The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Woooooo MovieBob!
I like the format with the before and after. I'd like to see it more with more big movies.
Very interesting review. Last night, I was in a taxi, and the taxi driver was basically saying that the movie was one of the greatest movies of all time. He just would not shut up about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's going to be THAT good.
I like the format with the before and after. I'd like to see it more with more big movies.
Very interesting review. Last night, I was in a taxi, and the taxi driver was basically saying that the movie was one of the greatest movies of all time. He just would not shut up about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's going to be THAT good.
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.
Definately a good review. It was entertaining, but still phrased in a way where I can form my own opinions about it. Star Trek being decent despite using the writers of Transformers means I'll probably enjoy it. I'll be sure not to go in expecting too much character-driven drama. 
This is my first time watching MovieBob, and I'm usually entertained by the videos hosted by the Escapist...but not this one.
First I certainly hope it's not supposed to be funny. I got a whiff of 'humor vibe' every now and again, but found my brow furrowed through most of the review. Never smirked or smiled, so I hope those attempts at humor aren't meant to be hook for this series.
Second, I was really very disappointed with the production values of this video. Maybe that's me, but everything else here, even ZP, looks better. This looks like it was done in Microsoft Movie Maker. Maybe it was? It works for ZP because ZP is fast, random, and humor centered, not 'review' centered. This might work if it was funny, but even if it was funny it just seemed thrown together in 15 minutes after hastily writing the review in a previous 10 minutes (Don't forget a bunch of expletives, because that obviously makes a point more valid) and doing the voice-over in one take on a crappy analog $6 mic from Staples. Maybe it's the compression, maybe it's the quality reduction in order to make the whole thing 'streamable', but it sounds like it was done by sitting at a kitchen table and talking into the mic built into your netbook. I suppose this second point is more aesthetic then anything else, but it really bugs me. Maybe that's me.
Thirdly, and finally, it seems I have the same problem with this movie reviewer as I do with nearly every reviewer around: Everything has to be an epic masterpiece, or it's balls. Granted that Star Trek was given a 'in the middle' sort of 'grade', but with the hate on the new X-men Origins flick and Transformers, it just strikes me as nerd rage rather then serious review. Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. But as soon as it's a brand, it's shit if it's hits that same style. Yes it's important to have at least decent acting and story and the like, but it seems like lately it has to be Oscar worthy and exactly like the source material in order for people to just shuttup and enjoy a movie these days.
But maybe that's just me.
Anyways, pardon the long post. I'll try watching some of the older ones to see if it's just this one that bugs me.
First I certainly hope it's not supposed to be funny. I got a whiff of 'humor vibe' every now and again, but found my brow furrowed through most of the review. Never smirked or smiled, so I hope those attempts at humor aren't meant to be hook for this series.
Second, I was really very disappointed with the production values of this video. Maybe that's me, but everything else here, even ZP, looks better. This looks like it was done in Microsoft Movie Maker. Maybe it was? It works for ZP because ZP is fast, random, and humor centered, not 'review' centered. This might work if it was funny, but even if it was funny it just seemed thrown together in 15 minutes after hastily writing the review in a previous 10 minutes (Don't forget a bunch of expletives, because that obviously makes a point more valid) and doing the voice-over in one take on a crappy analog $6 mic from Staples. Maybe it's the compression, maybe it's the quality reduction in order to make the whole thing 'streamable', but it sounds like it was done by sitting at a kitchen table and talking into the mic built into your netbook. I suppose this second point is more aesthetic then anything else, but it really bugs me. Maybe that's me.
Thirdly, and finally, it seems I have the same problem with this movie reviewer as I do with nearly every reviewer around: Everything has to be an epic masterpiece, or it's balls. Granted that Star Trek was given a 'in the middle' sort of 'grade', but with the hate on the new X-men Origins flick and Transformers, it just strikes me as nerd rage rather then serious review. Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. But as soon as it's a brand, it's shit if it's hits that same style. Yes it's important to have at least decent acting and story and the like, but it seems like lately it has to be Oscar worthy and exactly like the source material in order for people to just shuttup and enjoy a movie these days.
But maybe that's just me.
Anyways, pardon the long post. I'll try watching some of the older ones to see if it's just this one that bugs me.
AAAAArgh the swearing.
I don't get it, why so much fucking swearing about the fucking things you don't fucking like?
That was good (in a can't decide if it desperately wants to be Nostalgia critic or Zero Punctuation kind of way), but does the word fucking really have to be in every paragraph? It didn't add anything, it's not funny and it's just really purile.
I don't get it, why so much fucking swearing about the fucking things you don't fucking like?
That was good (in a can't decide if it desperately wants to be Nostalgia critic or Zero Punctuation kind of way), but does the word fucking really have to be in every paragraph? It didn't add anything, it's not funny and it's just really purile.
I think that if I need something to remind me why I like Star Trek then I will watch First Contact again.
I didn't get that at all. I think his point isn't that every movie has to be an epic masterpiece, but that they have the potential be. There are action movies out there with amazing effects, great actors, deep story and everything else you would want in a film in addition to simply being an enjoyable watch. If this was any other generic action space movie I think I would agree with you, but Star Trek carries quite a depth to it. So I think it's a fair assessment to expect more of it.Baby Tea said:
I'll be going to see it today, so I'll have more to say later.
I'm hardly the "frat boy" demographic Mr. Bob rants about... but I've never liked Star Trek, I was a Star Wars kid, high-adventure space opera beats "big idea" sci-fi in my book any day so I bet I will still enjoy this movie.
His rant just reminds me of The Onion's review of this move...
"Trekkies bash new Star Trek Film as "Fun and Watchable"" basically two things Star Trek NEVER WAS and why I NEVER WATCHED it.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film
Though I guess I've lowered my standards for scripting in films, I NEVER expect good writing anymore, I'm just pleased when I get it.
His rant just reminds me of The Onion's review of this move...
"Trekkies bash new Star Trek Film as "Fun and Watchable"" basically two things Star Trek NEVER WAS and why I NEVER WATCHED it.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film
Though I guess I've lowered my standards for scripting in films, I NEVER expect good writing anymore, I'm just pleased when I get it.
PSSSST. Reviews, even those that go into the merits and foibles of a peice of work, as this one does, are all opinions. The destiny stuff may annoy the hell out of some people, but others may think it's brilliant, etc.DalekJaas said:
Personally, though, the 'destined' crap always pisses me off. It's ok when used to a light degree, like maybe two or three large to medium-sized coincidences occurring, but when the entire cast is made up of people that just coincidentally made it to where they got to be, that's difficult to take in. Somewhat sad that the movie was more popcorn popping than actually thought provoking.
Also, of course Simon Pegg was one of the best actors in the movie, he's SIMON FREAKING PEGG.
dude calm down. just because he thought that transformers sucked and star trek wasnt brilliant doesnt mean that he is wrong. it is his opinion and he can say what the hell he wants because it is HIS OPINION. just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean that his review suck. hell i liked transformers to an extent. i dont think that he is trying to be yahtzee. he talks fast and gave this a bad review. thats all the similarities that i can think of.DalekJaas said:
To be fair he did say it was an overall good movie, but as a good critic he pointed out the flaws.Wouldukindly said:
I think your taking the onion a little to seriously. A lot of the previous Star Trek movies were bad, but they also had a few very good ones. I'd say those and the first few series were very "Fun and Watchable".PedroSteckecilo said:
Victor Lewis-Smith and Charlie Brooker are ripping off Yahtzee as well. He should sue or something.