cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on May 23, 2009 22:14:39 GMT -8
Whoa. What just happened?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 23, 2009 22:21:43 GMT -8
What just happened? I nailed this movie, that's what happened. I made a thread (on the internet) and talked trash about it. And I came down hard on it. Terrorists and pundits (same thing) make threats, I make threads. Capice? Is that spelled right? To anyone who doesn't get it go back one page. Whoa. What just happened? Also my reaction to Star Trek.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 23, 2009 22:49:39 GMT -8
And might I add ( NO YOU MAY NOT... STFU, conscience! I don't tell you what to do), what the hell are they going to do with bizarro-bizarro-Spock? They can't stick a beard on him, that's been retconned. What's next? Black shades? The effect would be cool as you can still see his eyebrows. Aaaaghh... let this die, please.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on May 23, 2009 23:37:59 GMT -8
Well said, Hook. Well said.
The film was and utter waste of time as a Star Trek reboot... or Star Trek of any sort. I'd rather sit through a bad Voyager episode and the worst of those are truly, torturously painful.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on May 23, 2009 23:45:11 GMT -8
Self-fulfililng prophecies rule.
I thought the new Trek was great!
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on May 23, 2009 23:49:34 GMT -8
I didn't understand a damn thing you wrote. It's like you just spewed some words onto the page and hoped they would congeal into a diatribe.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 24, 2009 7:09:47 GMT -8
That was one of the most awesomely epic Hook rants I've read in a long, long time. Well played, sir!
*LENS FLARE*
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 24, 2009 10:07:15 GMT -8
I didn't understand a damn thing you wrote. It's like you just spewed some words onto the page and hoped they would congeal into a diatribe. I thought it was just the sort of great stream of consciousness writing that manages to transport us, the readers, into the exact state of mind Hook was in while watching the movie.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on May 24, 2009 12:44:00 GMT -8
I still dun get it.
|
|
|
Post by chollman on May 24, 2009 16:38:29 GMT -8
I'm with Jon, I thought it was great. I am super excited about all the prospects this could--and probably will--lead to.
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 25, 2009 14:23:12 GMT -8
i liked the movie but man was the story stupid. a great script is what the sequel needs. this one was worse then the final frontier scriptwise.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 26, 2009 12:05:09 GMT -8
I think Hook hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on May 26, 2009 20:26:40 GMT -8
I think Hook had decided he wasn't going to like it before he even saw the film, and went in with that frame of mind.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on May 26, 2009 21:01:53 GMT -8
I just want to know who cares about lens flares?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 26, 2009 21:24:40 GMT -8
I think who really nailed it was Ebert almost 20 years ago: ""Star Trek" has always been more allegory than science fiction. There is a kind of integrity, indeed, in the deliberately low-tech sets; the movies have always remained true to the klutzy art direction of the TV series, and in a post-"2001" and "Star Wars" age the bridge of the Enterprise still looks as if it were made out of old Captain Video props and a 1950s housewares show. It doesn't matter, because the movies aren't really based on sets, or even much on action; they're about ideas and relationships and here we see the old friendships of the Enterprise tested, and hear new versions of the same old jokes about how Vulcans don't understand jokes. It's entertaining, and reassuring." That's for Undiscovered Country. Here's for First Contact (a more technically advanced film): "``Star Trek'' movies are not so much about action and effects as they are about ideas and dialogue. I doubted the original Enterprise crew would ever retire because I didn't think they could stop talking long enough. Here the story gives us yet another intriguing test of the differences among humans, aliens and artificial intelligence. And the paradoxes of time travel are handled less murkily than sometimes in the past" This new film is about action, effects, half-assed revenge plots that reason themselves into existence (there is no development of events or characters that leads them to their conclusion: things just are for the sake of being) and, let's face it, rebooting a franchise to attract a younger audience who will feel "cool" for being trekkies when in the face of it they are actually not. It is also, in my opinion, very sloppy and I found it to be a constant mess through and through. This movie is all flash, no substance. It is superficial sci-fi. And lens flares. I think Hook had decided he wasn't going to like it before he even saw the film, and went in with that frame of mind. Of course I did, which is why, to my surprise, the opening sequence affected me emotionally in ways that promised what was about to come was about to redeem my ridiculous expectations of the film. In any case, I make it my mission to pursue watching whatever film I despise before having laid eyes on it because one of the most wonderful experiences in cinema I've had is those cases where the film proves my bieases wrong and, sometimes, becomes one of my favorites. I just want to know who cares about lens flares? The DP, J.J. Abrams, the effects artists, my tired, tired eyes.
|
|