The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, for the record, I'm a total Trekkie (yep, been to conventions, the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas, the whole bit) and I loved the movie.
I think what might make PC gamers worse is that they don't have to say much when people (are stupid enough to) badmouth the PC. Personally though I think this place is heavily 360 orientated, you get so little hate for the 360 compared to anything else I believe.Nostalgia said:
Or am I wrong?
No. You're not wrong. 360 is definitely the preferred console of choice here.ChromeAlchemist said:
PC superiority is pushed into almost every console thread I've seen here though, whether it's an option or not. PC gaming seemingly gives an automatic ego, and they love to tout that around.
If anyone else does hate PC gaming, I'm sure it's not entirely for the PC itself or even at all, but the arrogance instead.
I don't agree with much of this review. The movie was great, the script a little lacking, but it was mostly negligible. I will agree that Simon Pegg was fantastic as Scotty though.
Also, on the whole, "It's not your fathers star trek!", Couldn't that just be them being upfront about whats in the movie not trying to bash the whole fanbase?
Also, on the whole, "It's not your fathers star trek!", Couldn't that just be them being upfront about whats in the movie not trying to bash the whole fanbase?
Actually, it's a cheezy joke - a reference to an old ad campaign ("It's not your father's Oldsmobile") remembered in marketing-biz lore as the first big-scale attempt to remake a standby into a hip item by "copping" to the percieved oldness of the brand upfront. Ironically, while people remember the line they FORGET that the campaign was a disasterous failure: New sales didn't increase for Oldsmobile, and loyal customers felt disrespected.jboking said:
This reivew, to me, seems like just trying to rip through Star Treck because it seems like a cool thing to do.
Now, it's time for me to rip through the review because it's the right thing to do.
1. Judging from the trailer while he is speaking. The movie more than holds its own as better than average action movie that deserves attention. In fact, the first time I saw the trailer, I was extremely interested in the movie without knowing that it's Star Trek (yeah, that's how much I know about that franchise).
2. It'd be nice if Moviebob can read the piece on yellow journalism that was published not so long ago by escapist. Please, stop reviewing something by saying it's something else. That's like me looking up "donkey" in the dictionary and find "Equus africanus asinus." It doesn't help. So when he compares the characters to others from other movies, it's vague at best.
3. Actually, the specific people meeting up at that exact moment is extremely unlikely (that's 1 / (total population+every location)). But, to take that as itself is retarded because by that logic, it must be absolutely impossible for anyone to see anything ever. So then it must be that someone met someone, it could've been anyone, at one point, which means that these specific characters are not there by random chance, but it could've been anyone, but it must be someone. So the chance of meeting someone would be total population/total population which is 100%, and since someone MUST be met, it seems logical that these characters meet up in the way they did. (I hope I'm making sense).
4. There aren't any car chases, unless you count that one about 30 seconds scene of a tiny police chase. Sky diving and sword fighting are dumb action cliches now? Wth is he talking about? That's like saying "gun fighting is such a dumb shooter cliche." What an idiot.
5. Why does he assume that something that looks clean and white = apple store? I don't get it. So it's a crime now to show a clean white room? And if anyone can find an apple store that looks like the bridge, please link me. I'd love to see it. And maybe looking like "apple" is a good thing, which is why white and clean is chosen.
6. I do agree with the acting. Kirk annoyed the hell out of me.
So, I'm not saying that he can't have his opinion. I respect that he didn't enjoy the movie. I'm just saying that he's a bad movie reviewer because his reasonings are poor. I enjoyed the movie, and I am not a trek fan (since I've never seen Star Trek before this). I'd definitely recommend it to anyone even remotely interested.
PS. that black girl (don't remember the name) was not a sex piece in the movie. I'll admit that she didn't do much, but that's just it, she didn't do much.
Now, it's time for me to rip through the review because it's the right thing to do.
1. Judging from the trailer while he is speaking. The movie more than holds its own as better than average action movie that deserves attention. In fact, the first time I saw the trailer, I was extremely interested in the movie without knowing that it's Star Trek (yeah, that's how much I know about that franchise).
2. It'd be nice if Moviebob can read the piece on yellow journalism that was published not so long ago by escapist. Please, stop reviewing something by saying it's something else. That's like me looking up "donkey" in the dictionary and find "Equus africanus asinus." It doesn't help. So when he compares the characters to others from other movies, it's vague at best.
