN OBSERVATION. INFERENCE. Like the Blast shield going down on the escaping spaceship in TPM. Any ounce of rational thought would lead a viewer to the same conclusion about that sequence. That's what i love about plinkett. He exposes the braindead decisions that Lucas made when writing the script. His complete disregard for internal logic and consistency was absolutely appalling. People like Plinkett and myself, can see through these script/logic errors and it fucking BUGS us. Sorry for being an intelligent, critical thinker... fuck.
-
We knew that already, though. No 'dick sucking' of Cameron is neccessary - 'unobtanium' is a real life engineering term used to desribe a rare or given problem solving material, and one that has a long history in sci fi literature. The 'unobtanium' is a joke name for a material whose properties, purpose and true name are never disclosed, befitting its status as a symbolic McGuffin. Don't make youself look stupid, or I'll fucking chop YOU, son.
-
You sound like a loud, ADD-riddled, whiny BITCH. <P> Please stop embarrassing yourself already.
-
So, let's get this straight. <p> As part of Palpatine's master plan to take over the Republic, he sends his most lethal operative to Tatooine to...scare people. <p> Like a Hallowe'en prank or something? <p> What will this achieve? How does it serve master strategist Palpatine's plans? <p> To repeat one of my questions: <p> What does Palpatine hope will happen?
-
Hurts when someone pegs you, eh, basement dweller?<p> Don't mind me...keep trying. Let's see where this "Choppah" thing goes. It's like watching a contestant bust their ass to finish first in the Special Olympics...
-
"To fight the Jedi, disrupt their plan, and allow the Trade Federation to completely take over Naboo, which would help his cause to get elected Supreme Chancellor." <p> The critical moment in the plot is Amidala's vote of no confidence in Valorum, on Coruscant. The Jedi's bringing of Amidala to Coruscant allows this to happen. It does not hinder Palpatine in any way. On the contrary, it helps it enormously.
-
"Marked improvements? lmao You wanker... <P> Please, "enlighten" me, good sir. I would love to see you try here. You're out of your league child. Saying ROTS is better than Jedi is probably the absolute DUMBEST thing you've said yet lol Please, continue... <P> And instead of saying STUPID RHETORICAL SHIT, try posting an actual retort to what i said above about TPM having better objective qualities than the latter 2. It's actually YOU, Turd, who is the "retard" here. As is anyone that cannot deduce that TPM is objectively, a "better made film" than AOTC or ROTS. <P> I back my shit up. We'll see if you can do the same...
-
You sound slightly hurt.
-
is it invites discussion on Lowells character and how you felt for him. Do you feel some sympathy for him or are revulsed by his actions? Does the end justify the mean is something that forever will be debated in any situation. Which make this movie still have value all these years later.
-
"Cool ass motherfucker??" Is that honestly how you see yourself? <P> Oh, for shame... <P> You silly, misguided little bitch lol
-
Probably the 2 most interesting characters in the abhorrent prequels were qui-gon-jin and Darth Maul. Both killed at the end of the film. Liam Neeson probably gave the best performance by anybody in the prequels (pretty sad statement actually...) Hayden wasn't any better as Anakin than that annoying fucking bowl-haircutted kid... Obi-wan got progressively worse as a relatable character (i actually quite liked him in TPM, although he was under-utilized a bit). Dooku? Fucking GREIVOUS?!? Hilariously retarded villains made up the rest of the prequels. Even Sidious was much more effective in TPM than the other 2 "films"... Oh and the score was much better in TPM, than there latter 2. What else... <P> *to be continued*
-
Yes, that's it. Remember, the Jedi didn't know if that was the Master or the Apprentice. The Dark Side clouds everything.
-
The aforementioned WEAKER VILLAINS (compared to TPM), the character of Anakin gets progressively worse (as does Obi's to some degree...) The "love story" is laughably awful (see Plinkett's brilliant dissection of THAT). It doesn't hold a fucking candle to Han/Leia in the OT ("But wait, the originals had the same flaws!!! Duuuuurrrrrr... *drools*) <P> The plot gets EVEN MORE CONVOLUTED/CONTRIVED with the clone subplot and whatnot... and the score is amazingly absent (seemingly) throughout a majority of the film. And i think the CGI managed to get EVEN WORSE> <P> So lets see... so far we got BETTER VILLAINS in TPM, a slightly more coherent plot/story, a better script (dialogue was a little less abhorrent in TPM than AOTC), better ACTING (liam!), more relatable characters, a better score, better CGI... hhhhmmmmm sounds to me like it's a BETTER FILM. <P> *patiently awaits Turd's simplistic and inane retort*
-
It wasn't crucial for her to race the plans to Yavin at that point. Once she had the plans, she could've duplicated/copied them dozens if not hundreds of times over and sent them to other rebel camps.
-
noticeable in AOTC than TPM. Kamino anyone? Ughhhhh... <P> C'mon Turd, let's see that amazingly insightful film critiquer in you come out and defend AOTC and ROTS over TPM. I guarantee you won't put a modicum of effort or analysis into it as i have. Thus rendering your opinion... MOOT. <P> :-)
-
"Bitching and whining"? <P> lmao <P> You wrote the BOOK on that shit!
-
Well, SOMEONE must care about my opinion, because now you're crying like a bitch about how I hurt your widdle feelings about your favorite Chris Pine wankfest movie...<p> (Do you switch hands when you masturbate to pictures of Quinto, so it doesn't feel like you're cheating on Chris?)<p> Jeezus...if you're going to troll, at least learn the basics and remember not to pick a side, dumbass...
-
I respect your comments, dude, and I agree with most of what you've written here. I have to say, though, that I am one of those who finds ROTS the least bad of the OT. <p> And I'm not entirely sure why. In many ways, it's still a fucking mess, and there are several moments that ought to be awesome that end up feeling limp. <p> Maybe you're judging it primarily in its capacity as a waste of potential? ROTS probably squanders the most potential given the plot points that take place during its running time. And yet, as a consequence of simply *having* the most potential, I do think that overall even Lucas's bungling can't drag it down to nothing. <p> There's something about it that I quite like despite its flaws. Something in its atmosphere that feels nicely doom-laden throughout, from the moment we hear the war drums after the opening crawl. <p> It has some nice moments with Palpatine, even if the "I will do anything you ask..." line evinces laughter every time. It also has one of the few moments in the prequel trilogy where Lucas seems to remember how to construct a scene with some skill. (Plinkett highlights another such case with the opening shot of Star Wars, although I'm not suggesting this is in the same league.) Specifically, when Anakin is deciding whether to follow Windu to the arrest of Palpatine, and Padme is in the room on the other side of the city. He agonizes; she seems to sense it too, and sense that everything - everything - is about to come undone. Not a word is spoken, but it's a well-constructed, portentous moment. <p> And it has a streak of darkness unseen since Empire. Something that was always at the very heart of what made Star Wars great, at its best, and had been forgotten or suppressed during Jedi, Menace and Clones. <p> Great movie? No. But somehow I half-like it, despite its shortcomings and comedy fuck-ups. I felt that its heart was in the right place for the most part. Maybe I like the movie that it sometimes hints at being rather than the movie it ended up being. In the other prequel movies I never felt for a moment that there was a good movie in there somewhere trying to get out.
-
Your true hate-filled piousness was revealed when you countered that Clones and Sith were progressively worse movies than Menace. Take off your myopic, hate steamed glasses. Even most prequel haters grudhingly admit that Sith was something approaching at least 'good', if not exactly redeeming the PT as a whole.<p>The problem here is, like the retentive Trekkies, you are completely bound up minutiae, nonsense that does little to make or break a movie or that a general audience would not care about in the slightest, unable to see the big picture. A film either works or it doesn't; a strict adherence to the smallest internal consistencies is pleasure to fans, but hardly fatal to anyone else if not rigidly followed. <p>Anybody with a sliver of filmmaking intuition or critical acumen could tell you that Lucas' direction improved markedly over the course of the trilogy. Clones has better composition, better performances (McGregor actually looks comfortable here, and there is at least a glimmer of the classic SW banter in the last third). The action scenes are far better staged. The plot has some urgency and momentum to it, at least the Obi Wan portion. The film deals with more complex and ambivalent themes and tone. The Tatooine segment is well paced and quite moving. There are well acted individual scenes like the encounter between Obi Wan and Jango. Need I go on? Oh, wait, Artoo isn't facing the window so it's all a bust, isn't it? Sigh....<p> Clones isn't a great movie, but its clear Lucas was far more comfortable this time around, in comparison to the inert and staid Menace, and had loosened up and learned to have some fun. And he improved yet again with Sith.
-
Yeah, I suppose the green screen is noticeable to someone who's watched it over 500 times, but I'm sure haters never do that.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:01 p.m. CST
'bound up by minutiae', that should read
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
-
As infinitely dense as you are... i do agree with you about the "Duel of the Fates" track in the 3 way duel in TPM. Another major reason TPM was the "best" prequel. That was the single greatest track from the prequels, bar none. That duel was pretty fucking impressive too... which reminds me! <P> The FIGHT CHOREOGRAPHY in TPM was far better than the video-game-like drivel from the 2nd and 3rd films... <P> Thanks for "sparing" me from one of your great CHOPS, sir CHOPPUH <P> ;-)
-
All Amidala's vote of no confidence does is open the floor to nominations for a replacement Chancellor. It does NOT in any way guarantee that Palpatine will get elected. In fact, the movie even tells us that others have been nominated, including a Bail Antilles (I think) from Alderaan. Palpatine's plan was moving, but it was far from complete at that point. He still needed sympathy his way generated from the happenings on Naboo.
-
Are you fucking kidding me bro? Are you actually READING what i'm posting here? Point by point debate on the merits of the films in question! You have done absolutely NOTHING to defend your position that AOTC and ROTS are better films than TPM. <P> You sir, are DISMISSED.
-
I mean that Plinkett highlights a shot in SW that appears to demonstrate that Lucas is not devoid of skill as a filmmaker, not that this is an example of such skill being deployed in the prequel trilogy. (Obviously that would not work very well as an example...)
-
It actually took you like 30 freakin' minutes to come up with that "retort"? lol Look at all the quick, well-written, arguments i'm spittin' out here... <P> Told you SON, you're outta your league here...
-
I'm not one of them, but there are MANY people who believe Episode II is better than TPM (many who think its the worst of the prequels), but there are a lot who think Episode III is better than ROTJ. So don't act like this is some extreme aberrance that someone could prefer a prequel to ROTJ. I'm not one of them, but that viewpoint is widely held.
-
"THE CHOPPAH'S feelings are impenetrable, especially when it comes to you idiots."<p> Nice try, but...<p> POSTING IN ALL CAPS = emotional asshat = penetrable feelings = butthurt basement dweller
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:11 p.m. CST
Dead Flag Blues, you're bluster does not impress me
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Stop trying to pre-empt your vapid arguments. My arguments will always be better because I am objective and rational; I have no dog in the race, whatsoever, and even stated that most of the PT is average to poor. You on the other hand, are a frothing, myopic hater, absolutely champing at the bit to defend Plinkett. That makes most of your points null and void. And look how a couple of posters here, even Plinkett fans, have backed up my assertion that Clones and Sith are better movies than Menace, even if only by degrees. What does that say, fool?