3. Actually, the specific people meeting up at that exact moment is extremely unlikely (that's 1 / (total population+every location)). But, to take that as itself is retarded because by that logic, it must be absolutely impossible for anyone to see anything ever. So then it must be that someone met someone, it could've been anyone, at one point, which means that these specific characters are not there by random chance, but it could've been anyone, but it must be someone. So the chance of meeting someone would be total population/total population which is 100%, and since someone MUST be met, it seems logical that these characters meet up in the way they did. (I hope I'm making sense).
4. There aren't any car chases, unless you count that one about 30 seconds scene of a tiny police chase. Sky diving and sword fighting are dumb action cliches now? Wth is he talking about? That's like saying "gun fighting is such a dumb shooter cliche." What an idiot.
5. Why does he assume that something that looks clean and white = apple store? I don't get it. So it's a crime now to show a clean white room? And if anyone can find an apple store that looks like the bridge, please link me. I'd love to see it. And maybe looking like "apple" is a good thing, which is why white and clean is chosen.
6. I do agree with the acting. Kirk annoyed the hell out of me.
So, I'm not saying that he can't have his opinion. I respect that he didn't enjoy the movie. I'm just saying that he's a bad movie reviewer because his reasonings are poor. I enjoyed the movie, and I am not a trek fan (since I've never seen Star Trek before this). I'd definitely recommend it to anyone even remotely interested.
PS. that black girl (don't remember the name) was not a sex piece in the movie. I'll admit that she didn't do much, but that's just it, she didn't do much.
I have watched every Star Trek movie at least 3 times, have religiously watched every episode of EVERY one of the TV series (except the Animated series), and have copies of the star charts and encyclopedia books and some novels, etc.-- things I'm sure every die-hard Star Trek fan would admit to have done. I still find it hard to like the new movie, even if its prospect is getting more people interested in Star Trek. There isn't anything that bothered you even a little bit? The constant barrage of coincidences? The forced, fan-service mandatory one-liners? Maybe you are a more forgiving person than I am.Susan Arendt said:
You make a good point, as I felt disrespected by this movie. I appreciate what Paramount was trying to do by getting new fans and trying to make Star Trek exciting to the masses, but... c'mon, really? I will admit I am biased because I've never like anything JJ Abrams had ever done. I like the idea of the movie, but overall, the execution was not what I had hoped.MovieBob said:
If you really care to know or better understand what Moviebob's review was referring to, you need to see other Star Trek movies or at least some of the TV shows (preferably The Next Generation or Deep Space 9). If someone has never experienced any Star Trek-related media, then I think they would be at a slight disadvantage when countering Moviebob's points.ThisNewGuy said:
I see. But the movie as its own merits is not bad. I actually thought it was good. So basically, if you go in without being a Star Trek nerd, you might like it I guess.
So, this was the first and last Movie Bob review I will bother listening to. Not saying I disagree with him, but I couldn't get past what a whiney naysayer he is. Whine whine whine, fuck this, fuck that, whine some more.
I don't like the style of the review, and even more I didn't like his voice, but I agree with the review.
The film is an exercise in covering mediocre script with special evvects and the pseudo epic space battles. Admittedly I liked the battles, there ewere never enough of them in other ST films, but this film unfortunately homogenised Star Trek to the level of everything else. This is a good space shoting film, but I do not think it is a Star Trek any more. One could critisize Enterprise as being too much a story about brave american bous in flashy uniforms, but this film changed everything. I look at the Enterprise far more charitably now. It is almost phylosophic, which is what ST was always about. And what is this with time travel... out of ideas?? Here's one: Romulans from the original ST invade federation. This was allways the threat anyway, there is no need to bring them from the future...
The film is an exercise in covering mediocre script with special evvects and the pseudo epic space battles. Admittedly I liked the battles, there ewere never enough of them in other ST films, but this film unfortunately homogenised Star Trek to the level of everything else. This is a good space shoting film, but I do not think it is a Star Trek any more. One could critisize Enterprise as being too much a story about brave american bous in flashy uniforms, but this film changed everything. I look at the Enterprise far more charitably now. It is almost phylosophic, which is what ST was always about. And what is this with time travel... out of ideas?? Here's one: Romulans from the original ST invade federation. This was allways the threat anyway, there is no need to bring them from the future...