-
Thanks for the nice response man :-) I appreciate it. Someone i can actually carry on a DEBATE with... unlike the mouth-breathing mongloid, known as TURD. <P> Now, i see where you're coming from. I also agree on most of your points you made... especially about "wasted potential". ROTS, by FAR, squandered more opportunities than either of its 2 predecessors... so by that, i think it's standards of judgement should be a little higher. <P> I do also agree with you on your point about the best scene in the film. The quiet, moody, introspective, well-edited scene with Anakin and Padme staring off into the sunset, pondering their fate... You know why it's the best scene? <P> 'Cause there's no FUCKING HORRIBLE LUCAS DIALOGUE during it lol That, by default, makes it the best scene in the film. If only he cut out even MORE dialogue, i'm sure the films would be marginally better...
-
You can't back up SHIT, mate. You clearly demonstrate that with each and every empty, banal post of yours. You see how i acually give... SPECIFIC EXAMPLES on WHY OR WHY NOT a scene, or film, or aspect of film-making doesn't work?? That's what you should attempt to do here. <P> Get it yet?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:17 p.m. CST
And Kaitain just proved my point about ROTS defenders...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
No offense man ;-) But he clearly said "he doesn't even know WHY he likes ROTS the best". Seems to me to be a pretty biased/unobjective conclusion that he has made. And that's FINE. What i said, was that ROTS is OBJECTIVELY the weakest film of the trilogy. And i'm citing specific examples of this (at least with AOTC, as i'm about to get into ROTS now...). Again, Turd, you have done nothing of the sort. Just more personal attacks and insults (ad-hominem... look it up dipshit) <P> ;-)
-
"ROTS, by FAR, squandered more opportunities than either of its 2 predecessors... so by that, i think it's standards of judgement should be a little higher."<p>So you're shifting the goal posts of logical arguments or measurable barometers of excellence now, as it suits you, and in the process contradicting yourself? You're admitting that Sith is actually better than its predecessors but since it squandered its opportunities it should be held to a higher standard, thus counter-rationally making it the 'worst' of the prequels? You don't what the fuck you're saying, do you?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST
More golden nuggets from Dead Flag's rectum
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
'Cause there's no FUCKING HORRIBLE LUCAS DIALOGUE during it lol That, by default, makes it the best scene in the film. If only he cut out even MORE dialogue, i'm sure the films would be marginally better"<p> By default, eh? That's logical and objectively rational, isn't it? Aristotle would be proud.
-
And you actually did make an attempt to "debate" the merits of the films, so props, i guess... lol <P> Myopic? "Hater"? I'm nothing of the sort you dumb twat. I give credit where credit is due. I'm not some sorry fuck who just screams about Jar-Jar being "gay" and shit like that... I'M the objective, rational one, as you put it. You however, are not.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:22 p.m. CST
You have not given ANY specific examples
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
beyond red herrings and straw men. Are you kidding me? Are you a high functioning retard? You're as self-deluded as Plinkett. No wonder you love him so.
-
Choppah's toying with you guys this evening... and you don't even realize it.<BR><BR>Chop on, Lord Chop.
-
The duel at the end of TPM WAS brilliant. (as opposed to what Turd believes... i.e. i HATE EVERYTHING about the prequels) What a complete and utter misunderstanding of what my position is... Keep on embarrassing yourself Turd, you simpleton.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:26 p.m. CST
And Turd, did you actually posit, that Ewan McGregor...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
looked "more comfortable" in the sequels, over TPM? What in the fuck? lol <P> If by "comfortable", you mean "even more wooden and stilted"... than yes, yes he did.
-
In the first movie, Palp has 2 motives. First, to get a elected chancellor by creating a bs crisis on Naboo, second is to strike a blow at the Jedi, which they're unprepared for after a centuries of just being peacekeepers. The whole treaty thing is just for stalling purposes. Obviously any treaty Padme would sign would eventually be tossed out by the senate once they got their shit together. If she signed a treaty under duress, it would eventually be null and void. Something else I think Plinkett got wrong- he says the Jedi should testify before the senate about what's going on w/Naboo. Well, they weren't sent in an official capacity, they were sent secretly by chancellor valorum himself, without a senate vote, to get a feel for the situation, see if negotiations were possible, and report back. The chancellor had no approval to send them in the first place so any testimony wouldn't even matter. who even knows if valorum broke a law by sending them? it could be.
-
Bend ‘em over Choppah <BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR> Yes I said bend ‘em over Choppah <BR> Choppah you can't go wrong<BR> Chop ain't taking it<BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on <BR> <BR> Well I said come on over Choppah<BR> Ya gotta kick 'em all in the balls, ooh huh<BR> Bend ‘em over Choppah <BR> Choppah’s chopped off their lil’ thorns<BR> Chop ain't faking it<BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR><BR> Well I said Chop it Choppah Chop<BR> I said Chop it Choppah Chop<BR> I said Chop it Choppah Chop it<BR> Said Chop, Choppah Chop<BR> Bend ‘em over<BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR> Ahhhhh, Let's go !!! <BR><BR> Well I said come on over Choppah <BR> We got kick ‘em in the balls<BR> Whose balls what balls YOUR balls<BR> Bend ‘em over Choppah <BR> Choppah’s chopped off their lil’ thorns <BR> Chop ain't taking it<BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR> Easy Now Chop<BR> Ahhhh, Chop it Chop! <BR> Yeah You can Chop one time for me<BR> Do that LiLo hussy<BR> Whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR> Now let's Chop real hard one time now<BR> Chop Choppah Chop<BR> All you got to do, LiLo, is kind of stand in one spot<BR> Wiggle around just a little bit<BR> That's what you got to do, yeah<BR> Oh babe whole lot of Choppin’ going on<BR> Now let's go one more time <BR><BR> Chop it, Choppah, Chop ... (2x) <BR> Chop Choppah, come on Choppah Chop Choppah Chop<BR> Bend 'em over, whole lot of Choppin’ going on!
-
Sheesh.
-
The fights were STAGED better in AOTC and ROTS than TPM. <P> You can't be serious man... What, the Yoda duel made you cream your panties didn't it? How about that incoherent MESS of a battle sequence after they escape the arena? Or better yet, the Arena Battle itself? lol You think "clutter" makes a battle/fight better? Rampant CGI makes a battle/fight better? <P> Man, you need to learn some things about film, for real... And the Jango/Obiwan scene?? Awful dialogue. Simply awful. And neither actor looks like they know what to do with it. Bleh.
-
I think it is YOU, my friend, who's being toyed with. Your love and admiration for this infantile child is ridiculous, and bordering on CREEPY. <P> Do you just seek out every talkback that CHOPPUH posts in? <P> Oh my...
-
I respect your opinions, but i'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Perhaps, it's the awful Lucas dialogue he's forced to spew out... but in MHO, he gets worse.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:33 p.m. CST
For fuck sake, man, keep digging yourself a bigger hole
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
McGregor was even more stilted and wooden in Clones and Sith than Menace? NO ONE with any brains could argue that. McGregor was one of the best things about the prequels, and his performances in 2 and 3 were good - check out the 'hello there' scene in Sith, or his banter in the arena in Clones. Swashbuckling stuff, nice little nods to Guiness; much better than his role in Menace where he looked distinctly uncomfortable working with the greenscreens for the first time. What next - Ian McDiarmid was a dud in the prequels?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:36 p.m. CST
And don't even get me started on the final ROTS duel...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
Plinkett deconstructs it better than anyone could, so i'm sure you know what the issues with that particular scene are... What an over-exaggerated, BLOATED, CGI-ridden, video-game-like piece of excretement that was. Like Plink said... a 3 minute, to the point, duel in ONE location (even a small room) would have been a far better decision than the "epic" scale battle Lucas went with. A war of WORDS, over a wwar of EXPERTLY CHOREOGRAPHED, CONTRIVED LIGHTSABRE MOTIONS. <P> Please tell me you don't disagree with this...
-
They're far more entertaining than this douche.
-
I said action, not the fights. Don't twist my words. The TPM duel is an admitted standout, much better than the poorly edited duel in Clones; however the action as a whole in Clones - the chase through Coruscant, the Obi Wan/ jnfo fight, and particularly the arena/clone war battle - is much better than the majority of the setpieces in Menace. Better blocking, bettercompositions, more coherent editing, and more forward moving and logical progression of action. And not only that, but more at stake in the action and greater investment in the characters. Lucas is a good action director - the only faults were Burtt being too trigger happy with the editor's shears at times.
-
for me to pretend the prequels didnt happen
-
Actually Ian was pretty great for the most part, especially in TPM. As Palpatine and Sidious, he was absolutely fantastic. However, oddly enough... his WORST performance of his entire career occured in ROTS. Did you catch it? The worst acted/staged sequence in all of the prequels? The Windu/Palpatine/Anakin "showdown". What a drama school reject THAT performance was. I think i literally "lol"d in the theatre when Ian went all scooby doo villain goofy in that scene lol His best scene in ROTS was the OPERA scene. One of 2 "decent" scenes in the entire film...
-
Guess even he called it a night on this one.<br> <br> If you get a chance check out the Machete thread for Hitler basketball humor to take the edge off this talkback.
-
i waited 20 yrs to findout the jedi were glorified ballerinas
-
he gets knocked off a platform, and just gives up? goes into exile? puuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssssssyyyyyyyyy
-
was cooler than the prequels
-
You see everytime you walk in. You share a drink, BS a bit and then you head home. Thats all.
-
highlights his penchant for personal preference over objective analyis. Is Plinkett writing the script or Lucas? A war of words in a single room? Get the fuck out of here? What would be effective about that? That would sure placate the fans who had built up this epic duel for years. It would have been anti-climactic and thus ineffective. Obi Wan and Anakin's conflict must be played out on the grandest staging. Try analysing the duel on its own terms, instead of something you built up in your tiny mind regarding it.<p>And yes - on the whole, the Sith duel is better than the TPM one. It's just as well staged and has a much more ambitious psychological edge to it. The investment, on an emotional level, to the TPM duel is slight by comparison. By default, it could not be otehrwise; the TPM duel offers up two characters we never heard of in the OT, while the Sith duel has the accumulated weight of the OT behind it. Even if it was meant to be shown chronologically, in reality that's just the way it is since the OT came first. And the combined saga plays well (and quite markedly different) from both perspectives. It was designed to work both ways.
-
the jedi were eliminated by bullshit clones. The prequels made the jedi's gay. I mean, the first time i saw the braids....ugh
-
That the Kamino rain duel between Obi and Jango was "better composed and edited"... if you break that fight down, it's absolutely TERRIBLE. Illogical, contrived, poorly/blandly shot, etc. And the chase through coruscant? Really?? That fight, as previously discussed, was incompetent on numerous levels... First off, it was DUMB. Tons of internal logic problems with that scene in terms of characters behaving stupidly... and the laws of physics we're completely THROWN OUT THE WINDOW (no pun intended ;-) The "chase" went on waaaaaay too long and ended just absurdly. What a poorly thought out sequence that was. No wonder you're lapping it right up... <P> Don't use your noggin' too much when watching films, do ya champ?
-
"The investment, on an emotional level, IN the TPM duel is slight by comparison"
-
of a broken heart.... man.... did he pull that out of his daughters diary?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST
Do you have any sense of action staging at all?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Or are you as ignorant here as in every other area? The Jango is anything but blandly shot/ staged. Lucas has alaways been quite a fluid and traditional action director. Give him credit where it's due.
-
to be vader CHOPPING down jedi like the man i thought he was. I def didnt wanna see vader cry. He made boba fett, vader, obi-wan, and yoda lame.
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:52 p.m. CST
Turd... your lack of objectivity is really showing through now..
by Dead_Flag_Blues
There is no "ambitious, psychological edge" to that awful duel. You remember the fights in EMPIRE and ROTJ? They didn't need to be swinging over fucking lava, riding on quick moving platforms and jumping 38 feet into the air, in a hilarious display of bad CGI. <P> The EMOTION comes from the DIALOGUE, not the number of sabre movements. Only YOU would've been dissapointed by a war of words. A more INTELLECTUAL approach, instead of an ADD-ridden childish approach that Lucas went with. <P> See the difference, moron? You add your own personal BIAS and SUBJECTIVITY when watching that final duel in ROTS. I watch it OBJECTIVELY, going by what the current FILM tells me. And it told me what to feel through terribly cliched and weak dialogue...
-
And yet you selectively forgot to mention the very best acted scene in THE ENTIRE SAGA. Palpatine's speech to Anakin at the opera house. That alone makes Sith the best prequel.
-
before the prequels, we never had a reason to really dislike palp, other than the fact that he was trying to turn Luke evil. Now when Vader kills his ass, we feel the victory a lot more, cuz we know how much of a fucker palp really is!
-
was Lucas compensating for his lack of ability to convey nuance and subtlety. Instead of showing the emotion through DIALOGUE and BODY LANGUAGE, etc. he lazily half-asses it through a barrage of cluttered, CGI-ridden, poorly edited shots that appeal to simple-minded folk like yourself. <P> Christ, at least i know what i'm really dealing with here now... <P> Where did katain go? lol
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 8:57 p.m. CST
You actually think the duel was bad because of kinetic
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
staging and CGI? LMAO. Wahhhh!!! CGI sucks!!! Those are not the elements that determine a good or bad scene, you plum.<p>Let's turn the tables on Empire; is Luke screaming "noooooooo!!!" demonstrably worse than any of the dialogue in the mustafar duel? Pure ham, buddy.
-
makes us hate palp. He's such a pompous asshole. Prequels just make him look foolish
-
"selectively forgot to metion..." Is that why i... MENTIONED IT?!? lol Jesus, man... pay attention! I admitted it was the best scene in the film. However, not being a simple-minded unobjective idiot, i didn't proclaim that as the best prequel for ONE, SINGLE, 2 MINUTE SCENE lol <P> Seriously, how "objective" is THAT??? <P> And for the record... that wasn't even fucking CLOSE to the "best acted scene in the entire saga" lmao <P> What in the hell are you smoking man?
-
FACT.
-
The prequels could have used a little more... "ham".
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 9:03 p.m. CST
I guess Lucas actually telling the story through visuals
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
showing rather than teling, is a bad thing? You obviously have no clue what worked in SW from the beginning. The SW fims tell their stories primarily through visuals. They are updated adventure serials. Lucas telling the story effectively through imagery is actually a GOOD thing. The Mustafar duel environment and compostion is actually rich in symbolism and closely tied to the emotion of the duel. Lucas has alwas inanetly understood the visul/ editing component of the medium, often compensating for his poor dialogue and lack of skill with actors, telling his stories through juxtaposition and skillfully composed shots that actually give meaning to each other. You have unwittingly strengthened my argument by pointing out one of the best qualities of the duel.
-
So how did you like the "kinetic staging" in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? <P> You PLUM.
-
prequel apologists? did we get a different cut up here in canada?
-
lol do you even understand the CONCEPT of that? <P> I'll give you a hint. <P> YOU DON'T. <P> Showing rather than telling... like when Lucas, in the prequels (unlike the OT), CONTINUALLY TELLS US, what the characters are thinking/feeling, instead of SHOWING us subtlely through visual cues? The wooden characters always have to EXPLICITLY STATE, TO THE AUDIENCE, what they are feeling, rather than us, the audeince, INFERRING it... <P> yeah, pretty genius...
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 9:08 p.m. CST
If not the best acted, tell me what is?
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
If you mention any of the heroes' banter from the OT then you are an idiot. Those scenes are fun, but you don't actually think that Harrison Ford (a charismatic but merley capable actor) or Hamill and Fisher (generally poor actors who were nonetheless right for their roles here)can compete with McDiarmid at his Royal Shakespeare Company best, do you? Maybe Guiness, but that's about it.
-
Have i achieved "CHOPPAHOOD" yet? <P> ;-)
-
I respect your opinion too, but come on now, Ewan's performance at the end of ROTS when Anakin is on the shore of the lava river beats EVERYTHING that was in Episode I and Episode II (except for his famous "NOOOOOO" at the end of TPM perhaps, but only bc that was so emotional).
-
the guy just found out his dad was vader
-
about Hamill in Empire... Truly, truly underrated performance. And he wipes the floor with anyone in the prequels, especially Manakin.
-
People are actually AGREEING with me now Turd. What say you about that... "FOOL"?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 9:11 p.m. CST
With your Trannyformers comment you have
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
proven you don't have a clue about good action staging. Bay is one of the objectively worst action directors around - with incomprehensible, shaky cam, MTV inspired action all present and correct in his movies. If you can't tell the difference between that and Lucas's style - which is the very traditional, coherently staged style of action, with well chosen angles and shots that give sequences time to play out - then you are out of your depth. Plinkett's bilge has infected your brain.
-
How so? he creates a fake crisis to get himself elected chancellor, which everyone buys into. He then starts a bs war just to wipe out his enemies and destroy democracy! All the while he's so pompous he's thinking he can tame and control the chosen one, which is what gets him killed.
-
luke-palp end of jedi, han-leia carbon-freezing, anything with guinness or cushing
-
anything with han-leia from empire
-
Hhhhmmmm... plenty to choose from. I rather like the simple, yet effective Han/Leia exchange in Empire, right before Han is lowered into the carbonite... ("I love you"... "i know." Great emotion through eyes/body language and such...) <P> But i would go with the Luke/Vader/Emperor showdown in ROTJ. That 20 minute sequence absolutely DESTROYS anything in ROTS (from an acting standpiont, among many other things...), or for the prequels as a whole for that matter... <P> Ian should've won a fuckin OSCAR for that shit. No joke.
-
the windu death scene. he acts like a retard.
-
we're def on the same page.
-
I was referring to the duel ONLY. Once again, like your hero Plinkett, you selectively pull something out of context to achieve a false 'victory'. The prequels are laden with exposition, to their detriment. However, this duel scene and many others throughout the trilogy - Padme and Anakin staring across space to their respective apartments, the order 66 sequence, the end montage of Sith - are excellent examples of Lucas unobtrusively communicating meaning through visuals.
-
I agree with you somewhat about that Obi-wan/Anakin immolation scene. I actually quite like that moment. (although, it's probably the brilliant track by Mr. Williams that does it for me...) Hayden did pretty good work too there for once... ALthough, the dialogue was still quite shitty, the performances weren't all that bad. <P> Point for D.Vade ;-)
-
a needlessly complicated plan when you consider what pussies the prequel jedis were. he shoulda just trained some child-soldiers to take them out.
-
You said it right before me! <P> Nice...
-
look at his voice-work. Still the best joker-voice of all time
-
is amateurish in ANH but from empire on he kicks it into high-gear. I think the accident gave him much-needed emotional turmoil to draw upon
-
Yeah that was probably the best Hayden acted in the prequels. His line "I HATE you!!" as he lays there helpless with only one arm left, sliding down toward the lava... yeah I really believed him there.
-
Me and bright boy are DOUBLE-TEAMING the wanker known as Turd. Shit, throw in Mr. Chop, and we're TRIPLE-TEAMING this silly bastard! Much props guys... ;-)
-
from the same deficiency that the prequels did. Too many throwaway scenes
-
his holes are worked in well
-
CHOPPAH is posting some pretty damn good shit for once! lol Good work man... <P> i shall no longer refer to you as "CHOPPUH", only CHOPPAH.
-
Nailed it once again! Hamill's Joker voice-over work is fucking CLASS...
-
too bad vader shouldnt cry
-
Exactly! Why couldn't Lucas get that out of him in the rest of the films?? <P> I got chills just now thinking about that "I hate you!" line... <P> He really sold that shit lol
-
The only one here who is "selectively pull something out of context to achieve a false 'victory'"... is YOU, my friend. Just admit defeat and scurry back into your little hole that you crawled out of. <P> Or do you enjoy this triple-team GANGBANG we're applying to you? <P> I'm fine wither way...
-
Oops.
-
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" at the end of ROTS. Awesome acting/writing. <P> I'm sure TURD loved that shit...
-
he is a vigilante, taking out trolls one CHOP at a time. He's like omar from the wire.
-
"Vader-Luke end of ESB was simply iconic. Some fine writing, choreography, directing AND acting there." <P> And you know WHY that scene featured fine writing, choreography, directing and acting... right? <P> 'Cause Mr. Luca$ was NOT INVOLVED lol <P> All hail the Great Irvin Kirshner!!
-
to wash the jizz out of his misshapen orifices
-
I think we scared Mr. Turd away... All of this LOGIC, RATIONAL THOUGHT, and GOOD TASTE IN FILM sent him running for the hills i guess. <P> Heh.
-
when someone else works with the actors. See: ESB, Raiders, Temple etc
-
Peace out Good sir, CHOP! <P> Until next time...
-
Boy, that was quick!
-
if you only knew the POWER of the CHOP-side
-
ANH is terrific, but ESB is the most complete of the star wars trilogy
-
"he is a vigilante, taking out trolls one CHOP at a time. He's like omar from the wire." <P> Shit, you could probably say the same damn thing about me. I too, love to rant and "stir up trouble" (a little bit...), so i guess me and CHOP are 2 peas in a pod, eh? We've have a couple of good run-ins in the past actually... when i was posting under a different username or 2... ;-) <P> And my love for the HOLY TRILOGY shows no bounds as well... <P> Good stuff CHOP.
-
I'm quite capable of countering all three of you retards together, such is my mental acumen and the size of cojones.<p>Now, I want to address another point that I missed above, since you talk so much shit one can hardly keep up. You say why kill off Maul, and that the subsequent villains were weak? How exactly are they demonstrably weaker? Misguided love for Maul, and the idea that he should not have been killed off because he was 'cool'? Fanboy tomfoolery. Maul is a henchman, not a Vader-esque arch-villain. Not only is it appropriate (and Jinn) to die at the end of the first fil, Menace, in order to give some sense of dramatic closure to that particular entry a s asingular whole, you have also missed that it is an IMPORTANT PLOT POINT that Sidious keeps gathering new apprentices in each of the films, which sets up his later courting of Anakin. Maul had to die, and a new villain established for this to work (and a human and former Jedi one to boot, just to demonstrate that not only monstrous characters can be recruited), until we get down the line to Anakin. And quite frankly, Christopher Lee was great as always, far better than a stuntman in face paint. How's that for objective analysis of the script and logial progression of the story, you fucking baboon, something alien to your over-emotional fanboy outbursts?
-
is the Be-All-End-All film of our generation. No fucking doubt. <P> Spike has been playing, on repeat, all day, Empire and Jedi... <P> I'm in heaven ;-)
-
And Threepio is at his worst in Empire.
-
cause they're swollen from banging against your daddies asscheeks
-
ANH was near perfect, for what it was... Empire actually IMPROVED greatly upon it (and WAS perfection), and ROTJ was sporadically BRILLIANT, but somehwat often silly, sloppy, lazy and misguided... <P> But THE EMPEROR for suck's sake. <P> 'nuff said ;-)
-
Except Lucas wrote four drafts of Empire, shaping its tone, structure, and feel, and Kasdan came in to punch up some of the character work in the last 2 drafts. Lucas had as much to do with Empire as the rest. The idea that he did not is fanboy wish fulfillment.<p>Also, the 'great' Irvin Kershner was largely a hack with no other work of note on his resume.
-
My best friend growing up's sister was named Anh. Good people, those Viet's are...
-
ive been watching too. Checked up on spider-dan from time to time while he was making his climb
-
I knew we got off on the wrong foot... <P> ;-)
-
you and Dead Flag, The Choppah, and Plinkett, should just get to it and start jerking and sucking each other off like hungry cuckoos. Drop the pretense, guys - there's no shame in being gay!
-
Our favorite play thing is back :-) <P> Why the abrupt absence Mr. Turd?
-
it is your duty to console her. she's seen so much pain, can't you spare a little CHOP-ROD for her?
-
his book of 2-dollar words
-
That makes sense.
-
What the fuck?
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 9:52 p.m. CST
Dead Flag, I have played you like you play with
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
Plnkett's cock. Can you take a gracious defeat from your intellectual superior? Even Plinkett would bow before me. He would at least have sense to acknowledge that he was in the presence of true greatness.
-
Choppah just chopped the FUCK outta turd right there at 9:49:23. <P> *Applaudes*
-
Christian Bale would've beat the ASS of whoever fucked with HIS lights, that's for damn aure!
-
What the fuck does that even mean? Some dumb self-anointed internet catchphrase, or would-be catchphrase? That means nothing at all. I am unchoppable.
-
i love christopher lee. But the character lucas created for him was lame. Maul was badass. Probably because he didn't have to spew any of lucas' hamhanded dialogue
-
You can stop throwing around the faggy word "Fanboy", as the only "fanboy" here, appears to be YOU. Your blind defense for the abhorrent prequels, and your stunning lack of cognitive ability (and social relevance...) makes you, in fact, a FANBOY. <P> You can kindly fuck right off now :-)
-
you fully got chopped. You woulda clogged the toilet if he hadnt have chopped you down to size
-
It's so fucking sad what happened to Mr. Lucas. Never seen anything like it... <P> Until "The Great Darlton" that is... Wow, LOST fucked the pooch almost as badly as Lucas did with Star Wars. No shit...
-
dont fuck off turd.... this is too much fun
-
"drags" for him, means TOO MUCH TALKY TALKY STUFF. <P> It's OK Locke. Go back and watch season 6 of lost, it'll make you feel better...
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 9:59 p.m. CST
A prequel 'apologist' does not condemn the prequels
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
as mediocre to merely good, as I have done. The only 'fanboys' are people like yourself, with unreasonable hatred for a set of space movies, whilst elevating everyone (cept for Luca$$$, of course) involved with the OT, no matter how minor or untalented, to the staus of Godhood. Fuck off, you fanboy embarassment. CHOPPED!
-
have to jerk eachother off? Does your mother have lockjaw or something?
-
As too, was I... <P> ;-)
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST
It's unfortunate that D.Vade apparently "fucked off"...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
I actually quite like that fella, despite the fact that i disagree with him a lot... <P> He's a cool cat.
-
in empire was crazy boring. coulda used a podrace or 2
-
lucas lost the plot. took him 20 yrs though. wachowski's did it in 2
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 10:05 p.m. CST
Nah, buddy, I just think you need to experience
by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Grave
a sexual encounter that didn't involve a member of your own family.
-
A prequel apologist, such as yourself... would be the only creature on the planet that could claim that the prequels are anything NEAR "good". <P> CHOPPED.
-
when he stuck to what he was good at
-
julienne style
-
You know what else was missing in Empire?? <P> Someone stepping in SHIT. <P> That's ALWAYS funny...
-
a solid 7/10. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Get out more - Sith is quite well regarded and rightly so. Don't delude yourself that my view is an abberation, much like your birth. CHOPPED!!
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 10:12 p.m. CST
Agreed on the hate for the prequels NOT being unreasonbale...
by Dead_Flag_Blues
It would be an offense to GREAT FILM in general if we DIDN'T call out an epically shitty film when we saw it... Especially one with as much history, rich mythology, unlimited potential, and cultural relevance as star wars had once upon a time... <P> You silly twat you.
-
and racial stereotypes. Lando shoulda been chucking and jiving
-
you've gotta be trolling...
-
May the CHOP be with you...
-
it's an abortion
-
you cant stop
-
Not an Arab. You can't decide which racial stereotype he is, can you?
-
I love chris lee, always have. I also love what Lucas was establishing with his character, that an old, well respected Jedi master could be manipulated by Sidious to turn to the dark side. The fact that sidious was able to turn him evil was a great foreshadowing of what would happen to anakin. This aspect works much better and is drawn out much more in the ROTS novel.
-
CHOP that in half why don't you, and make it a modest 3.5/10. I'd accept that... <P> "Good film"... lol Yeah, Greivous was AWESOME. As was the completely REALISTIC, NON-CONTRIVED, LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT, TURN TO THE DARK-SIDE BY ANAKIN's character... <P> Fantastic writing right there, no question.
-
Lucas' strong point was never dialog. Lot's of problems with dialog throughout the entire six films, but after Empire, it got exponentially worse. The original name of Skywalker was fuckin' Starkiller for shit's sake. He writes like an 8 year old play9ing make believe in his backyard with friends dumber than him. The prequels ended up more than just missed opportunities. Plinkett nails it by saying there is simply too much shit on the screen. The Yoda fight is a perfect example. Absolutely unnecessary. You have a all out duel with Dooku and two jedi, then bring in the little guy to mix it up. You first watch it and you are like "Cool, Yoda can fuckin' fight." Then you realize, what was the point? Lucas wants to connect everything in the prequels to everything in the original trilogy and give every character something to do. Why? Not everything began with the clone wars. We did not need to know C3PO was made my Anakin (although R2's stuff seemed kind of okay). Also, why would the Jawa's give a shit about 25 year old droids? Whatever. I will never understand how Luke was safe with a family the Anakin had visited himself. Why did they use his real fuckin' last name if it was not theirs? If the Jedi are so noble, why did they put the unstable, possible doom bringer in such a precarious situation with Palpatine? They knew Anakin could go fuckin' nuts, but they ask him to lie, which the jedi are not supposed to do, and deceive someone he was friends with. Also, it was wrong for him to kill Dooku, a known war criminal, instead of having him arrested, however, Windu can say kill Palpatine. The jedis ended up being a bunch of sanctimonious pricks. Also, this whole "Jedi must have no attachment or emotion or erections" bullshit. It was never thought out properly and Lucas probably thought it sounded very Zen when he was writing it. And as another poster mentioned before: where was the fuckin' systematic extermination of the Jedi by Darth Vader. He does not actually kill any Jedi other than fuckin' children. How fuckin' lame is that? I thought the war that exterminated the Jedi laste for more than one afternoon.
-
Two burp jokes in that film. The rot did not set in from the prequels on. And Lando IS somewhat of a racial stereotype: a smooth talking black guy who's a bit of a ladies' man. Shaft in space.
-
You must CHOP IT! <P> CHOP it good...
-
Were sci-fi fecal matter.
-
Anyone who defends the shit with the Ewoks has not place complaining about Jar Jar Binks. He was made for you assholes.
-
Conceptually, Dooku was an interesting character, no doubt... However, where Luca$ dropped the ball on that was in the EXECUTION. <P> The fact that he didn't INTRODUCE HIM IN TPM. That would've been the perfect opportunity to ESTABLISH HIS CHARACTER and make his fall more DRAMATIC. <P> As it stands, it feels as though Lucas just kinda came up with his character on the spot, without any forsight... shoe-horning him in to the plot 'cause they were down a villain... <P> Is that too "nit-picky" for you Turd?
-
A rich black man in a position of power? doesnt seem like a stereotype to me. Han was a ladies man too. fuck, theyre guys, who doesnt want pussy
-
You are reeeeeally starting to reach here, bud... <P> Lando is no different than Jar-Jar or Watto... lol
-
to the dark side when he viciously went after Palpatine. Of course, he had just seen 3 of his best friends murdered before his eyes. Once he subdued Palps, he should've arrested him, worried about the fair trial after. His attempting to kill palpatine was all rage and revenge.
-
The problems that plagued the prequels STARTED in Jedi... which is why it OBJECTIVELY isn't as good a film as ANH or EMPIRE. <P> Startin' to get it yet?
-
I can't stand this indecision Married with a lack of vision Everybody wants to CHOP the world
-
For those of you saying Plinkett doesn't make money off his reviews, YouTube starts paying users whose videos have one million views ad money from there on out, and his Phantom Menace reviews are well over a million views each.
-
Well put indeed ;-) <P> You are free to join the "CHOPPAHHOOD" with me, CHOP, and Brightboy, and continue the annihilation of the UBER-FANBOY, known as TURD...
-
At 10:26:31 and 39, just made better arguments then turd
-
chew bubble gum and CHOP, and he's alllllll out of bubble gum.
-
youre gonna have to take one of turds armpits or something. He's running out of holes
-
Good to know. He deserves any penny he can get for that. <P> Stick that in your cock-pipe and smoke it, RPlocke...
-
Its Labor Day and I labored to polish off that 12 pack of Hoptober between watching Star Wars on Spike and Reservoir Dogs later. Had to get into bed with the Gf sooner or later. But don't tell her, I'm posting from the bed right now, while a DVD of Undeclared plays on tv.
-
with Lando pondering whether to find Han or ditch Chewbacca and use the Falcon to hustle some scratch for a big score of super fine H. He should've had cold sweats and dry crust around the corners of his mouth, all strung out and wild eyed like a horse in a lightning storm. Could've been beautiful.
-
is typing furiously in his amidala footie pajamas
-
I agree with them restarting the timeline rather than trying to follow 40+ years of continuity. But it was just awful how they took Roddenbery's sci fi vision of exploration and discovery and pumped it up to "11" volume and overdosed it on speed. The plot made no sense other than being a ripoff of the original SW movie. The new trek could've had the same cast, same general ideas, but been handled 100 times better.
-
the prequels. Otherwise no one would have hard of Plinkett.
-
Well played sir ;-)
-
How in the fuck did i miss that one?
-
is a failure to CHOPICATE!
-
"Hamill took every film seriously like a pro whilst (in ROTJ) Ford was lamely looking for his paycheck" <p> Yeah, I tend to agree. Although part of the problem is that Solo is written as comic relief in ROTJ, a kind of hapless bungler, which is something he should never have been. <p> But Ford definitely looks uninterested throughout ROTJ. In SW and ESB his performance is great, and infuses the proceedings with humanity, when they might have felt like a foolish space pantomime. The "large leak, very dangerous" scene in SW is terrific, the kind of dialogue and delivery so sorely lacking in the prequel trilogy.
-
Turd's MOUTH, VAGINE, and ANUS are already taken here... <P> Chop's got the ANUS, of course. <P> ;-)
-
CHOP!
-
...pound one for me will ya? <P> ;-)
-
suffers from participating only in throwaway scenes. IE: endor. And with the sexual tension between him and leia gone, and him no longer a cunthair away from abandoning the rebels, he didnt have much to work with
-
Very happy to join. CHOP-CHOP
-
Sept. 6, 2010, 10:39 p.m. CST
"...typing furiously in his amidala footie pajamas..."
by Dead_Flag_Blues
Or MASTURBATING furiously... <P> Hell, probably both.
-
I'm not sure i would blame Ford as much for ROTJ... <P> His character didn't really have a whole lot to do, you know?
-
I guess I will just have to CHOP me my own hole.
-